of power and inequality (Gurin, Miller, & Gurin, 1980; Gutiérrez & Lewis, 1999; Nagda, Kim, Moise-Swanson, & Kim, 2005). Through cognitive and emotional work, members alter their con- ceptions of their membership group and its relationship to other groups by reinterpreting negative stereotypes as positive (such as, “Black is beautiful,” “Emotionality of women is their strength,” “Queer power”). They learn to recognize and treat as illegitimate the political and social inequalities that disadvantage their groups. The outcomes of intragroup consciousness and solidarity—which provide collective social psychological resources for collective action by groups that often lack political, economic, and social resources—contrast markedly with the outcome of intergroup harmony in the standard models of intergroup relations.

Examples of the group consciousness or intragroup solidarity model also abound in colleges. Ethnic-themed houses, cultural clubs, separate (though often supplementary) orientation pro- grams, graduation celebrations for different ethnic/racial groups, and ethnic studies and women’s studies courses derive from this model of identity and intergroup relationships. Their advocates argue that separate spaces for in-group interaction and solidarity help minority students to cope with the social and psychological stress that many of them experience on predominantly White campuses; they are an antidote to what Smith, Allen, and Land (2005) call “racial battle fatigue.” These solidarity enclaves for students of color, which rarely if ever encompass all of their daily interactions, help the students support each other and explore their cultural heritages. They help to increase retention and the campus influence of minority students, who on many campuses are otherwise subsumed under the hegemony of the dominant campus culture (Bocian, 1997; Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000).

Tensions Among the Models To take the message of active engagement with diversity for stu- dent learning forward, we need to grapple with the tensions posed by these different social psychological models. Are the models mutually exclusive? And, more fundamentally, can the first two be integrated with the third? Or do they represent irreconcilable approaches that produce different valued outcomes? At issue here is that the very conditions that make decategorization and recat- egorization difficult—essentially everything that heightens the salience of group boundaries, including group identity—are the conditions that foster group consciousness and solidarity. Con- versely, Gaertner and Dovidio (2000) acknowledge that re- categorization may be interpreted by minorities as expecting them to assimilate to the majority group and that efforts to cre- ate a single superordinate identity, “although well-intentioned, may threaten one’s social identity, which in turn can intensify rather than reduce intergroup bias and conflict” (p. 166).

Recent theorizing and research on intergroup harmony ap- proaches in social psychology recognize that it is not always pos- sible to submerge one’s cultural and group identities. In those circumstances, allowing members to maintain distinct group identities while they function in a superordinate, total group may be more effective than either decategorization or recategorization. Gaertner and Dovidio (2000), in accord with Hewstone and Brown’s (1986) mutual differentiation model, acknowledge this possibility in conceptualizing a dual identity model. In both of these models, members of groups can be simultaneously attached

A second approach to achieving intergroup harmony is termed recategorization, or the common in-group identity model. Devel- oped and richly tested by Gaertner and Dovidio (2000), the com- mon in-group identity model draws on the well-documented evidence that members of groups show bias in evaluation and preferences for others in their in-groups. Because of the in-group positivity bias, Gaertner and Dovidio argue that “once outgroup members are perceived as ingroup members, it is proposed that they would be accorded the benefits of ingroup status” (p. 48). The way to make former out-group members into in-group members, so that everyone holds a single group identity (as opposed to separate group identities), is through giving them common activities and tasks, rewarding them based on coopera- tive behavior, integrating them in seating/living patterns, and cre- ating symbols for the new, single group, such as a team T-shirt or a group name. Research shows that, when the common in-group identity model guides intergroup interactions, prejudice and intergroup bias are reduced and helping and disclosures about oneself to former out-group members are greater (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Campus initiatives that implicitly or explicitly recategorize groups include living–learning programs that may consist of diverse students but de-emphasize the students’ cultural backgrounds, group identities, and experiences. Instead, a new, common identity is defined by the theme of the program (such as Environmental Scholars, Life Sciences and Health Scholars, or Arts and Citizenship Scholars). University and intramural sports teams are also examples of the common in-group model.

These two models, advanced by many social psychologists as the most effective ones for achieving intergroup harmony, are color-blind (see Gaertner, Dovidio, Nier, Ward, & Banker, 1999, and Stephan & Stephan, 2001, for overviews of these standard models). In both models, group identities are submerged so that group members think about themselves only as individuals or as part of a newly formed deracialized in-group. Furthermore, neither model attends explicitly to power, privilege, or inequal- ity. Therefore, while racial and ethnic diversity is represented among students, its salience is actively diminished.

Tajfel’s Identity Model: Intragroup Solidarity A third model, one in which separate groups continue to exist, is treated by advocates of decategorization and recategorization as much inferior for reducing intergroup bias and prejudice. None- theless, Tajfel’s (1974) identity theory provides a strong social psychological rationale for the value of separate groups for a dif- ferent but crucially important outcome—the development of group solidarity as a basis for social change. Tajfel argues that everyone is motivated by the drive for positive psychological distinctiveness. Members of groups compare their groups with others. When that social comparison affirms positive psychological distinctiveness, individuals are motivated to stay in the group, although they usu- ally are unaware of the importance of groups and group identity, which they take for granted as simply “normal” aspects of their lives. In contrast, when a membership group is devalued or has less power than other groups in society, individuals are motivated either to leave the group (“passing”) or to employ what Tajfel calls “cognitive alternatives,” which others call “group conscious- ness” or “solidarity”—essentially a strengthening of group ties based on an understanding of how groups are affected by systems

21JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006

at UCLA on October 22, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

http://edr.sagepub.com

dialogues, students converse explicitly about their roles in chal- lenging racial, ethnic, and other inequalities. They explore ques- tions such as these: What are our roles as White people/people of color to undo racism and ethnocentrism within our communities? What are our roles as White people/people of color to work in alliance with other people of color/White people to undo racism?”

Separate Groups Intergroup dialogue is also similar in some ways to the separate groups model because both maintain the salience of separate groups and the importance of intragroup solidarity. However, intergroup dialogue differs from the separate groups model in emphasizing affective ties between individuals in the two groups and helping the groups to forge collaborations and intergroup alliances. Such alliances may not be harmonious, but they can enable positive and mutual in-group and out-group respect. Intergroup alliances are strengthened in conjunction with intra- group solidarity, not at its expense. In fact, intergroup dialogues are structured purposefully to use separate groups to deepen the intergroup exchange.

Processes and Outcomes The crucial distinctions between the standard models of inter- group relations and the intergroup dialogue model lie in both their processes and their outcomes. The standard models em- phasize similarities and a common-task orientation as a way of re- ducing prejudice and fostering intergroup harmony. Intergroup dialogues also use common tasks, but they focus especially on a common dialogic communication process that is intended to de- velop intergroup understanding, intergroup collaboration, and the development of a shared identity as socially just people. When intergroup dialogues are successful,1 students gain an under- standing of both commonalities and differences between groups. They learn that collaborations are possible without a false sense of harmony that often masks conflicts and different interests. Harmony may not be genuine without the working out of diffi- cult conflicts and disagreements in a democratic fashion.

Research evidence on the impact of intergroup dialogues has been garnered from field experiments in which the same students were studied before and after participating in intergroup dialogues; in some instances, this longitudinal comparison was combined with a participant–control group comparison. These studies have demonstrated that participation in intergroup dialogues fosters active thinking about causes of social behavior and knowledge of institutional and other structural features of society that produce and maintain group-based inequalities (Alimo, Kelly, & Clark, 2002; Lopez, Gurin, & Nagda, 1998; Nagda et al., 2005). Par- ticipation increases perception of both commonalities and differ- ences between and within groups and helps students to normalize conflict and build skills to work with conflicts (Nagda & Zúñiga, 2003; Nagda et al., 2005). Participation also enhances interest in political issues and develops a sense of citizenship through college and community activities (Gurin, Gurin, Dey, & Hurtado, 2004; Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, 2004).

Future Research

Moving beyond Gratz (2003) and Grutter (2003), we need cam- pus diversity programs to be theoretically guided and empirically evaluated. Too many current efforts simply reflect the hunches

to their separate group identities and capable of engaging in com- mon tasks with members of other groups. In fact, efforts to press members of groups for whom history, culture, and group iden- tity are central to their sense of self to forsake their group identi- ties may actually arouse strong resistance and worsen intergroup relations rather than foster intergroup harmony (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Schofield, 1986). Some experiments demonstrate that the mutual differentiation and dual identity models are often just as effective as the common in-group model in reducing in- tergroup bias and sometimes even more effective, because they can help group members to generalize the positive feelings they developed in the original intergroup situation to other outgroup members who were not present in that situation (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a, 2000b).

A model that has some similarities to the mutual differentia- tion and dual identity models but also has distinct elements is intergroup dialogue. Now in place at numerous campuses, inter- group dialogue programs bring students together in small- group, co-learning environments. Over a sustained period of 10 to 12 weeks and with the guidance of trained facilitators, students from pairs of identity groups (e.g., African American and White, Anglo and Latino, Arab and Jew, male and female, Christian and Muslim, LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and queer) and heterosexual, affluent and working-class) explore their own and the other group’s identities, analyze how power and in- equality affect their groups, and examine ways to bridge the inter- group differences (see Zúñiga, Nagda, & Sevig, 2002, for a fuller description).

Intergroup Dialogue: An Innovative, Integrative Approach

Intergroup dialogue integrates various aspects of the social psy- chological models discussed above, while dealing somewhat dif- ferently with the key features of saliency of group identity, role of social inequality, and goals of intergroup relations. We elaborate below on intergroup dialogue, discussing the new model in rela- tion to the previously established social psychological models.

Decategorization Personalizing is a critical ingredient of the success of intergroup dialogues (Yeakley, 1998). However, in contrast to simple decat- egorization, personalization comes from testimonials and stories that students tell about themselves as members of groups, not sim- ply as autonomous individuals. Intergroup dialogues incorporate readings and interactive activities that help members of each iden- tity group to personalize others as individuals. Personalizing indi- viduals in an explicit group context increases the likelihood that what is learned about these specific group members in this specific situation will generalize to others in other situations.

Recategorization Recategorization in intergroup dialogue involves developing a superordinate identity as people broadly committed to social jus- tice. Students from the two identity groups in dialogue carry out joint learning—involving reflections, dialogues, and actions—and over time achieve a total superordinate identity that does not relin- quish the particular social group identities; instead, the super- ordinate identity is framed as an expression of the separate identities. For example, in the final sessions of extended interracial/ethnic

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER22

at UCLA on October 22, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

http://edr.sagepub.com

Establishing impact and effect. Research on group consciousness, solidarity, and intergroup dialogues has been carried out primar- ily in natural settings, sometimes using field experiments but often depending on cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys. Although this research is helpful in understanding the potential impact of programs, it does not provide definitive evidence of effect as a function of the particular program.

Generalization. Most of the research testing the traditional mod- els (decategorization, recategorization, and dual identity) has in- volved carefully controlled laboratory studies that can enable attribution of effect to certain treatments. However, laboratory conditions often do not generalize to real situations; thus we know little about external validity.

Endurance and latency of impact. The question remains whether effects attributed to a program have long-lasting impact. Con- versely, qualitative information from students sometimes reflects latency of impact; that is, students do not fully understand the impact of a certain program until much later. When post-test sur- veys or exit interviews are conducted close to the end of the pro- gram, the latent effects may not yet be discernible.

Mixed methods. Quantitative and qualitative methods have unique strengths that can be harnessed in future research. Qualitative methods, in particular, by conveying the complexity of experi- ences based on social identity and countering any tendency to overgeneralize findings to all racial/ethnic groups, can provide a richer understanding of the diversity of experiences. Carefully conducted qualitative research can be a source for generating theory, while quantitative research can help to test theories through statistical models.

Conclusion

Like Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, in which the U.S. Supreme Court called on scientific evidence supporting desegre- gation, the Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger cases (2003) affirmed the importance and relevance of social science research in national policy formulation. It is now time that the best of theo- rizing, program design, and research methods are brought together to bear on diversity education initiatives. To do so is necessary if we are to achieve the benefits of diversity, as described by the 74 organizations that submitted amici curiae in Gratz and Grut- ter supporting the University of Michigan’s affirmative action poli- cies: Students can learn from each other, appreciate their different life experiences and perspectives, gain skills to work with and across differences, and actively promote inclusion and social justice.

NOTE 1Yeakley (1998) analyzes the processes that distinguish positive from

negative outcomes for dialogue participants. She shows that positive effects far outnumber negative ones and that most participants benefited from the dialogues. The few who benefited little had not established emotionally meaningful relationships with members of the other identity group.

REFERENCES

Alimo, C., Kelly, R. D., & Clark, C. (2002). Intergroup dialogue pro- gram student outcomes and implications for campus racial climate: A case study. Multicultural Education, 10(1), 49–53.

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison- Wesley.

of faculty and administrators, rather than lessons learned from research, about how to use diversity educationally (McCauley, Wright, & Harris, 2000; Stephan & Stephan, 2001). Future re- search on intergroup relations and the role of diversity education must take on the substantive issues raised in the affirmative ac- tion cases and the methodological issues associated with isolating the impact and efficacy of various efforts.

Substantive Issues The review of theoretical models and programs shows many, and sometimes seemingly irreconcilable, assumptions underlying cam- pus diversity programs. Future research can contribute to a greater understanding of various programs and their likely effects on groups of students by considering the following issues:

Pre-college experience. Little research exists that examines how pre-college diversity affects diversity experiences in college. How integrated or separated were the social structures of students’ high schools, neighborhoods, and other settings? How do the extent and the nature of pre-college diversity experiences affect student learning in programs guided by various models?

Classroom dynamics. Although there is some previous research on how diversity education actually operates in classrooms, much more research that uses videotaping and other observational me- thods is needed to understand classroom dynamics and what accounts for more and less effective teaching and learning in multicultural classrooms.

Race and ethnicity. Future research needs to examine more closely the impact of various diversity approaches for different groups of students. For example, many students of color enter universities with greater awareness than exists among many White students of group-based inequalities in the United States, and thus with greater questioning of the dominant ideology of individualism. These differences may significantly affect their learning in pro- grams reflecting various models.

Stages of development. Future research needs to examine how stages of cognitive and emotional development interact with pre- college diversity experiences and with racial/ethnic group identi- ties in accounting for the effects of the various approaches to diversity programming.

Impact of multiple approaches and pathways. Given multiple diver- sity efforts, future research needs to assess the impact of the vari- ous approaches for students whose college experiences have been defined primarily by only one of them, and for students whose experiences have combined them, either sequentially over time or in combination throughout their college years.

Methodological Issues A review of the theoretical models and research on intergroup re- lations makes evident some methodological issues that future re- search should address:

Selectivity. Critics of research on diversity programs often cite as problematic the issue of selectivity, that is, the likelihood that stu- dents who are attracted to diversity initiatives differ from other students. Thus what may appear to be effects of diversity programs may only reflect the predispositions of students who enter them.

23JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006

at UCLA on October 22, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

http://edr.sagepub.com

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER24

Antonio, A. L. (2001). Diversity and the influence of friendship groups in college. Review of Higher Education, 25(1), 63–89.

Antonio, A. L. (2004). When does race matter in college friendships? Ex- ploring men’s diverse and homogeneous friendship groups. Review of Higher Education, 27(4), 553–575.

Bocian, M. (1997). Housing on college campuses: Self-segregation, inte- gration, and other alternatives. Washington, DC: Communitarian Network.

Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281–302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., & Jones, J. (2002). Compelling interest: Ex- amining the evidence on racial dynamics in colleges and universities. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Ann Arbor, MI: Sheridan Books.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Nier, J. A., Ward, C. M., & Banker, B. X. (1999). Across cultural divides: The value of a superordinate identity. In D. Prentice & D. Miller (Eds.), Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict (pp. 173–212). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003). Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Gurin, P., Gurin, G., Dey, E. L., & Hurtado, S. (2004). Educational

benefits of diversity. In P. Gurin, J. Lehman, & E. Lewis, Defending diversity: Michigan’s affirmative action cases (pp. 87–188). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Gurin, P., Lehman, J., & Lewis, E. (2004). Defending diversity: Michi- gan’s affirmative action cases. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Gurin, P., Miller, A. H., & Gurin, G. (1980). Stratum identification and consciousness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 30–47.

Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Lopez, G. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education for democratic citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 17–34.

Gutiérrez, L., & Lewis, E. (1999). Empowering women of color. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An inter- group perspective on the contact hypothesis. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1–44). New York: Blackwell.

Hornsey, M. L., & Hogg, M. A. (2000a). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psy- chology Review, 4, 143–156.

Hornsey, M. L., & Hogg, M. A. (2000b). Intergroup similarity and sub- group relations: Some implications for assimilation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 948–958.

Hurtado, S. (2003). Preparing college students for a diverse democracy: Final report to the U.S. Department of Education, OERI, Field Initiated Studies Program. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education.

Lopez, G. E., Gurin, P., & Nagda, B. A. (1998). Education and under- standing structural causes for group inequalities. Political Psychology, 19(2), 305–329.

McCauley, C., Wright, J., & Harris, M. E. (2000). Diversity workshops on campus: A survey of current practice at U.S. colleges and universi- ties. College Student Journal, 34(1), 100–114.

Nagda, B. A., Kim, H. J., Moise-Swanson, D. M., & Kim, C. W. (2005). Empowerment education for cultural diversity and social jus- tice. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Nagda, B. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2003). Fostering meaningful racial engage- ment through intergroup dialogues. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 111–128.

Orfield, G. (with Kurlaender, M.)(Ed.). (2001). Diversity challenged: Evidence on the impact of affirmative action. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, and Harvard Education Publishing Group.

Pettigrew, T. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psy- chology, 49, 65–85.

Schofield, J. W. (1986). Causes and consequences of the colorblind per- spective. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrim- ination and racism (pp. 231–253). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Smith, W. A., Allen, W. R., & Land, L. D. (2005). “Assume the posi- tion . . . you fit the description”: Campus racial climate and the psycho- educational experiences of African American male college students. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1–2), 60–73.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2001). Improving intergroup re- lations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13, 69–89.

Wilder, D. A. (1981). Perceiving persons as a group: Categorization and intergroup relations. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 213–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Yeakley, A. (1998). The nature of prejudice change: Positive and negative change processes arising from intergroup contact experiences. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Zúñiga, X., Nagda, B. A., & Sevig, T. D. (2002). Intergroup dialogues: An educational model for cultivating engagement across differences. Equity and Excellence in Education, 35(1), 7–17.

AUTHORS

PATRICIA GURIN is the Nancy Cantor Distinguished Professor, Emerita, of Psychology and Women’s Studies at the University of Michigan, and Director of Research, Program on Intergroup Relations, 3000 Michigan Union, 530 S. State Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; [email protected]. She has a longstanding interest in the issues of inter- group relations and social identities and was the expert witness for the University of Michigan on the educational value of diversity in the uni- versity’s defense of its admissions policies at the undergraduate level and in its law school.

BIREN (RATNESH) A. NAGDA is an Associate Professor of Social Work and Director of the Intergroup Dialogue, Education and Action (IDEA) Center at the University of Washington, School of Social Work, 4101 Fif- teenth Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98105-6299; [email protected]. His research and teaching interests focus on intergroup dialogue, cultural diversity, and social justice education, and on multicultural, empower- ment-oriented social work practice.

Manuscript received May 12, 2005 Revision received August 3, 2005

Accepted August 4, 2005

at UCLA on October 22, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

http://edr.sagepub.com