Effectiveness of Intergroup Dialogue Pedagogy for Cultural Competency and Social Justice Education

Background and Purpose: Research documents continued segregation in neighborhoods, schools, employment, and churches. Most US residents circulate in homogenous social networks and know few people of other racial, ethnic, religious, or cultural social identities. Social work students also live with segregation and face the same barriers to diverse interaction.  

CSWE cultural competence standards require students to “engage diversity and difference in practice” and understand that “as a consequence of difference, a person’s life experiences may include oppression, poverty, marginalization, and alienation as well as privilege, power, and acclaim.” (EP 2.1.4). Because segregation prevents students from engaging with differences, instructors must help create and direct diverse encounters.   

Intergroup dialogue (IGD) is a pedagogy designed to counter the effects of segregation by bringing students together for face-to-face, facilitated, and sustained dialogue across social identity difference. It engages students in affective and cognitive learning about social identity, cultural conflict, and social justice.  This study examined IGD effectiveness as a cultural competence pedagogy.

Methods:  We report data from a three-year cohort study (N= 133) of MSW students in a required diversity course that included IGD.  Students participated in seven facilitated two-hour dialogues in diverse small groups. Students took a pre- and post-test survey using 11 scales from a previous national IGD study (Gurin, Nagda, & Zuniga, 2013) and two new scales. Sue's (2006) multicultural social work model guided the analysis. Independent variables included segregation, intergroup contact, and race/ethnicity. Correlations, paired t-tests, and multiple regressions were run using SPSS to answer the questions: What were the cultural competence learning outcomes for students? Does segregation, contact, race, or awareness of racial inequality predict outcomes of confidence and frequency of action to bridge differences across social identities? 

Results: Students reported significant pre/post improvement on cognitive centrality, common fate, collective self-esteem, awareness of racial, gender, and social class inequality, motivation to bridge differences, active thinking, and confidence and frequency of action. They did not increase their knowledge of diverse groups. The model examined difference scores for action, assumptions were met, and the overall model was significant, R² = .14, F (7, 127) = 7.7, p= .03, explaining just 14% of the variance.  Segregation and contact did not significantly contribute to the model, although contact approached significance (p= .05), and race (β = -.53, p = .02) was significant, with white people having higher action outcomes than people of color after the course. Awareness of racial inequality was also significant, (β = .23, p = .02), with higher awareness leading to higher action outcomes after the course. A second model was significant and indicated that cognitive centrality, common fate, collective self-esteem, and contact predicted 21% of the variance in the action outcome, R² = .21, F (4, 122) = 8.2, p= .00.

Implications: Findings support IGD as a promising pedagogy to help students overcome segregation and increase comfort and skill interacting across social identity difference. Culturally competent social work requires these skills. Future studies should examine students' knowledge of diverse groups and expand research across multiple schools.