 |
Deliberation and Difference: The Contributions of Civic Dialogue
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
19
Appendix A: C
OUNT OF DIALOGUE PROGRAMS IN THE
U
NITED
S
TATES
The estimated number of dialogue programs was calculated through merging lists of intergroup dialogue programs from the Study Circles Resource Center, the Western Justice Center Foundation, information produced by the Clinton Administration on Race (One America, 1998), the Network of Alliance Bridging Race and Ethnicity website (
http://www.jointcenter.org/nabre
), the 2002 National
Conference for Dialogue and Deliberation, Du Bois and Hutson (1997), pursuing all links provided by the Dialogue to Action Initiative website (
www.thataway.org
), and recording additional programs in
the process of conducting interviews and data gathering for additional portions of this project. This is a count of programs resembling the basic format described above, and therefore does not include programs that do not require repeated interactions among participants, such as “Conversation Cafes,” in which people drop in on scheduled conversations at cafes, restaurants and bookstores (
www.conversationcafe.org
, accessed March 3, 2003).
Appendix B: O
PEN
-
END SURVEY QUESTION ANALYSIS
I used the following questions from the Pre-test: “What motivated you to participate in the program?” and “What do you hope the Study Circles will achieve?” The following were the items from the post-test “What do you think your group achieved?” and “Are groups like the Study Circles likely to change the greater Madison area for the better? If ‘YES,’ what specifically do you think they might change? If ‘No,’ why aren’t these groups effective?” I used a sample of 20% of the responses to develop a code frame. All responses per respondent were coded. An interrator reliability test using 1 coder blind to the purposes of the study coding 10% of the pretest responses resulted in a correspondence of 71%. Due to this low reliability, I refined the coding categories and recoded all of the responses. An interrator reliability test using a different coder, again blind to the purposes of the study, resulted in a satisfactory level of correspondence, 92%. (This was computed by counting the number of unique codes per respondent across the two coders as the denominator, the number of overlapping codes as the numerator.) Responses were coded as mentioning as many of the following categories as applied: Common ground; Understanding of differences across people; Understanding of issues related to race and racism; Understanding or insight, not further specified; Learning, not further specified; Learning about people; Challenged each other; Political action; Personal empowerment; More civic engagement; Comfort; Deal with racism, not further specified; Make connections with other people; Share my experiences and/or feelings with others; Find like minded people; Want to hear what others have to say; Personal empowerment; Personal growth; Overcome stereotypes; Change attitudes; Reinforce attitudes; Encourage more talk; Candid discussion; Improved relationships; Improve the community; Change behavior; No hopes; Don't know. Appendix C: O
PEN
-
END RESPONSES RELATED TO UNITY
Responses from the pretests that qualified as beliefs that the dialogues help achieve unity were: Better community; Harmony; Heightened awareness arising both from what is shared and what is not; Understand our common humanity; I believe that as human beings we share a common heritage, whatever our race or religion; I want to see what we have in common to go forward with; Togetherness; A shared sense of our community’s desire to resolve racial tension; Better understanding and awareness of each others’ humanity; Unity; Greater community cohesiveness. Common ground responses from the post-test were: Harmony; Greater sense of community; Some consensus on different issues; I think we achieved a measure of community; Larger sense of community (another: ‘sense of community’); Considerable unity in spite of some personality obstacles; That we are more alike than different in our wants and needs; After comparing 'notes,' we realized that across minority cultures, we had a lot of experiences in common-- --We weren't alone!; Awareness of other racial groups as people.
|
| | Authors: Walsh, Katherine. |
|
| |
|
|
19
Appendix A: C
OUNT OF DIALOGUE PROGRAMS IN THE
U
NITED
S
TATES
The estimated number of dialogue programs was calculated through merging lists of intergroup
dialogue programs from the Study Circles Resource Center, the Western Justice Center Foundation,
information produced by the Clinton Administration on Race (One America, 1998), the Network of
Alliance Bridging Race and Ethnicity website (
http://www.jointcenter.org/nabre
), the 2002 National
Conference for Dialogue and Deliberation, Du Bois and Hutson (1997), pursuing all links provided by
the Dialogue to Action Initiative website (
www.thataway.org
), and recording additional programs in
the process of conducting interviews and data gathering for additional portions of this project. This is
a count of programs resembling the basic format described above, and therefore does not include
programs that do not require repeated interactions among participants, such as “Conversation Cafes,”
in which people drop in on scheduled conversations at cafes, restaurants and bookstores
(
www.conversationcafe.org
, accessed March 3, 2003).
Appendix B: O
PEN
-
END SURVEY QUESTION ANALYSIS
I used the following questions from the Pre-test: “What motivated you to participate in the program?” and
“What do you hope the Study Circles will achieve?” The following were the items from the post-test “What
do you think your group achieved?” and “Are groups like the Study Circles likely to change the greater
Madison area for the better? If ‘YES,’ what specifically do you think they might change? If ‘No,’ why
aren’t these groups effective?” I used a sample of 20% of the responses to develop a code frame. All
responses per respondent were coded. An interrator reliability test using 1 coder blind to the purposes of the
study coding 10% of the pretest responses resulted in a correspondence of 71%. Due to this low reliability,
I refined the coding categories and recoded all of the responses. An interrator reliability test using a
different coder, again blind to the purposes of the study, resulted in a satisfactory level of correspondence,
92%. (This was computed by counting the number of unique codes per respondent across the two coders as
the denominator, the number of overlapping codes as the numerator.) Responses were coded as mentioning
as many of the following categories as applied: Common ground; Understanding of differences across
people; Understanding of issues related to race and racism; Understanding or insight, not further specified;
Learning, not further specified; Learning about people; Challenged each other; Political action; Personal
empowerment; More civic engagement; Comfort; Deal with racism, not further specified; Make
connections with other people; Share my experiences and/or feelings with others; Find like minded people;
Want to hear what others have to say; Personal empowerment; Personal growth; Overcome stereotypes;
Change attitudes; Reinforce attitudes; Encourage more talk; Candid discussion; Improved relationships;
Improve the community; Change behavior; No hopes; Don't know.
Appendix C: O
PEN
-
END RESPONSES RELATED TO UNITY
Responses from the pretests that qualified as beliefs that the dialogues help achieve unity were: Better
community; Harmony; Heightened awareness arising both from what is shared and what is not; Understand
our common humanity; I believe that as human beings we share a common heritage, whatever our race or
religion; I want to see what we have in common to go forward with; Togetherness; A shared sense of our
community’s desire to resolve racial tension; Better understanding and awareness of each others’ humanity;
Unity; Greater community cohesiveness. Common ground responses from the post-test were: Harmony;
Greater sense of community; Some consensus on different issues; I think we achieved a measure of
community; Larger sense of community (another: ‘sense of community’); Considerable unity in spite of
some personality obstacles; That we are more alike than different in our wants and needs; After comparing
'notes,' we realized that across minority cultures, we had a lot of experiences in common-- --We weren't
alone!; Awareness of other racial groups as people.
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
