Hi,
following on from the earlier themes, some thoughts:
- to lead in our fliers, recruitmemt stuff: "How does race matter? An invitation to dialogue. . ." and for grant writing, irb, something similare but more academic.
- on format for campus dialogues: first, intergroup with small groups and all faciliators co-facilitating in as mixed configurations as possible. second, affinity groups dialogue--including a multi-racial group and possibly an-other group. last, intergroup dialogue. This format, while not my preference, has several important logistical benefits, including facilitation and recruitment.
- an initial informational session for profs and program heads (e.g., athletics) on campus. help with this is welcome!!!!!!
- our last summer session will be a discussion of goals, some of which should happen on the blog, small group co-facilitating (with hopefully enough folks in attendance to do so), and a large group dialogue facilitated by Dee and I. It's a lot, but we'll prioritize and discuss as we move along.
Please let me know if u have questions, concerns AND if you have contact info for potential facilitators. We hope to bring a few more folks to our group.
The following is just an attempt to keep some track of our conversations. will try not to duplicate everything.
Posted by Lily
Hi everyone,
Below is an attempt to sum-up today's engaging conversations; if i'm
missing/misrepresenting something, please add/correct it; also my chronology is
a little messed-up, so even though there are numbers, this might not necessary
be the order in which things happened.
* Leda and Dee are accepting ideas about a possible title for the
dialogue/project
1.We began by talking about dialogue in terms of:
a. A broad definition – a dialogue gives people opportunity to say something
they may otherwise not say, opens up conversation, rather than closing it. As
facilitators, we should continuously consider/ask the group, “What are we doing
here as a group?”
b. What distinguishes a dialogue from a discussion and from a debate (there’s a
handout in the packet Leda sent & we talked based on this and questioned the
values it presupposes)
c. Helpful ideas for starting/leading dialogue – a lot of this and the
conversation that followed was based on the Public Dialogue article on e-
reserves: setting up ground rules, including what we, as a group, understand as
dialogue, allowing for emotion (including anger), finding connections in
disagreements, appreciative inquiry (e.g., “What would a good conversation
about race look like?”), lead with curiosity and wonder (Ellen brought up an
example from “Grand Torino” here & Dee followed up with “Crash”), facilitators
record & revisit language used by dialogue group participants
After talking about dialogue and what we can do as facilitators, we talked
about some of the logistics and procedures of organizing the dialogue groups.
2. Groups would last approximately 2 hours each, with 1 meeting early in the
fall semester and a follow-up meeting later in the semester; a framework/format
is available in the packet Leda sent as a curriculum design
3. We considered different options for the overall design of the project –
should we first have affinity groups dialogue and then an intergroup dialogue?
Should we have an informal meet-and-greet/info session for all participants
together? How would our choices affect retention for the second meeting?
Danette emphasized that either way we should be clear and explicit with
participants about what to expect and that both types of groups will meet.
Raphael emphasized that either way, the facilitation of the dialogue matters
more than the format alone and that co-facilitators should be mindful as to who
participates in the dialogue and think of ways to include everyone.
4. Using Hari’s example of Henry Gates Jr.’s arrest, we talked about some forms
of resistance to conversations about race we may encounter & how we, as
facilitators, should respond to such resistance – e.g., through reframing, role
playing of alternative scenarios, appreciative inquiry, directing conversation
toward systemic foci, while bringing it back to concrete personal experiences
and away from the abstract – for example, we may start by asking considered
appropriate and/or legitimate, what are the rights of home-owners, who
determines what is legitimate, how has that affected us in our personal
everyday experiences
5. Several times throughout the conversation today the question came up of what
are our goals, hopes, desired outcomes for this project; we thought it will be
interesting and helpful if each one of us came up with her or his own “list”
(also including what are our goals/desired outcomes for ourselves as both
facilitators and participants in the dialogue) & then we share our thoughts.
6. Leda asked what would be most helpful for us in our last meeting
(tentatively scheduled for Aug. 19?) – should we have a panel of facilitators,
do something more applied, other suggestions? Thoughts, suggestions, and
feedback are welcome.
7. Throughout the conversation another question kept coming up as well – how do
we “deal” with expressions of emotion during dialogue groups. Toward the end of
the meeting, Dee summarized lessons from other facilitators and experiences to
say that we should not shun emotion, but expect it and find ways to include it
into the conversation, to ask the group to talk about it, to ask the individual
(s) who “exhibited” and emotional response to something to talk about it and
what triggered it.
Thanks for filling our home with so many interesting and valuable thoughts,
looking forward to August!
Lily
Below is an attempt to sum-up today's engaging conversations; if i'm
missing/misrepresenting something, please add/correct it; also my chronology is
a little messed-up, so even though there are numbers, this might not necessary
be the order in which things happened.
* Leda and Dee are accepting ideas about a possible title for the
dialogue/project
1.We began by talking about dialogue in terms of:
a. A broad definition – a dialogue gives people opportunity to say something
they may otherwise not say, opens up conversation, rather than closing it. As
facilitators, we should continuously consider/ask the group, “What are we doing
here as a group?”
b. What distinguishes a dialogue from a discussion and from a debate (there’s a
handout in the packet Leda sent & we talked based on this and questioned the
values it presupposes)
c. Helpful ideas for starting/leading dialogue – a lot of this and the
conversation that followed was based on the Public Dialogue article on e-
reserves: setting up ground rules, including what we, as a group, understand as
dialogue, allowing for emotion (including anger), finding connections in
disagreements, appreciative inquiry (e.g., “What would a good conversation
about race look like?”), lead with curiosity and wonder (Ellen brought up an
example from “Grand Torino” here & Dee followed up with “Crash”), facilitators
record & revisit language used by dialogue group participants
After talking about dialogue and what we can do as facilitators, we talked
about some of the logistics and procedures of organizing the dialogue groups.
2. Groups would last approximately 2 hours each, with 1 meeting early in the
fall semester and a follow-up meeting later in the semester; a framework/format
is available in the packet Leda sent as a curriculum design
3. We considered different options for the overall design of the project –
should we first have affinity groups dialogue and then an intergroup dialogue?
Should we have an informal meet-and-greet/info session for all participants
together? How would our choices affect retention for the second meeting?
Danette emphasized that either way we should be clear and explicit with
participants about what to expect and that both types of groups will meet.
Raphael emphasized that either way, the facilitation of the dialogue matters
more than the format alone and that co-facilitators should be mindful as to who
participates in the dialogue and think of ways to include everyone.
4. Using Hari’s example of Henry Gates Jr.’s arrest, we talked about some forms
of resistance to conversations about race we may encounter & how we, as
facilitators, should respond to such resistance – e.g., through reframing, role
playing of alternative scenarios, appreciative inquiry, directing conversation
toward systemic foci, while bringing it back to concrete personal experiences
and away from the abstract – for example, we may start by asking considered
appropriate and/or legitimate, what are the rights of home-owners, who
determines what is legitimate, how has that affected us in our personal
everyday experiences
5. Several times throughout the conversation today the question came up of what
are our goals, hopes, desired outcomes for this project; we thought it will be
interesting and helpful if each one of us came up with her or his own “list”
(also including what are our goals/desired outcomes for ourselves as both
facilitators and participants in the dialogue) & then we share our thoughts.
6. Leda asked what would be most helpful for us in our last meeting
(tentatively scheduled for Aug. 19?) – should we have a panel of facilitators,
do something more applied, other suggestions? Thoughts, suggestions, and
feedback are welcome.
7. Throughout the conversation another question kept coming up as well – how do
we “deal” with expressions of emotion during dialogue groups. Toward the end of
the meeting, Dee summarized lessons from other facilitators and experiences to
say that we should not shun emotion, but expect it and find ways to include it
into the conversation, to ask the group to talk about it, to ask the individual
(s) who “exhibited” and emotional response to something to talk about it and
what triggered it.
Thanks for filling our home with so many interesting and valuable thoughts,
looking forward to August!
Lily
Theresa replied:
of the items that was mentioned by Dee and Molly resonated with me
with regard to the dialogues. Both the critical incident that is
personally identified and a critical moment that is used as a text to
comment on were important points to include.
Another point in our discussion was what we can do as facilitators to
keep the dialog process open and inviting. I took away Ellen's acronym
of WAIT (though I apologize to all if I did not use it well) and
Leda's elaborating linguistic strategy of "what does 'x" mean in this
context." Hari's technique of using a generative text, the police
transcript, started me thinking what questions could help guide the
shaping of text interpretations by a group interested in questioning
how privilege manifests itself. When Rafael brought up points of
legitimacy and power operating in the policeman's text, we could see
that as important to interpreting the report using a US historical
context. Dee also indicated that keeping account of the patterns of
interaction in the dialog, such as who is not talking, could be
productive as well. I wondered how I could be invitational, if the
interactions were racialized and emotional as well.
We also had several divergent views in discussion about the use and
consequences of grouping by affinity versus intercultural
grouping. One emergent question is how either functions in reifying
racial constructions and/ or in shaping perceptions of the
consequences of the dialogs. Dee added an important element to keep
in mind - the need to include the ambiguity and complexity of the
construct of race within the affinity groups.
These were a few of the points that resonated with me and add to Lily's summary.
Thank you all for a stimulating afternoon,
Theresa
No comments:
Post a Comment