What are your favorite indicators for measuring the impact of intergroup dialogue?
I'm designing a dialogue program in Cairo and I would like to hear what you think are those indicators that really get to the truth.
My favorite indicator is "how often have you shared a meal with someone from a different religious group this week?"
Intergroup activities especialy non competetive ones could could mark a form of Indicator as each group realises how they share in some details and also how the diferrences are very interesting and points of learning or opportunties for more dialogue.
This is a great indicator Daniel, and the most basic and peace-promoting way to dialogue.
I have a question for you.......we have tred to make contact with our local mosque--even invited the Amam to speak at a gathering, called, visited the mosque, but can't get any response. Have any suggestions for a more effective approach that would work? Grateful, Jennie
Hi, Jennie. I don't know if I can be much help. It's my first time designing a dialogue project and an Egyptian friend offered me the position. You are probably more experienced than I am, but maybe I can offer some ideas and you can tell me if they work. My teachers tell me that sometimes you need a "cultural broker" like someone who can act as a reference and help you make the right approach. Greeting in Arabic like "As-Salamu Alaikum" (Peace be with you) is respectful and shows that you're serious. Where are you doing the dialogue? If you are in California, DC or Cairo, I might know some people that can help.
A very good question! I'm working on the effects of dialogue workshops in the Israeli-Palestinian context.
The indicator you mentioned is a very good behavioral indicator. I would generally suggest three things: first, measure indicators from the three types of attitudes dimensions: behavioral, emotional, and cognitive. This depends on what you think dialogue can have a positive effect on, but it is important to see indicators for intergroup emotions and for cognitive/narrative concepts as well. Second, within each dimension it's important to include more than one indicator (item). It might be that for a particular individual there are structural barriers or just luck of opportunities for a desired behavior (sharing meal in this case). That's why it's important to include at least 4-5 types of behaviors (i.e. meeting together, study together if these are students, hosting in your place/their place and so forth). Finally, I would suggest working with scales - that is, combining indicators to measures constructs that are important in intergroup relations and that you think that intergroup dialogue can have a positive impact on. In this way every indicator is designed to measure a particular construct, and every constructs is measured by more than one indicator. For example, the construct of "intergroup optimism" can be measured with level of agreement with sentences like "In the future, Christians and Muslims in Egypt will live together in peace", "Christian and Muslims will live in the same neighborhoods", and more. A measure of a construct or concept that includes more than one indicator is more powerful as a conclusion for dialogue's effects than single indicators that we cannot know what exactly they measure and if they are directed toward intergroup behavior or attitude that is limited by external influences.
In my study I used items of actual behavior like the one you mentioned to measure pre-dialogue contact, and I use indicators/items of willingness/readiness for intergroup contact as dependent variables to measure effects. I also have a behavioral manipulation to see if the declared behavioral intention is reliable.
I would be happy to share with you my measure if you're interested :)
I work with a group doing dialogue work in Sri Lanka. I'd be very interested to see your measures. Thank you, ellen
Hey Ellen, gladly, I'll send you in a file in a private message
Hello, Maor. I'd also be very interested to take a look at your measures, if I may. I'm working on a couple of dialogue projects in India and considering ways to level-up our M&E.
My focus is inter-group dialogues in post-Soviet Ukraine. I would like to see your indicators or results if at all possible. I have a Ph.D. from S-CAR, where currently I am a Cumbie fellow. Thank you in advance.
My private email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Idil P. Izmirli
I sent you an email :)
Maor, I would be very happy to see your measures. If you can email me at email@example.com, I would be much obliged. Thank you.
It generally believed that a dialogue is a process of communication in which two or more participants engage in an open exploration of events, issues and relationships on an equitable basis. One of the paradigms mostly used to get to the truth in a dialogue is that a hierarchy of needs have to be met before dialogue can occur.
1. Physical: It is anything relating to the physical comfort of the participants including speakers and audience
2. Emotional/social acceptance: It is required that participants feel emotionally comfortable, they should feel that they belong to the gathering, and should not feel as if they are being judged or prosecuted. This level could relate to how someone feels that the other participants view them. For example "Us and them"
3. Intellectual: All participants should feel they have something to offer, contribute, that their opinions are valuable, and that they have learned something the end of the dialogue.
Thank you for coming out with this idea on dialogue
Thank you for your excellent reply. I really like your example of the use of "us" and "them."