A Typology of Critical Incidents in Intergroup Dialogue: Perspectives of Facilitators-in-Training
There is a growing body of research on the positive outcomes associated with participation in intergroup dialogue (IGD), a group intervention providing opportunities for sustained communication across social groups (Gurin, Nagda, & Zúñiga, 2013). Less research has examined the experiences of IGD...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Group dynamics 2018-09, Vol.22 (3), p.156-171 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 171 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 156 |
container_title | Group dynamics |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Frantell, Keri A Miles, Joseph R Muller, Joel T Robinson, Lindsay M |
description | There is a growing body of research on the positive outcomes associated with participation in intergroup dialogue (IGD), a group intervention providing opportunities for sustained communication across social groups (Gurin, Nagda, & Zúñiga, 2013). Less research has examined the experiences of IGD facilitators. To better understand these experiences, we examined perceptions of critical incidents (CIs) in 7 consecutive IGD sessions among 13 IGD facilitators-in-training. We used latent semantic analysis (Landauer & Dumais, 1997) on 77 CI reports to derive pairwise similarity ratings. We then conducted a cluster analysis on these ratings and identified 6 clusters of CIs: (a) managing anxiety and promoting safety, (b) development of the group and the cofacilitator relationship, (c) learning from and with others, (d) vulnerable/meaningful disclosures, (e) difference and conflict, and (f) emotional openness. These clusters of CIs are discussed in terms of their relationships to the IGD literature, the literature on group counseling leadership, and the types of CIs identified by group members in previous research (Kivlighan & Arseneau, 2009). |
doi_str_mv | 10.1037/gdn0000088 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2159932751</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2159932751</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a323t-cbee002ae27db326d343598fa68097e2359f52a731d4515573d0e7c6690f8f463</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMouK5e_AUFb0o1H03TeFtWVxcW9FDPIZumJUtNapIK_femrODNucy88MwMPABcI3iPIGEPXWPhXFV1AhaIE5izCuLTNMOK57jk_BxchHCAEBWEowWQq6yeBte7bspcm629iUbJPttaZRptY8iMTSFq33k3DtmTkYkd9WP2rn0YtIrmW4d5dSOV6U2U0fmQG5vXXhprbHcJzlrZB33125fgY_Ncr1_z3dvLdr3a5ZJgEnO11xpCLDVmzZ7gsiEFobxqZVlBzjROoaVYMoKagiJKGWmgZqosOWyrtijJEtwc7w7efY06RHFwo7fppcCIck4wo-hfKv3BqMB8pm6PlPIuBK9bMXjzKf0kEBSzaPEnOsF3R1gOUgxhUtInh70OavQ-KZxZgbEgAtGS_ABsHH7K</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2097214291</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Typology of Critical Incidents in Intergroup Dialogue: Perspectives of Facilitators-in-Training</title><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Frantell, Keri A ; Miles, Joseph R ; Muller, Joel T ; Robinson, Lindsay M</creator><contributor>Marcus, David K</contributor><creatorcontrib>Frantell, Keri A ; Miles, Joseph R ; Muller, Joel T ; Robinson, Lindsay M ; Marcus, David K</creatorcontrib><description>There is a growing body of research on the positive outcomes associated with participation in intergroup dialogue (IGD), a group intervention providing opportunities for sustained communication across social groups (Gurin, Nagda, & Zúñiga, 2013). Less research has examined the experiences of IGD facilitators. To better understand these experiences, we examined perceptions of critical incidents (CIs) in 7 consecutive IGD sessions among 13 IGD facilitators-in-training. We used latent semantic analysis (Landauer & Dumais, 1997) on 77 CI reports to derive pairwise similarity ratings. We then conducted a cluster analysis on these ratings and identified 6 clusters of CIs: (a) managing anxiety and promoting safety, (b) development of the group and the cofacilitator relationship, (c) learning from and with others, (d) vulnerable/meaningful disclosures, (e) difference and conflict, and (f) emotional openness. These clusters of CIs are discussed in terms of their relationships to the IGD literature, the literature on group counseling leadership, and the types of CIs identified by group members in previous research (Kivlighan & Arseneau, 2009).</description><identifier>ISSN: 1089-2699</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1930-7802</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/gdn0000088</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: Educational Publishing Foundation</publisher><subject>Cluster analysis ; Communication ; Female ; Group counseling ; Group Intervention ; Group Participation ; Human ; Intergroup Dynamics ; Leadership ; Male ; Participation ; Social Groups ; Taxonomies ; Training ; Typology ; Vulnerability</subject><ispartof>Group dynamics, 2018-09, Vol.22 (3), p.156-171</ispartof><rights>2018 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>2018, American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychological Association Sep 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a323t-cbee002ae27db326d343598fa68097e2359f52a731d4515573d0e7c6690f8f463</citedby><orcidid>0000-0003-2765-3063</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27911,27912,33761</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Marcus, David K</contributor><creatorcontrib>Frantell, Keri A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miles, Joseph R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muller, Joel T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Lindsay M</creatorcontrib><title>A Typology of Critical Incidents in Intergroup Dialogue: Perspectives of Facilitators-in-Training</title><title>Group dynamics</title><description>There is a growing body of research on the positive outcomes associated with participation in intergroup dialogue (IGD), a group intervention providing opportunities for sustained communication across social groups (Gurin, Nagda, & Zúñiga, 2013). Less research has examined the experiences of IGD facilitators. To better understand these experiences, we examined perceptions of critical incidents (CIs) in 7 consecutive IGD sessions among 13 IGD facilitators-in-training. We used latent semantic analysis (Landauer & Dumais, 1997) on 77 CI reports to derive pairwise similarity ratings. We then conducted a cluster analysis on these ratings and identified 6 clusters of CIs: (a) managing anxiety and promoting safety, (b) development of the group and the cofacilitator relationship, (c) learning from and with others, (d) vulnerable/meaningful disclosures, (e) difference and conflict, and (f) emotional openness. These clusters of CIs are discussed in terms of their relationships to the IGD literature, the literature on group counseling leadership, and the types of CIs identified by group members in previous research (Kivlighan & Arseneau, 2009).</description><subject>Cluster analysis</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Group counseling</subject><subject>Group Intervention</subject><subject>Group Participation</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Intergroup Dynamics</subject><subject>Leadership</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Participation</subject><subject>Social Groups</subject><subject>Taxonomies</subject><subject>Training</subject><subject>Typology</subject><subject>Vulnerability</subject><issn>1089-2699</issn><issn>1930-7802</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMouK5e_AUFb0o1H03TeFtWVxcW9FDPIZumJUtNapIK_femrODNucy88MwMPABcI3iPIGEPXWPhXFV1AhaIE5izCuLTNMOK57jk_BxchHCAEBWEowWQq6yeBte7bspcm629iUbJPttaZRptY8iMTSFq33k3DtmTkYkd9WP2rn0YtIrmW4d5dSOV6U2U0fmQG5vXXhprbHcJzlrZB33125fgY_Ncr1_z3dvLdr3a5ZJgEnO11xpCLDVmzZ7gsiEFobxqZVlBzjROoaVYMoKagiJKGWmgZqosOWyrtijJEtwc7w7efY06RHFwo7fppcCIck4wo-hfKv3BqMB8pm6PlPIuBK9bMXjzKf0kEBSzaPEnOsF3R1gOUgxhUtInh70OavQ-KZxZgbEgAtGS_ABsHH7K</recordid><startdate>201809</startdate><enddate>201809</enddate><creator>Frantell, Keri A</creator><creator>Miles, Joseph R</creator><creator>Muller, Joel T</creator><creator>Robinson, Lindsay M</creator><general>Educational Publishing Foundation</general><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2765-3063</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201809</creationdate><title>A Typology of Critical Incidents in Intergroup Dialogue: Perspectives of Facilitators-in-Training</title><author>Frantell, Keri A ; Miles, Joseph R ; Muller, Joel T ; Robinson, Lindsay M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a323t-cbee002ae27db326d343598fa68097e2359f52a731d4515573d0e7c6690f8f463</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Cluster analysis</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Group counseling</topic><topic>Group Intervention</topic><topic>Group Participation</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Intergroup Dynamics</topic><topic>Leadership</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Participation</topic><topic>Social Groups</topic><topic>Taxonomies</topic><topic>Training</topic><topic>Typology</topic><topic>Vulnerability</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Frantell, Keri A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miles, Joseph R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muller, Joel T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Lindsay M</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Group dynamics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Frantell, Keri A</au><au>Miles, Joseph R</au><au>Muller, Joel T</au><au>Robinson, Lindsay M</au><au>Marcus, David K</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Typology of Critical Incidents in Intergroup Dialogue: Perspectives of Facilitators-in-Training</atitle><jtitle>Group dynamics</jtitle><date>2018-09</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>156</spage><epage>171</epage><pages>156-171</pages><issn>1089-2699</issn><eissn>1930-7802</eissn><abstract>There is a growing body of research on the positive outcomes associated with participation in intergroup dialogue (IGD), a group intervention providing opportunities for sustained communication across social groups (Gurin, Nagda, & Zúñiga, 2013). Less research has examined the experiences of IGD facilitators. To better understand these experiences, we examined perceptions of critical incidents (CIs) in 7 consecutive IGD sessions among 13 IGD facilitators-in-training. We used latent semantic analysis (Landauer & Dumais, 1997) on 77 CI reports to derive pairwise similarity ratings. We then conducted a cluster analysis on these ratings and identified 6 clusters of CIs: (a) managing anxiety and promoting safety, (b) development of the group and the cofacilitator relationship, (c) learning from and with others, (d) vulnerable/meaningful disclosures, (e) difference and conflict, and (f) emotional openness. These clusters of CIs are discussed in terms of their relationships to the IGD literature, the literature on group counseling leadership, and the types of CIs identified by group members in previous research (Kivlighan & Arseneau, 2009).</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>Educational Publishing Foundation</pub><doi>10.1037/gdn0000088</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2765-3063</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1089-2699 |
ispartof | Group dynamics, 2018-09, Vol.22 (3), p.156-171 |
issn | 1089-2699 1930-7802 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2159932751 |
source | Sociological Abstracts; EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES |
subjects | Cluster analysis Communication Female Group counseling Group Intervention Group Participation Human Intergroup Dynamics Leadership Male Participation Social Groups Taxonomies Training Typology Vulnerability |
title | A Typology of Critical Incidents in Intergroup Dialogue: Perspectives of Facilitators-in-Training |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T17%3A25%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Typology%20of%20Critical%20Incidents%20in%20Intergroup%20Dialogue:%20Perspectives%20of%20Facilitators-in-Training&rft.jtitle=Group%20dynamics&rft.au=Frantell,%20Keri%20A&rft.date=2018-09&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=156&rft.epage=171&rft.pages=156-171&rft.issn=1089-2699&rft.eissn=1930-7802&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/gdn0000088&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2159932751%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2097214291&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |