View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

On Being Absorbed: Taking up Dialogic Pedagogy in University Diversity Plans

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: On Being Absorbed: Taking up Dialogic Pedagogy in University Diversity Plans
Language: English
Authors: Stephanie D. Hicks (ORCID 0009-0000-3734-2133)
Source: New Directions for Higher Education. 2025 (212):33-40.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 8
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: College Administration, Educational Planning, Diversity (Institutional), Intergroup Relations, Social Justice, Urban Universities, Research Universities, Program Development, Program Implementation
DOI: 10.1002/he.20521
ISSN: 0271-0560
1536-0741
Abstract: What are we to make of the proliferation of Intergroup Dialogue (IGD) programs for social justice education on college campuses? Though the inception of IGD predates many institutions' diversity plans, increasingly colleges and universities are citing their existing IGD programs in their present-day plans, as IGDs effectiveness has been well documented. By focusing on the development and implementation of a dialogue-based education program at an urban, public research university, this study investigated whether IGD had been incorporated into the university in a way that abated students' critical stances and activism, or whether it challenged power.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1495757
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGOjM9IylyQG1q7_e_YhaYBAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPH256M9lUHmInbo4wIBEICBmw5UWPKIfvmyZNmLmYIsHDLkwPpouZoIQN8SuDwD2-fPnofj6LHukIfkyHhCBDKLQS97Z8mZwXVnw5beS4M9NDPrwJmbCAcwBV-A_c7auDQU-fOs9WbLn_S8ww3C0OknY5ooOg9KjuZeRbt4Df1s-V_UXTig6KEjaAPtbFGNNYonqUBKFJz3axk3Xra_11mD4yMHEY7FIQtf9WlO
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191257112;ndh01dec.25;2026Feb03.01:56;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191257112-1">On Being Absorbed: Taking up Dialogic Pedagogy in University Diversity Plans </title> <p>What are we to make of the proliferation of Intergroup Dialogue (IGD) programs for social justice education on college campuses? Though the inception of IGD predates many institutions' diversity plans, increasingly colleges and universities are citing their existing IGD programs in their present‐day plans, as IGDs effectiveness has been well documented. By focusing on the development and implementation of a dialogue‐based education program at an urban, public research university, this study investigated whether IGD had been incorporated into the university in a way that abated students' critical stances and activism, or whether it challenged power.</p> <p>Keywords: diversity; intergroup dialogue; policy; social justice education</p> <hd id="AN0191257112-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Intergroup Dialogue (IGD) was first conceived as an intervention, a response to racial strife on the University of Michigan's campus. Between 1970 and 1987, a series of protests led by Black students at Michigan called the Black Action Movement (BAM) forced the University's administration to respond to students and faculty's legitimate claims of dismal hiring and promotion of faculty of color, police violence and racist provocations made by students. Though much has changed on college campuses since then, we can see that the throughline of struggle persists today: the US Supreme Court's ruling on Affirmative Action keeps the debate on what constitutes effective diversity policy alive (Hartocollis and Saul [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref1">12</reflink>], 13). The ongoing movement against police violence has continued to inspire student activism and whole curriculum changes. At the same time, attacks on anti‐racist pedagogy and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in higher education have been waged across the country (Harper et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref2">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Intergroup Dialogue has endured and grown through each passing decade and amid campus activism. The pedagogy is currently being implemented on over 100 campuses across the country (Gurin, Nagda, & Zuniga, Dialogue Across Difference: Practice, Theory Research on Intergroup Dialogue, Gurin, Nagda, and Zúñiga [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref3">10</reflink>]). The University of Michigan's Program on Intergroup Relations describes IGD as</p> <p>...a pedagogy in which "courses are carefully structured to explore social group identity, conflict, community, and social justice. Each intergroup dialogue involves identity groups defined by race, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic class, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin. Each identity group is represented in the dialogue by a balanced number of student participants, usually 5–7 participants from each group. Trained student facilitators ‐ one from each represented identity group ‐ encourage dialogue rather than debate. Students examine and discuss reading materials that address issues and experiences relevant to the groups in the dialogue, in relation to both the University setting and general society. Facilitators and participants explore similarities and differences among and across groups and strive toward building a multicultural and democratic community. Past dialogues have included gender, race & ethnicity, socio‐economic class, white racial identity, religion, Arab/Jewish relations, international/US relations, sexual orientation, and ableism" (2011).</p> <hd id="AN0191257112-3">Summary</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Intergroup Dialogue (IGD) is a pedagogy that helps students identify and critique systemic oppression while working together across social identity groups toward liberation.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Absorption</emph> of IGD curriculum allows structural racism—and other structuralisms—in institutions of higher education—to persist while administrators tout the benefits of social justice education for students and the university as a whole.</item> <p></p> <item> Those with administrative power in higher education institutions use IGD as a means to produce an image that satisfies Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion plans, while those who are working with the curriculum in classrooms are pushing for more meaningful intervention in pedagogy and policy.</item> </ulist> <p>Research on IGD has typically focused on its effectiveness as an intervention in higher education classrooms designed to: increase students' awareness of social diversity, promote academic study of intergroup relations theory, and encourage their positive interaction with students from different social identity groups (race/ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, religion, gender, and citizenship/national origin). In the 30‐plus years since IGDs inception, the demographic makeup of undergraduate student bodies has changed significantly as a result of the expansion of—and challenges to—affirmative action. As a response to those changes, many institutions have undertaken diversity plans. These plans often address recruitment and retention of students, faculty, and staff from underrepresented minority groups, campus climate concerns, and in some instances, pedagogical interventions intended to increase students' exposure to and surface dissonance that occurs when engaging with racial, socioeconomic, and gender difference, among others (Iverson [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref4">13</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref5">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Though the inception of Intergroup Dialogue predates many institutions' diversity plans, increasingly colleges and universities are citing their existing IGD programs in their present‐day plans, as IGDs effectiveness as a pedagogy has been well documented (Nagda et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref6">17</reflink>]). At the same time, IGD programs on college campuses have been utilizing the resources generated from diversity plans to strengthen and expand their structures and offerings. By focusing on the development and implementation of an IGD‐based education program at UPMU (a fictional acronym for a large, urban, public research university in the Midwest) this study investigated whether IGD had been incorporated into the neoliberal university in a way that disciplined minority student difference, or whether it challenged power (Ferguson [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref8">6</reflink>]; Friedensen [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref9">8</reflink>]; Squire, Nicolazzo, and Prez [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref10">18</reflink>]) Through data gleaned from interviews, participant observation and policy analysis, this study uncovered values embedded in the policy discourse (Ball [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref11">3</reflink>]), pedagogical practices, and instructor/student interactions with the Dialogue Program.</p> <p>In UPMUs' written, public policy documents on diversity, we see a discourse of neoliberal multiculturalism, which is most evident as the documents attempt to sidestep race while promoting diversity (Squire, Nicolazzo, and Prez [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]). Any attempt—either through policy, or through the curriculum—to make the diversity/IGD policy process one that promotes material antiracism is placed outside of the official policy, whether it is virtually erased from the policy through revision, or allowed to exist in the curriculum in places not surveilled by the most powerful at the university.</p> <p>Dialogue Program instructors are most responsible for naming and creating this "break" from policy where the dialogue curriculum is concerned. This break, which is evident in how instructors especially interpret the values of diversity and social justice supports Ferguson's claim that different sites of the inter‐disciplines can be spaces for critically re‐articulating (giving new meaning or expression to) the relationship between minority difference and the academy. University leaders who want to embrace and support IGD (or similar pedagogies) meaningfully while resisting pressure to co‐opt or water down the curriculum's true social justice aims must carefully consider this study's findings and implications.</p> <hd id="AN0191257112-4">Literature Review</hd> <p>To theoretically and conceptually ground this work, a review of the foundational literature on Intergroup Dialogue is needed. Just as necessary is a review of the literature that defines and illuminates how universities can absorb students from marginalized backgrounds and many of the struggles for justice in which they are engaged.</p> <p>Research on IGD supports its effectiveness in increasing students' awareness of social inequality (Gurin, Dey, and Hurtado [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]; Gurin, Nagda, and Zúñiga [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>]). Why and how is it so effective? IGD is rooted in the assumption that intergroup and interpersonal relationships are affected by the histories and current realities of intergroup contact in the United States and that the conflict that arises as these backgrounds and experiences come together can be explored through dialogue (Zúñiga et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref15">22</reflink>]). Its pedagogical practices incorporate "philosophical and cultural traditions that have valued dialogue as a method of communication and inquiry" (Zúñiga and Nagda, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref16">21</reflink>]). IGD follows a rich tradition of practices that scholars concerned with democratic education, such as John Dewey, have hailed as useful. Dewey, while at Teacher's College in the 1930s and 40s, argued that having students work on real‐world problems democratically (through dialogue) would result in a better society (Zúñiga et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref17">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Unlike many academic courses, IGD uses a critical dialogic approach instead of the "banking" model found in most courses across disciplines. In the banking model, it is assumed that the only bearer of knowledge is the teacher and that students know nothing until they are given information. In the critical dialogic model, however, students are thought to enter the classroom with a vast amount of useful—if incomplete—knowledge that they have gained from their experiences inside and outside of the classroom (Freire [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]). Students have something to teach one another, and teachers have something to learn from them. IGDs developers write, "...intergroup dialogue fosters a critical examination of the impact of power relations and social inequality on intergroup relations" (Zúñiga et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref19">22</reflink>]). In IGD, teachers do not just give students knowledge about the various "isms" that exist in society and expect students to accept them without question. Rather, facilitators help students to understand the historical and social factors that shape their social identities. What is more, the students use the newly acquired information, along with personal experiences, to engage in dialogue as a means of challenging themselves and others to create more just environments. Given the uniqueness of IGD and its approach, the measures used to determine if desired outcomes are being obtained are necessary and critical. There are three outcomes that the developers, facilitators, and researchers assess when moving through or evaluating Intergroup Dialogue: intergroup understanding, the building of intergroup relationships, and the fostering of intergroup collaboration. (It is important to note here that one of the most ubiquitous attacks on DEI in higher education is that it is fundamentally divisive. To detractors, DEI initiatives seek to separate students into two categories oppressors and oppressed and make students who are deemed part of the "oppressor" group feel shame about their identities and experiences. Intergroup Dialogue has always focused on <emph>bringing students together across differences</emph> through sound pedagogy that allows students to understand systems of oppression that impact us all while finding connections to those who have different backgrounds and experiences). Though the goal of IGD is to bring diverse groups of students together to work toward social justice, the Dialogue Program can be influenced by the university's demands because it has been incorporated into the public university structure. These demands often include motivations to socialize students for the state. And if the state is fundamentally racist, sexist, homophobic, and classist, we must ask: what role do dialogue courses have in socializing students (or all involved) for that landscape?</p> <p>Katherine Cramer Walsh ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref20">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref21">20</reflink>]) draws upon two models, the <emph>Post Materialist Urban Policy</emph> and <emph>Social Justice Aims</emph> to hypothesize why communities choose to utilize dialogue. the <emph>Post Materialist Urban Policy</emph> model, the economic development of the community (or, in our case, the university) is the main goal of political leaders. In urban settings that are rapidly developing and have a population of people who are relatively materially secure, leadership can focus on the "lifestyle" concerns. Those concerns have mostly to do with private wealth accumulation, but coincide with issues surrounding movements such as environmentalism, reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, and others. As the populations of post‐materialist settings are usually less racially and socio‐economically diverse (they tend to be wealthier and predominately White), the goal of dialogues tends to be about intergroup <emph>understanding</emph>. This means that dialogues about difference can provide these communities assurance that they are grappling with issues of power and privilege, even if there are few people around who are marginalized. It also legitimizes leadership's claim that the community is actively working on intergroup relations. This model pushes us to think about universities as part of—or as—rapidly developing cities whose leadership is looking for a way to respond to activism/struggle/pushback from minority populations, but who also want to develop and maintain prosperity in ways that continue capitalist colonial projects of which they are wittingly or unwittingly a part of.</p> <p>In the <emph>Social Justice Aims</emph> model, intergroup dialogues can be seen as redistributive policy. In this model, intergroup dialogues take place in areas where there are large amounts of resources for racial power or marginalized groups in general. Previous political theory suggests that the interests of marginalized groups are recognized in policy only when those groups have significant political and economic resources (Walsh [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref22">20</reflink>]). Those resources can be financial, but they also rest on representation and activity. High levels of education, large population size, the presence of civil rights organizations, or a strong presence in and control over the media by marginalized groups are a few examples. Therefore, if intergroup dialogue is the result of social justice aims, it would take place in a community in which, among marginalized groups, there are high levels of education, large populations, and/or where the presence of civil rights organizations or media is in their control (Walsh [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref23">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref24">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although there is evidence to suggest that the leadership of UPMU is pursuing dialogue for post‐materialist aims, there is also evidence to suggest that UPMU administrators, faculty, and staff, desired to utilize dialogue for social justice aims. This may be due to their membership in marginalized social groups and their desire to bring about social change. Using these post‐materialist and social justice frames brings into focus the debate over diversity in which dialogue courses at UPMU are situated. Using this framework allows us to see UPMU not only as an institution in a vacuum but as a changing urban institution of higher education. One that is inside of a rapidly changing city grappling with its questions of post‐materialism versus social justice.</p> <p>To investigate how IGD was incorporated into a specific university, UPMU, I looked to Roderick Ferguson's ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>]) work on the inter‐disciplines and their incorporation into the academy following the student movements of the 1960s and 70s. Black and African American Studies, Native American Studies, Women's Studies, Asian American and Latino studies were among the departments and programs that rejected the notion that traditional Western disciplines were the only path to knowledge. The inter‐disciplines necessarily brought new and subversive knowledge to predominately white, male‐dominated, middle‐ and upper‐class institutions. These new departments and programs incubated scholars who would produce invaluable knowledge about and for those previously denied acceptance into these schools, much less legitimation. But just as the inter‐disciplines challenged previous knowledge production, they simultaneously became part of the institutions that determined what was "worthy" of knowing, and what was not. The entrance and development of the inter‐disciplines, along with federal affirmative action policy and new hiring practices at universities did not mark the end of racist patriarchal, homophobic power in the academy, it fundamentally changed power itself: decentralizing, complicating, and diversifying it. While gaining the power necessary to teach the history, language, and culture of those groups who had, until that moment, been barred from the academy represented a triumph of recognition and institutional change, it also meant that the state, with the help of the academy, could discipline those newly recognized groups in the name of statehood. Ferguson quotes Lisa Lowe, stating,</p> <p>Institutionalizing such fields...still contains an inevitable paradox: institutionalization provides a material base within the university for a transformative critique of traditional disciplines and their traditional separations, and yet the institutionalization of any field or curriculum that establishes orthodox objects and methods submits in part to the demands of the university and its educative function of socializing subjects to the state. (Ferguson [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref26">5</reflink>])</p> <p>I used this work for two reasons. First, IGD could be understood as an extension of the inter‐disciplines. Much of its content knowledge around identity groups comes from them. Second, Ferguson explores the relationships between the university, the state, and minority differences. My work focuses on UPMU, which, as a public university, is an arm of the state.</p> <p>Ferguson suggests that in response to the student movements of the 60s, relations of power disciplined social difference in ways that they had not done to such a large degree. As anti‐racist and other social movements put pressure on the government, the state responded by using a strategy called "absorption" ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref27">5</reflink>]). The social protest movements of the time had become untenable for the state and the university and absorbing them made them less of a threat than they were as pure opposition. But absorption meant that the inter‐disciplines became legitimate sites of knowledge production, at least more than they had been previously. They also challenged previous modes of knowledge production as they were incorporated into the university, their existence redefined what was "worthy" of knowing, and what was not.</p> <p>Despite the shift that the entrance and development of the inter‐disciplines introduced, along with federal affirmative action policy and new hiring practices at universities, they did not mark the end of racist, patriarchal, homophobic power in the academy. However, it did fundamentally change power itself by decentralizing, complicating, and diversifying it. While gaining the power necessary to teach the history, language, and culture of those groups who had, been barred from the academy represented a triumph of recognition and institutional change, it also meant that the state, with the help of the academy, could discipline those newly recognized groups in the name of statehood (Ferguson [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref28">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref29">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Ferguson suggests that institutionalization could mean that there was now a network of interdisciplinary programs that could rearticulate the relationship between the academy and minority differences. My work also questions whether the institutionalization of IGD could create the conditions for a network of university spaces that critically rearticulates the relationship between the state, the academy, and minority differences.</p> <p>Jodi Melamed's theory of state‐sanctioned official anti‐racism ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref30">15</reflink>]) also informs this research. Melamed argues that post‐WWII, overt white supremacy was no longer an acceptable ideology. Thus, the state adopted "official anti‐racisms" that allowed the empire to expand while the material basis of racism was kept intact. I look to Melamed's work because she specifically considers the way the academy has shaped these discourses.</p> <p> <emph>Neoliberal multiculturalism</emph>, the historical and contemporary moment, features a discourse that creates and praises the "multicultural global citizen." This citizen is characterized by their "egoistic individualism and self‐enterprise," which translates vaguely into "doing good" for various groups: women, the poor, and so forth. Students increasingly indicate their interest in learning to "communicate across differences," believing that their ability to communicate effectively with people who are not from the United States, who are not cisgender or straight, or who come from low‐income backgrounds, will demonstrate their ability to work in diverse teams, thus increasing their professional prospects. But there is a sense that this benevolence is not only self‐interested but serves as a distraction from growing inequality in the United States. It does not increase students' ability to think critically about the structures that produce racial or economic inequity. Students entering IGD classrooms have been shaped by, and easily relay this discourse. However, the language of neoliberal multiculturalism is also identifiable in the <emph>policy</emph> that legitimizes IGD in the university.</p> <p>Taken together, these theoretical frames provide a basis for my research into the process by which IGD was institutionalized at UPMU through its Diversity Strategic Plan.</p> <hd id="AN0191257112-5">Methodology</hd> <p>In this case study, I draw upon Merriam's conception, which holds that "case studies are a special kind of qualitative work that investigates a contextualized contemporary (as opposed to historical) phenomenon within specified boundaries...a program, an event, a person, a process, an institution, or a social group" ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref31">16</reflink>]). The methods used—interviewing and policy analysis—were best suited to this investigation because they helped to uncover the facts and circumstances surrounding the case in real‐time. Policy‐focused document analysis provided the process for my review of institutional policy reports such as the <emph>Vision for Diversity (Vision)</emph>, <emph>UPMU Transformation</emph>, and <emph>Justice & Equity (J&E)</emph> documents' content, taking into account both their context and subtext. Interviewing people with different kinds of involvement within the UPMU Dialogue Program allowed me to gain a first‐hand perspective on their understanding of the policy and curriculum from these interviews, I analyzed the transcripts and notes and parsed out similarities and differences to highlight meaningful themes and concepts.</p> <p>The goal of this project is to illuminate larger social processes through the exploration of a specific case, so an <emph>extended case study</emph> format is what I decided to pursue. This method "applies reflexive science... to extract the general from the unique, to move from the micro to the macro, and to connect the present to the past in anticipation of the future, all building on preexisting theory" (Burawoy [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]). Extended case studies begin with a dialogue (real or imagined) between the observer (the researcher), the participants, and the institutional setting in which they may be located. The researcher is asking questions of the participants and their environment based on preexisting theory and their observations. The participants help answer those questions based on their knowledge of living and/or working on the site. Each of these approaches was applied to this project, thus reflecting the structure of an extended case study</p> <p>Seventeen semi‐structured interviews were conducted. The interviewees were Dialogue Program facilitators (graduate students and University staff), high‐level administrators at the University (Vice Provosts and deans), and administrators who direct Dialogue programming and teach courses. Each interview and the accompanying notes were transcribed immediately after the interview was completed. The policy documents were being analyzed as interviews were being conducted, focusing on words that came up frequently in the documents, and then coding them into themes. Interview transcripts and policy documents were coded a second time to refine the themes, then a third time, to find words, phrases, and ideas that contradicted earlier themes. Curriculum documents then, were coded, first maintaining themes that had come up in the interview and policy documents and then again for deviations, nuances, and contradictions. While writing up the findings, I revisited the policy documents and interview transcriptions, including the UPMU Diversity Strategic Planning (DSP) documents, <emph>Vision</emph>, <emph>Transformation</emph>, and <emph>J&E</emph>, several times as the analysis appeared unclear or contradictory.</p> <p>Ball ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>]) describes policy not only as actual text but as discourse and the effects produced by that discourse. In the case of the Dialogue Program at UPMU, this meant that the official documents circulated around (and outside) the campus, the administrator and faculty committee meetings, recorded and unofficial conversations about IGD at UPMU, and what happened in Dialogue Program classrooms, were all part of the policy process.</p> <hd id="AN0191257112-6">Results</hd> <p>In the case of UPMU, the Dialogue Program did not grow out of student protest as it did at the University of Michigan and some others. Instead, the concept of Intergroup Dialogue was initiated at the highest levels of administration and was not presented as a choice to faculty. Senior administrators passed the task of developing IGD on to people (Office of Diversity and Student Affairs staff members with less power) who would make, create, write, and teach the curriculum, to undergraduate students at UPMU. These staff members, however, would still have to submit their curriculum to a committee (controlled by faculty on the various policy committees) to have the class adopted by the university's varied colleges. It is easy to see how this process could have created challenges for the acceptance of dialogue courses by the faculty. What is more, the attempt to circumvent the standard academic policy and program approval processes could have stifled the full authentic dialogue that may have made the initiative more acceptable and supported. Only some of the faculty committees in each of the colleges approved the courses. Thus, IGD courses are a requirement for only a few hundred incoming students each year.</p> <p>The resultant first‐year IGD course, UC 123, is an 8‐week, one‐credit course facilitated by instructors. This is a significant departure from traditional (Michigan model) IGD courses, which usually account for 3 credit hours, meet each week for a full semester (approximately 16 weeks), and are co‐facilitated by two trained undergraduates. Following the Chancellor's charge to create a first‐year dialogue course, administrators decided that an 8‐week, one‐credit course taught by one person would be preferable to a full‐semester requirement. As Kimberly, an administrator for first‐year initiatives at UPMU, said,</p> <p>...dialogue was not brought here initially for students. It was brought here for ...faculty and staff. And so, you know, it's like it was brought here to affect change at the highest of levels and then was co‐opted into... ...it crystallized for me even more that we were willing to have this conversation about diversity and have this conversation at the highest levels about what diversity should mean...but we're also far more willing to do that for our students than we were for ourselves. And that's not acceptable. It's not fundamentally acceptable.</p> <p>Kimberly's statement alludes to the University's ability to take on an initiative that seems to resonate with the values it promotes while manipulating that initiative in a way that does not challenge UMPUs existing structure. To some, IGD at UPMU for students could have seemed to appear spontaneously. What Kimberly tells us is that some senior administrators felt that having their peers discuss issues of identity, power, and privilege among themselves would be a valuable task. But their colleagues who disagreed prevailed, and the initiative was cut down and passed on to staff, and then to students. Diversity as a value was being promoted as one that should and would through the DSP process—be embraced in every corner, and at every level, of the university. What we see, however, is a changing of terms upon which this diversity initiative would be adopted, an act of <bold>absorption</bold>. Roderick Ferguson ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref34">5</reflink>]) writes,</p> <p>...state institutions within the United States responded to political pressures of anti‐racist movements by, in part, adopting policies of absorption...Indeed, in its absorptive capacities, the state becomes a sub‐archive that "documents" past struggles and thus achieves power through control of that broad assemblage of documents" known as "the student movements.</p> <p>Instead of developing IGD at UPMU as a response to student demands for a social‐justice‐oriented curriculum, UMPU could "document" students' engagement in the anti‐racism movement (among others) by incorporating IGD into the university. The incorporated version would be fashioned less as a way to seriously take up the university's furtherance of systems of oppression, and more to appease some students, faculty, and staff while maintaining the status quo.</p> <p>Intergroup dialogue was promoted as one of the first university‐wide diversity initiatives UPMU would take on when the DSP process began. The University's Diversity Strategic Planning document <emph>UPMU Transformation</emph> declares Intergroup Dialogue an important part of undergraduate education. It states, "UPMU will integrate conversations about student diversity into first‐year student courses and activities such as Intergroup Dialogue, UPMU Experience, and freshman seminars". Fittingly, when faculty, administrators, staff, and students from around the university gathered to begin the DSP process, they felt it necessary to define diversity. About this process Mary, a high‐level administrator in Student Affairs at UPMU, says,</p> <p>I remember there were endless discussions about the definition of diversity and... there was little agreement about how diversity should be defined...I don't recall the specific definition that actually ended up being in the document, but I felt that it was a very benign, watered‐down kind of general sort of... very compromised understanding that didn't really very well represent all the various opinions that were presented.</p> <p>Those lively discussions led to the following definition in <emph>Vision for Diversity</emph>,</p> <p>Diversity has many meanings. Our committee has adopted a working definition that reflects UPMUs firm commitment to inclusion, access, and equity by encompassing groups that have been historically, under‐represented, excluded, marginalized, or otherwise discriminated against in higher education. We borrow from the College of Education in defining diversity as the totality of the ways that people are similar and different, including race, ethnicity, class, gender and sexual orientation and identity, disability, national original and citizenship status, age, language, culture, religion, and economic status, particularly when those similarities and differences are used as a basis for unfair advantage and inequity. (2011)</p> <p>Directly following this paragraph, the statement continues,</p> <p>Identities like gender and sexuality intersect with other identities like race, ethnicity, disabilities, and class. (2011)</p> <p>This definition relies heavily on the representation of social groups in the university. It reasons that historically, there are groups that have been kept out or pushed out of institutions of higher education, so a university committed to diversity must allow people from those groups to enter. Following this definition, a <emph>just</emph> university must make sure that once those who were previously denied are given access, they must be made to feel included, and treated fairly, so that they might achieve the same educational outcomes as their peers. The last paragraph makes a nod to the pitfalls of stereotyping, and gives segregation and a euphemistic spin, making it seem as if the inability of some people to see other people as complex human beings is merely a matter of individual perception and not the result of lifetimes of socialization in oppressive societies. As Mary described, the "watered‐down" definition that appeared in the Vision for Diversity was vague enough to allow for various interpretations of diversity, all the while obscuring the importance of racial justice.</p> <p>As the debates around how UPMU would define diversity and social justice were taking place, IGD was presented as a curricular intervention that would capitalize on the racial and ethnic diversity of the student body. Representational diversity is needed so the university can use it for knowledge production. However, UMPU believed it had already achieved that kind of diversity among its student body. IGD, therefore, could be implemented without the administration having to directly advocate for policies that would continue to <emph>ensure structural diversity</emph>. By incorporating IGD into the university and making it a part of the DSP, UPMU could take advantage of the curriculum's benefits without directly addressing the racial injustice that created a need for redistributive policies that would expand access to higher education for marginalized populations (Friedensen [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref35">8</reflink>]). Kimberly says,</p> <p>I thought [IGD] was an excellent idea, partly because it allowed you to think about 'how do you leverage diversity, right?' So, you know, there's these layers to diversity, there's the structural aspect which is about what is the numerical numbers in a particular context, and then there's the dimension around interactional institutional diversity that says, counting the bodies isn't enough. There has to if we're talking about the educational benefit of diversity, there have to be these other layers. There have to be curricular and co‐curricular opportunities in experiences that engage diversity, and I saw dialogue as a vehicle for doing that. So, I was excited when I heard about it.</p> <p>A point of emphasis is that a conversation about diversity became one about the racial and ethnic diversity UPMU <emph>already</emph> has. Praising the benefits of interactional diversity for the whole educational community obscures the fact that representational racial diversity has not led to equity.</p> <p>The fact that the UPMU student body was already racially and ethnically diverse was used by those at the highest levels of administration as a way to sidestep issues around racial parity in other areas of the university. But those involved with IGD as the most intimate, those who write the curriculum and teach it, are not sidestepping race. The strongest piece of evidence to support that claim is the focus of the full‐length dialogue course, HC 145: Intergroup Dialogue in Race & Gender. It is primarily about race and its intersections with gender. Students spend time locating themselves within racial groups and gender groups, and understanding how those identity groups are positioned in relation to others. They learn about the impact that identification with those social identity groups has on their relationships with others within and outside of their groups. For those who have the power to shape what goes on in the classroom and connect with students, diversity is politicized, it is historicized, and race is explicitly addressed. Just as the <emph>J&E</emph> document, which named racism and linked diversity to justice, was set outside of the official policy documents on diversity, so are some parts of the IGD curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0191257112-7">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study proposed and explored the question: What theories and values underlie the Dialogue Program process at UPMU?</p> <p>The policy document analysis revealed that UPMUs written public policy documents on diversity contain and create a discourse of neoliberal multiculturalism, which is most evident as the documents attempt to sidestep racial justice while promoting diversity. The rhetoric of liberal multiculturalism appears in the official documents and the responses of the interviewees at the highest levels of administration. Other official anti‐racist discourses (Melamed [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref36">15</reflink>]) are present in policy documents, and in the Dialogue Program course curriculum, but they are placed outside of the official policy, whether they are erased from the policy through revision, or only allowed to exist in the curriculum in places not surveilled by the most powerful University structures.</p> <p>Powerfully, the Dialogue Program instructors are responsible for creating a "break" from policy where the dialogue curriculum is concerned. They do this by rewriting the curriculum in a way that focuses on the students in their classes and the effects that the social movements happening in the current moment have on them. This break, which is evident in the ways that instructors interpret the values of diversity, social justice, and relationship with the surrounding city, supports Ferguson's argument that various sites of the inter‐disciplines can be part of a network of locations that are re‐defining the university's relationship to diversity. Though UPMU attempts to act as an archival institution, the incorporation of Intergroup Dialogue is not total. There is the potential for IGD at UPMU to be a critical site of re‐articulation: a program in which students and faculty, through their participation in liberatory intergroup dialogue pedagogy, change how the university relates to members of the campus community who belong to marginalized groups.</p> <p>Additionally, Ferguson's theory of incorporation inspires thought around the consequences of IGD incorporation into the university. While IGD can provide an opportunity for a critical re‐articulation of minority differences, it is not a given. The policy documents analyzed, and the interviews of powerful administrators demonstrate that the university's archival power is strong. By reading the documents, we "watched" the process of absorption happen: the language that promotes anti‐racist action disappears, and the curriculum that was crafted to surface conflict to promote social change becomes didactic and palliative. We see that for Intergroup Dialogue to operate as a re‐articulation of minority differences within the neoliberal university, instructors have to be conscious of the threat that neoliberalism presents to their curriculum and way of teaching. They also have to commit to the anti‐oppressive, liberatory values of IGD pedagogy, and remain willing to craft the curriculum and teach in a way that reflects those values.</p> <p>While it would be a gross overstatement to say that UPMU has achieved some kind of racial equity, the undergraduate student body indeed includes many students of color, many immigrant students, many undocumented students, many working‐class students, and many first‐generation college students. But a result of that access is the adoption of the idea by some of these students from marginalized groups that, as the DSP document stated, "racism and sexism are dead and buried". Students have not pulled this idea out of thin air. They have been socialized in, and are constantly being socialized in—neoliberal spaces that push color‐blind, meritocratic ideology on them. IGD curriculum has included a section on affirmative action as a part of its race dialogues since its inception. At UPMU, the dialogue instructors responded to the worldview with which students were entering the classroom by building a section on meritocracy into the curriculum.</p> <p>Students prepare for the section by reading Michael Omi's "Racial identity and the state: The dilemmas of classification" and excerpts from <emph>The Twilight of the Elites</emph> by Chris Hayes. Once in class, they unpack the concepts of race and ethnicity together. At this point in the term, the students have already learned that race and ethnicity are socially constructed, but after having read the article, they can talk more about who has the power to determine who belongs to certain racial and ethnic categories, and how those designations impact their material and psychological experiences. They discuss racism as a system of subordination and then connect that to learning about how race impacts schooling. In class, the students watch videos about public school students in America, and the different kinds and amounts of opportunities students are given as a function of race, ethnicity class, and geography. They close the unit with a dialogue about their own educational trajectories and how they understand their own race and ethnicity to have impacted them, even as they matriculated at UPMU. Some of their discussion questions include:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What is social mobility? How does one achieve it?</item> <p></p> <item> What is merit?</item> <p></p> <item> Given what we have read and what we have viewed, does all hard work result in the achievement of one's goals? If not, why not? How do you think is this connected to your racial and ethnic group membership (your racial and ethnic identities)?</item> <p></p> <item> How do our readings and media clips support—or challenge—your own experience? Where did you, or did not you, see yourself in the readings and videos? How do you think your membership in your racial/ethnic group impacts what you have experienced in elementary school, high school, and now in college? (2014)</item> </ulist> <p>This section is important because the students are encouraged to question some of the values that they have been bombarded with and think critically about how exactly they arrived at college and what that means. As it relates to diversity and dialogue at UPMU, the class is helping students think critically about the racially diverse educational space in which they have found themselves, not simply asking them to celebrate the fact that they have all made it to college.</p> <p>In this way, Intergroup Dialogue pedagogy and programs create an avenue for challenging institutional power structures.</p> <p>Theory about the neoliberal university and its treatment of students, staff, and faculty from marginalized groups would support the claim that the Dialogue Program at UPMU is an effort on the part of university administrators to market itself as an institution that is concerned with representational diversity while doing relatively little to advance social justice, redistribute resources or power (Ahmed [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>]; Abrica and Oliver Andrew, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref38">1</reflink>]; Squire, Nicolazzo, and Prez [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref39">18</reflink>]). It suggests that the institution capitalizes on the presence of students from marginalized groups in a way that satiates the desires of privileged students to "experience difference" (Melamed [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref40">15</reflink>]; Walsh [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref41">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, the research suggests that the Dialogue Program is a contested space. Different actors' positions relative to the Program have an important impact on how they understand Dialogue and what it can/should achieve. While there is no doubt that the social justice aims of Dialogue are compromised within the neoliberal university, Dialogue facilitators at the local implementation level have a substantive impact on the outcomes of Dialogue. They thus can have a meaningful impact on policy. Importantly, those who create, instruct, and facilitate dialogue curricula are responding to the attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) even as Intergroup Dialogue resists being incorporated into performative DEI work. At its best, sound intergroup dialogue pedagogy underscores and furthers the critical thinking skills and holistic understanding of social groups and processes that are a fundamental part of many disciplines in higher education. What is more, Intergroup Dialogue's theoretical foundations lie in disciplines like social psychology that have long since demonstrated that diversity provides an <emph>educational benefit</emph> for students. It would behoove university leaders to figure out how to support intergroup dialogue in a more subversive way on campus, using its designation as a best practice to bolster its expansion into more justice‐focused spaces and to support a resurgence of research on its utility and impact in the current moment.</p> <hd id="AN0191257112-8">Acknowledgment</hd> <p>The author is appreciative of Amber M. Abram, who served as the Editor in the manuscript review process for publication.</p> <hd id="AN0191257112-9">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The author declares no conflicts of interest.</p> <ref id="AN0191257112-10"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref38" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abrica, E. J., and R. Oliver Andrew. 2024. " The Racial Politics of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Work." Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 1 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref37" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ahmed, S. 2012. On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham, New York : Duke University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref11" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, S. J. 1993. " What Is Policy? Texts, Trajectories, and Toolboxes." Australian Journal of Education Studies 13, no. 2 : 10 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref32" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Burawoy, M. 1998. " The Extended Case Method." Sociological Theory 16, no. 1 : 4 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref7" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ferguson, R. A. 2012. The Reorder of Things: The University and Its Pedagogies of Minority Difference. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref8" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ferguson, R. A. 2017. We Demand: The University and Student Protests. Oakland : University of California Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref18" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York : Continuum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref9" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Friedensen, R. E. 2024. " Disciplining Diversity: Bureaucracy and the Reach of Institutional Policy." Philosophy and Theory in Higher Education 6, no. 1 : 31 – 51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Gurin, P., E. Dey, and S. G. Hurtado. 2002. " Diversity and Higher Education: Theory and Impact on Educational Outcomes." Harvard Educational Review 72, no. 3 : 330 – 367.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gurin, P., B. R. A. Nagda, and X. Zúñiga. 2013. Dialogue Across Difference: Practice, Theory, and Research on Intergroup Dialogue. New York : Russell Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harper, S., and Associates. 2024. Truths About DEI on College Campuses: Evidence‐Based Expert Responses to Politicized Misinformation. Los Angeles : University of Southern California Race and Equity Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hartocollis, A., and S. Saul. 2024, September 13. " Affirmative Action Was Banned. What Happened Next Was Confusing." The New York Times, 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iverson, S. V. 2007. " Camouflaging Power and Privilege: A Critical Race Analysis of University Diversity Policies." Educational Administration Quarterly 43, no. 5 : 586 – 611.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iverson, S. V. 2012. " Constructing Outsiders: The Discursive Framing of Access in University Diversity Policies." Review of Higher Education 35, no. 2 : 149 – 177.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Melamed, J. 2011. Represent and Destroy: Rationalizing Violence in the New Racial Capitalism. Minneapolis : U of Minnesota Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merriam, S. B. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded From" Case Study Research in Education". San Francisco : Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagda, B. A., P. Gurin, N. Sorensen, and X. Zúñiga. 2009. " Evaluating Intergroup Dialogue: Engaging Diversity for Personal and Social Responsibility." Diversity & Democracy 12, no. 1 : 4 – 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Squire, D., Z. Nicolazzo, and R. J. Prez. 2019. " Institutional Response as Non‐Performative: What University Communications (Don‟t) Say About Movements Towards Justice." Review of Higher Education 42, no. 2019 : 109 – 133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsh, K. 2006. " Communities, Race and Talk: An Analysis of the Occurrence of Civil Intergroup Dialogue Programs." Journal of Politics 68, no. 1 : 22 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsh, K. C. 2007. Talking About Race: Community Dialogues and the Politics of Difference. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zúñiga, X., and B. A. Nagda. 2001. " Design Considerations in Intergroup Dialogue." Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community and Workplace 306 – 327.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zúñiga, X., B. R. A. Nagda, M. Chesler, and A. Cytron‐Walker. 2007. " Intergroup Dialogue in Higher Education: Meaningful Learning About Social Justice." ASHE Higher Education Report 32, no. 4 : 1 – 128.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Stephanie D. Hicks</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref31"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1495757
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: On Being Absorbed: Taking up Dialogic Pedagogy in University Diversity Plans
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stephanie+D%2E+Hicks%22">Stephanie D. Hicks</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3734-2133">0009-0000-3734-2133</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22New+Directions+for+Higher+Education%22"><i>New Directions for Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 (212):33-40.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 8
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Administration%22">College Administration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Planning%22">Educational Planning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Diversity+%28Institutional%29%22">Diversity (Institutional)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intergroup+Relations%22">Intergroup Relations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Justice%22">Social Justice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Urban+Universities%22">Urban Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Universities%22">Research Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Development%22">Program Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Implementation%22">Program Implementation</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/he.20521
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0271-0560<br />1536-0741
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: What are we to make of the proliferation of Intergroup Dialogue (IGD) programs for social justice education on college campuses? Though the inception of IGD predates many institutions' diversity plans, increasingly colleges and universities are citing their existing IGD programs in their present-day plans, as IGDs effectiveness has been well documented. By focusing on the development and implementation of a dialogue-based education program at an urban, public research university, this study investigated whether IGD had been incorporated into the university in a way that abated students' critical stances and activism, or whether it challenged power.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1495757
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1495757
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/he.20521
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 8
        StartPage: 33
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: College Administration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Planning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Diversity (Institutional)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intergroup Relations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Justice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Urban Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Implementation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: On Being Absorbed: Taking up Dialogic Pedagogy in University Diversity Plans
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stephanie D. Hicks
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0271-0560
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1536-0741
          Numbering:
            – Type: issue
              Value: 212
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: New Directions for Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1