Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE
Introduction
As a white woman who grew up just outside of North Minneapolis I felt I had been
exposed to diversity and never considered myself to be racist or hold prejudice. My family and
friends never really discussed race and if there was discussion most conversations started with
Im not racist but... or thats not an appropriate topic. In my experiences, racial discourse is
often avoided. Discussing race meant that you viewed others differently, which ultimately made
you racist. I was conditioned to believe in the bootstrap mentality. People assume that
because we are post-civil rights that we must be equal. These behaviors express colorblindness
and fear of being labeled. Colorblindness fails to acknowledge that inequities and prejudice
From our public schools where students of color are too often confined to racially
isolated, underfunded, and inferior programs, to our criminal justice system that
the starkly segregated world of housing, the dream of full equality remains an elusive
Racial discrimination and prejudice has become more apparent over the last few years with the
crimes and the 2016 election. Glaude (2016) writes Our conversations fail because we refuse to
accept what such conversations demand: an honest reckoning with the ugliness of who we are
and the racial habits and fears that animate our way of life (para.12). I truly believe we cannot
move forward until we take the time to have honest conversations, examining prejudices and
ideology that suggests that by pretending we dont notice race it will end racism (p. 106). This
is a form of racism people use to ignore and erase systematic, historical and cultural
marginalization of people of color. DiAngelo (2011) also discusses white fragility Whites have
not had to build the cognitive or affective skills or develop the stamina that would allow for
constructive engagement across racial divides (p. 60) White people are uncomfortable
discussing race, when they arent even the ones experiencing racial oppression. Luckily there
are organizations working to create opportunities or platforms for individuals to address racism,
and hopefully get over white fragility by providing safe spaces for people to engage in racial
discourse.
Organizations such as the YWCA Mankato, have developed and initiated racial justice
initiatives that include racial dialogue workshops such as Its Time to Talk (IT2T), Confronting
Racism Minnesota Style and other customized training sessions. The mission of the YWCA
Mankato is; dedicated to eliminating racism, empowering women and promoting peace, justice,
freedom and dignity for all. Their programs and workshops are creating spaces for racial
-Its Time to Talk is a trademarked racial dialogue facilitation process that involves
trained facilitators leading small dialogue circles about race and racial justice.
IT2T workshops typically end with a "What's Next?" discussion or handout to provide
guidance on how participants can continue to move forward. (IT2T section, para 1).
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE
This study specifically focuses on racial discourse facilitated at YWCA Mankato IT2T
workshops. This literature review seeks to discover reoccurring behaviors, thoughts and feelings
about racial discourse and the influence and methods of facilitation to answer the question: How
Literature Review
The following reviews existing research discussing racial discourse and facilitation. With
the focus of the study interviewing facilitators from IT2T workshops it was important to review
existing research surrounding racial discourse to see if and how people already engage in racial
discourse outside of facilitation and in what ways. Then additionally it was important to gain
understanding of the influence of facilitated discussions, and specifically the process of circle
dialogue.
Racial discourse takes many different forms and racism hasnt been as overt in the media
until recently during the 2016 election. Racism and racial discourse had been existing through
colorblindness and microaggressions and still does, but has been becoming more overt since the
election. This section of the literature review focuses on reviewing existing patterns of racial
discourse.
Racial Discourse
Powell (2016) discusses the political and racial climate of 2016 in relation to that of
1964. Leading up to the 2016 election, Powell argues both Clinton and Trump lack regard for
black and brown lives the only difference being covert or overt racism. Powell parallels Malcolm
Xs The Ballot or the Bullet 1964 circumstances to that of 2016, the development of the
#BlackLivesMatter movement in response to the unjust killing of black lives; calling on the same
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE
racial consciousness Malcolm X did fifty years ago. Powell encourages us to find strength in one
another. This think piece article highlights the racial tensions that have risen over the past few
years, we cannot move forward without discussion and facilitated racial discourse could help in
Augoustinos and Every (2007) conducted a study analyzing the discursive and linguistic
patterns of everyday talk and formal institutional talk surrounding race, immigration and
multiculturalism within Western liberal democracies. Their study found five patterns of talk;
deracialisation, and liberal arguments for illiberal ends. The speech was not labeled as racist or
not, not but instead reviewed the dialogue to find talk that repeatedly positioned minority out-
groups negatively or rationalized the marginalization and exclusion from majority groups.
Lunds (2006) study took place over two years interviewing student and educator activists in
Canada. The study sought to understand the tendency of avoiding racial discourse by students
and educators and its impact on social justice projects in schools. This denial and avoidance
creates barriers when trying to address the inequity people of color are experiencing. These
interviews created opportunities for self-reflection and Lund in a way, served as a facilitator
creating an opportunity for the discussion. The lack of cultural competency and willingness to
engage by educators ultimately failed their students and their actions to effectively create social
change.
Eliasophs (1999) ethnographic study attempts to discover how people discuss race in
everyday, public conversations. Focusing on the idea of a civil society, which Eliasophs
borrows Walzers (1992) definition, it is neither home nor work, but a third kind of place,
where theorists say that citizens cultivate relationships with a wide range of others, expand their
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE
horizons, and nurture a kind of selfhood that is compatible with an open society (p.480). They
highlight the importance of speech context when discussing topics, and not only what we say but
also when we chose not to say anything. Eliasoph brings the focus back to etiquette, stating
If one pulls the thread of racist conversation out, the whole cloth of American civil
society disintegrates, not because members share a bond of racism, but because they
share the bond of putting race-talk into the category of topics to be avoided by polite
We have been taught when and where to or not to discuss race and far too often it happens
Like Lund (2006), Doanes (2003) study focused on racial discourse related to schools.
Doane conducted a case study that focused on the public discourse of racial issues surrounding
the West Hartford school desegregation during the 1990s. Doane reviewed and analyzed public
statements, letters to the board of education, to the local newspaper and statements made at
public hearings during the process of development, adoption, and implementation of a school
desegregation. This case study focused on analyzing the use of symbols, reasoning devices, and
an assessment of general interpretive frames that members of the general public use to view
racial issues. Doanes research provides evidence of how racial understanding is contested, and
although overt racism may have been on the decline during the 1990s, racism still existed
through the denial of systematic and institutional oppression. The arguments and tactics used by
those opposed to the desegregation are examples of the patterns of talk found in Augoustinos and
In Trawalter and Richensons (2008) study they explored interracial interactions. The
goal of their study was to find out if interracial interactions were as stressful for Black people as
they are for White people and if race-related topics moderated interracial contact stress?
Participants of the study were brought to lab rooms where a white or black interaction partner
joined them and they were given 3 topics to discuss; 1 focused on race and 2 were neutral.
Participants nonverbal behavioral anxiety was compared during race-neutral and race-related
discussions. The results of the study concluded that White participants were more anxious during
interracial contact regardless of the topic, and also were anxious discussing race related topics
even in same-race contact. Black participants had less anxiety when discussing race related
topics than neutral ones in interracial interactions. Although this study only focuses on two races
it provides insight on how majority members have pre-existing anxiety when engaging in racial
discourse. When you are having an interpersonal conversation there typically isnt an agenda.
You move through a conversation naturally which may result in conflict or someone
dominating the conversation. Facilitation provides a space for a conversation that might not
otherwise happen or allow for a level playing field when addressing conflict.
Facilitation
Norander and Galanes (2014) work expands into a community setting. Their study
sought to understand how difference organizes dialogue and maintains community with intent to
encourage further conversations about difference, community and engaged scholarship. They
completed field work of three nonprofit organizations in Springfield, MO after the Chamber of
Commerce developed a strategic priority issue, surrounding the lack of racial and cultural
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE
diversity. The author facilitated conversations about diversity within the 3 organizations over the
course of 18 months. Data was collected through participant observation, in-depth interviews,
and focus groups and thematic analysis was completed. The three themes that emerged where;
difference creates community, difference mobilizes organizing and dialogue, and difference
orders meaning.
engage in discussion the organizations were able to come together and discover their shared
desires and develop shared meaning. Beyer-Hermsen (2001) reviews Saunders book focusing on
sustained dialogue and the public peace process. Beyer-Hermsen emphasizes the importance of
deep listening, and need for sustained dialogue among participants that represent main
perspectives of the community to resolve conflict and states facilitators of dialogue can provide
a safe place for participants and provide examples of how to think through issues in conflict,
whereas participants bring the expertise to deal with deep-rooted conflict and effect change in
their relationship (p.363). The organizations that participated in Norander and Galanes study
were participating in sustained dialogue, they committed to multiple meetings to work out their
differences. Facilitation provides a space for people to come together with the intent to discuss a
topic, allowing everyone an opportunity share their thoughts or experiences and demands active
listening.
Brunson (2000) explains that in order to constructively talk about race and race relation
knowledge of the content area, understand group dynamics, realize the critical importance of
establishing students trust in the teacher, and fostering an open, accepting and non-judgmental
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE
atmosphere. Like Norander and Galanes (2014) it is critical to be knowledgeable about the
facilitated topic and to develop a safe space for open, honest dialogue to take place.
Gordon (2004) provides a detailed explanation of the Wisdom Circle Process, how they
utilize it in their interpersonal communication course and encourages other educators to do the
same. The Wisdom Circle Process begins with an opening ritual to develop a safe container
with a facilitator sharing personal mementos and possibly playing music. Next, the facilitator
introduces guiding questions, every individual will respond to the question, but only the
individual who possesses the talking piece may speak at that time, with cross -talk being avoided
to promote deep listening, ending with a closing ritual; a poem, song, reading or summary
statement is shared as an element of closure. Gordon emphasizes the use of Rodgers person-
centered perspective with the core conditions of warmth, empathy and genuineness as guiding
communication just as the Its Time to Talk workshops seek to do the same; this research
supports the use of circle dialogue as an agent to develop empathy and understanding. Those
facilitating circle dialogue seem to emanate the competencies suggested in the previous article.
Gordon (2006) was able to create this atmosphere by breaking away from traditional
facilitative conditions and Bubers (1970) I-It and I-Thou theoretical infrastructures to explain
The Wisdom Circle process. Additionally, Gordon provides conditions for dialogue to occur,
encouraging those within the field of communication to become facilitators, to bring individuals
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE
from diverse backgrounds together and nurture positive human community to create
transformation.
After working with students for 15 years on race relations Mulvey and Richards (2007)
have also challenged traditional methods. They challenge the usual model of antiracism
education, stating they view it as limiting the possibility of opening minds, developing critical
initiative called the Race Relations Project; students across all disciplines meet to discuss race
issues in small groups. Each group has two facilitators and emphasize the conversational
approach and follow these guidelines; no set agenda, remain neutral towards topics, do not teach
or correct misinformation, treat everyone equally, focus on personal stories not political issues,
work with the feelings of people from all groups, and they are not searching for racists. Their
model closely resembles circle dialogue and it has proven to be effective. Less than 5 percent of
participants evaluated the conversations as not worthwhile, and is a highly regarded project at
Penn state. Mulvey & Richards Race Relations Project initiative provides additional support to
The YWCA Mankato has been hosting Its Time to Talk Workshops (IT2T) in Southern
Minnesota as a part of their Racial Justice Programming. I took an interpretive approach and this
research is a case study interviewing facilitators from the IT2T workshops and their experiences
facilitating racial discourse during circle dialogue. This provides insight specifically related to
The interview participants were recruited through the YWCAs Racial Justice Coordinator.
I met with the coordinator to get an overview of how the workshops are run. The coordinator then
contacted past facilitators through email and invited them to contact me for further information to
set up an interview. I had 3 facilitators get back to me and then requested interviews with 2 YWCA
staff members who have worked as facilitators as well. Ideally, I would have liked to interview as
many of the facilitators as possible to have more saturation of the workshops that have been held
but due to limited time and access to facilitators I conducted a total of 5 interviews.
comments were allowed. They were conducted in-person at local coffee shops, the YWCA office
and over email. The email responses are already transcribed. The in-person interviews were
recorded using an interview recording tool on my personal cell phone in addition to taking detailed
notes of their responses during the time of the interview. The audio files were then uploaded to
drive, and later transcribed. Using Glaser and Strauss (1967) grounded theory, I went through the
interviews and conducted open coding. Corbin and Strauss (1990) in open coding,
events/actions/interactions are compared with others for similarities and differences. They are also
given conceptual labels. In this way, conceptually similar events/actions/interactions are grouped
together to form categories and subcategories (p.12). The responses of each facilitators were
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE
compared to one another to find common behaviors, responses & reactions of participants of the
workshops, how the facilitated discussions differ from other race discussions, descriptions of the
influence of the circle dialogue setting, as well as what they felt their role was as a facilitator.
Results
Role as Facilitator
Facilitators were asked about their role, its importance and how they facilitate. The
interview responses overwhelmingly were in agreement that their role is to simply start the
dialogue and to keep the conversation going, it is not their job to interject personal opinions.
Facilitator # 5 stated I try not to, I dont want to be a teacher, I dont want to try and define things,
I dont want to put ideas in peoples heads. I really just guide the conversation for people to share
their own experiences because its their journey. Their role is not to be an expert but when needed
will engage their groups by sharing an experience to help get the conversation started or to get
them to think deeper. Facilitator # 2 stated weve been trained to not really participate, however,
in this area sometimes we find that if the facilitator doesnt participate a little bit the conversation
stops, people look at us to see what they are supposed to be doing. They are responsible for
developing what they call a safe space by establishing expectations and rules of the circle
dialogue process. Trust is built by allowing everyone an opportunity to talk but also sometimes
requires facilitators to engage in discussion, without that participation the group members are
sometimes hesitant to even begin the conversation out of fear of not knowing what to say.
Facilitators have been trained to not engage in the conversation unless they feel it is necessary. In
addition to keeping the conversation going there are times when the facilitator will step in to
address the use of stereotypes because they want participant to focus on their personal experiences,
they will affirm experiences but will then challenge participants to think deeper. Facilitator # 2
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE
states we usually focus on race so when, and since its an uncomfortable topic people tend to veer
towards -isms by age-ism or socioeconomic status or things like that but we try to bring it right
back to the topic of race. Additionally, their role is to keep the discussion focused on race, so if
they begin to stray away into politics or other -isms they will remind participants that the topic is
race, the color of ones skin. Facilitators also shared that when being a person of color and
facilitating its can be really hard, because the safe space allows individuals to share their
The facilitators really rely on the structure of circle dialogue. Circle dialogue specifically,
forces participants to listen, and prevents domination of the conversation. Facilitator # 3 wrote I
certainly like the structure of the circle dialogue. It prevents anyone from hijacking the
conversation and explaining how the Dakota people used it for problem solving and hearing all
voices really hits people and they get it! The structure of circle dialogue allows facilitators to
foster this safe space where participants can share their experiences honestly without there being
a right or wrong answer even when others may disagree. Interviewee # 1 stated I think the process
of the dialogue is so key, and also its really trains you to listen because you dont get to speak until
it (the talking piece) comes back around. Everyone has the opportunity to share their opinions
Facilitators expressed how the circle dialogue process creates a different environment for
racial discourse in that it really is more of a conversation. Normally when discussing a topic we
listen to respond, rather than listening to understand or to hear what that person is really saying.
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE
Facilitator # 2 stated
Just with circle dialogue itself and like I said just taking turns and sharing of ideas forces
you to listen to other peoples opinions an focuses you to internalize and see how they do
or dont match with your own and why or what you can do with that I think when in
circle dialogue it is a safe space where you can have different opinions and its okay, we
Race is a topic that is often difficult to discuss and can result in arguments but circle dialogue
really prevents confrontation. You are forced to listen until it is your turn to speak, you are allowed
to share your honest feelings and experiences because a safe space has been created. Participants
are allowed to share prejudices in the circle where they may not be so honest in public or personal
conversations.
Additionally, facilitators were asked if there were any reoccurring reactions, comments or
behaviors they have witnessed while facilitating. Every one of the facilitators interviewed stated
they experience denial from participants. Facilitator # 4 stated Denial that racism exists, that there
is no problem in our community and our society in general. Denying having any experiences or
seeing any situation that someone has been discriminated against. Denial and consistent
responses of using the golden rule; treating others how you want to be treated, simply not
wanting to talk out of fear of saying the wrong thing or being labeled racist, participants look to
it depends on your audience; some people are much further along on their journey then
others. You dont know what you dont know and so there have been a handful of tables
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE
where racism doesnt exist, or I dont see it, or that cant happen here or you know, a lot
of denial. Thats not always, it just really depends on the audience and how far along they
Although facilitators experience a lack of engagement or denial of there being race issues,
having these conversations allowed participants an opportunity to view things from other
perspectives, one engaged by the facilitator. This shows just how important the role of the
facilitator is, and how without the circle dialogue structure and process racial dialogue, racial
Conclusion
The patterns that Augoustinos and Every (2007) found were present in the facilitated
deracialisation by veering off to other -isms were all reoccurring behaviors. But racism exists
institutionally. Facilitated racial discourse, and specifically Its Time to Talk workshops have
created safe spaces for individuals to come together to discuss their experiences regardless of
how they feel. Circle dialogue specially allows opportunities to combat white fragility and fear
of confrontation due to the nature of the process of circle dialogue. Everyone has an opportunity
to share, no one can interrupt, and you can only speak when you have the talking stick.
Facilitators are required to hold participants accountable to adhearing to the conditions and
expectations of the dialogue while also helping guide the conversation and encouraging
participants to dig deeper. Where racial discourse may not have otherwise been engaged in for
being seen as a as a taboo topic the IT2T workshops provide a platform to discuss. Although a
great first step in attempting to eliminate racism, these conversations are just that, conversations
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE
Many of the facilitators added that they would like to see more conversations, measurement of
impact and outcome, and how we can hold each other accountable for continuing to have these
discussions. This study was limited to the perceptions of the facilitators own influence on racial
discourse for further research I would recommend interviewing participants to understand how
they feel the facilitation influenced their participation and engagement compared to other
References
Trawalter, S. & Richenson, J. A. (2008). Lets talk about race, baby! When whites and blacks
interracial contact experiences diverge. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44,
1214-1217.
Powell, K. J. (2016). The year of the ballot or the bullet: A discussion of Race, Revolution,
and the 2016 Election. Womens Studies in Communication, 39(4), 370-374.