Diasporas in dialogue : community reconciliation in worldwide refugee communities 9781119129783, 1119129788, 9781119129813, 1119129818

Citation preview

Praise for Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities Feeling overwhelmed by the scale and complexity of global problems, such as war, genocide, and the growing tide of refugees? Do not give up hope. Here is a simple and accessible account of how, step by step, the process of healing communities and rebuilding a better world can begin. When refugees reach a new home it is not the end of their journey. They bring with them not only gratitude for refuge, but also the wounds of war and old enmities. This book shows how diaspora communities can be engaged in dialogue that heals, reconciles, and builds peace. – Di Bretherton, Adjunct Professor, The University of Queensland The multiple authors of this book modestly call it a “manual.” It is indeed a manual – guiding readers in a series of detailed, well-organized, and accessible chapters through the logic and methodology of intercommunal dialogue. But it is much more than this. It tells the story of the Diaspora Dialogue Project between 2007 and 2012, based in Portland, a remarkable collaboration between university researchers and students and African community activists committed to helping recently arrived refugees, mainly from the Great Lakes region of Africa, in their resettlement. These are refugees fleeing mass violence and genocide, and not surprisingly they bring with them the identity-based, national and tribal, enmities that were the cause of their plight. Victims and perpetrators, sometime both at once, they now find themselves in a strange land as refugees sharing the same space and most of the same challenges of their new lives. The Dialogue aimed to bring these individuals, bearing their scars and wounds and traumas, together to build trust despite the violence of their shared history. Readers will learn about dialogue structure and process but, more than any manual, also about the theories – of culture, identity, transitions, and power – that underlie any dialogue of this sort that hopes to succeed. – Kevin Avruch, Dean, Henry Hart Rice Professor of Conflict Resolution, Professor of Anthropology, School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University As a former refugee from the traumatized war-torn country of Somalia, I can deeply identify myself with the three stages (ending, transition, and beginning) which new arrivals undergo during their settlement in their new countries. This book offers very creative and insightful models of dialogue, reconciliation, and social healing for African Diaspora from conflict zones and it can also be applied to other migrants with a similar experience. – Dr. Yusuf Sheikh Omar, Global Advisor for Global Reconciliation, Australia Dr. Tint and the entire DDP team deliver an indispensable guide for those seeking to lead or participate effectively in dialogue processes, especially in ethnically diverse communities. This text comes at a critical time, as deeper and persistent dialogue efforts are required to manage the challenges posed by mass displacement, refugee movements, and immigration. – Dr. Susan S. Raines, Editor, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Professor of Conflict Management, Kennesaw State University

Diasporas in Dialogue is a comprehensive guide for helping new arrivals, and those who receive them, find ways to build resilience and thriving relations. It offers helpful frameworks and practical tools that will be useful in many newcomer-receiving contexts. I recommend it with enthusiasm. – Michelle LeBaron B.A. J.D. M.A., Professor and dispute resolution scholar, Allard School of Law, The University of British Columbia I congratulate and applaud the work of Dr. Tint and the DDP team. For close to 40 years, I have had the good fortune of working closely with refugee newcomers in their struggles to rebuild their lives here in America. The book offers many valuable tools for dialogue, insights, and perspectives for newcomers in their journeys of peace and reconciliation. I recommend this book highly to anyone involved with refugee resettlement processes. – Salah Ansary, Regional Director, Refugee Resettlement Services, Lutheran Community Services Northwest This useful combination of theory and practice offers a valuable resource at a time when the movement of people is at a peak across the globe, and people are facing increasing divides in their own and others’ societies. The authors’ willingness to share their insight and experience gives us the opportunity to learn more and to apply their very practical wisdom in our own contexts as we work to build peace amongst individuals, families, communities, and societies. – Jonathan Dudding, Institute of Cultural Affairs, UK Life is a challenge as well as a lesson always, but it is beautiful to see the bonding of different cultures, values, and norms for a peaceful cohabitation. The work in this book is a great contribution to building a peaceful global village. – Higiro Issa, President, Rwanda Centre for Council, Kigali, Rwanda

Diasporas

in Dialogue

Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities

Edited by Barbara Tint

This edition first published 2017 © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Registered Office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148–5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley‐blackwell. The right of Barbara Tint to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data Name: Tint, Barbara. Title: Diasporas in dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities / by Barbara Tint. Description: Chichester, UK; Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, 2017. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016034789 | ISBN 9781119129769 (cloth) | ISBN 9781119129776 (pbk.) | ISBN 9781119129783 (pdf) | ISBN 9781119129806 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Refugees. | Transnationalism. | Communication in human geography. | Reconciliation. | Community psychology. | Emigration and immigration–Psychological aspects. | Emigration and immigration–Social aspects. Classification: LCC JV6346 .T56 2017 | DDC 305.9/06914–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016034789 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Cover design by Wiley Set in 10.5/13pt Minion by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Contents About the Authors vii xi About the Partners Foreword by Paula Green xiii Foreword by Mette Brogden xvi Preface xviii Acknowledgments xxii 01 Diaspora Stories: Endings Marie Abijuru and Rukia Mohammed

1

02 Diaspora Populations Barbara Tint, Caroline Sarkis, Sa’eed Mohamed Haji, Vincent Chirimwami, and Carmina Rinker Lass

6

03 The Transition Framework Diana Bianco, Barbara Tint, and Roland Clarke

23

04 Recruitment Daniel Amine, Barbara Tint, and Mindy Johnston

40

05 Cultural Considerations Caroline Sarkis, Barbara Tint, Gloria Ngezaho, Roland Clarke, and Mindy Johnston

48

06 Dialogue Barbara Tint, Julie Koehler, Mary Lind, Vincent Chirimwami, Roland Clarke, and Mindy Johnston

62

07 Evaluation Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

131

08 Implications for Policy Roland Clarke and Djimet Dogo

169

vi Contents 09 Diaspora Stories: New Beginnings Rukia Mohammed and Marie Abijuru

172

10 Closing Reflections Djimet Dogo and Barbara Tint

176

Bibliography184 Index194

About the Authors If people come together, they can even mend a crack in the sky.

— Somali Proverb

Marie Abijuru is a U.S. citizen from Rwanda. She is currently working at the Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization (IRCO), and she volunteers with Resolutions Northwest, a unique organization providing a wide range of mediation and facilitation services to help Portland area community members find solutions to conflict. She was one of the first participants when the African Diaspora Dialogue Project was launched, and served as a facilitator for the second group from the Great Lakes. Marie’s dream is to speak out for peace and justice, and to help refugees and immigrants to feel at home and work together for their success. Marie was named Person of the Year in 2009 by the Rwandan community. Daniel Amine is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. He did both undergraduate and graduate studies, in business administration and conflict resolution respectively, at Portland State University. He dedicates his time and energy to bridging gaps between cultures and building relationships among different immigrant groups struggling for justice and equality. He formerly worked at IRCO/ Africa House and was a member of the State of Oregon refugee advisory council. Diana Bianco has almost 20 years of experience in policy development, management, advocacy, community relations, and communications. She has practiced law, directed issue campaigns, and provided guidance and strategic direction to nonprofits and government agencies. Through Artemis Consulting, Diana helps clients analyze and manage policy and program direction, improve communication and collaboration through conflict resolution and facilitation of meetings, and devise advocacy strategies. Diana is a certified Transitions Coach and, working with the Andrus Family Fund, helps organizations apply the William Bridges’ Transition Framework to community reconciliation efforts and foster care programs. Vincent Chirimwami is a native of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He arrived in the United States in 2004 and lives in Beaverton, Oregon. Vincent is a

viii

About the Authors

licensed special education teacher and community dialogue facilitator. He holds two master’s degrees in education and conflict resolution from Portland State University. His education hasn’t stopped there, as he continues to work on his doctorate (PhD) degree in public policy and administration with a focus on public management and leadership at Walden University, Minneapolis. Vincent was a participant in the first round of ADDP dialogues, and went on to become a facilitator in the second round. Roland Clarke is a native of Liberia, West Africa. He is currently conducting his PhD dissertation study on citizen participation and decentralization policy of Liberia and expects to graduate in 2017 from Walden University, Minneapolis, majoring in public policy and administration. In 2010, Roland earned an MA in conflict resolution from Portland State University, and in 1998, an MS degree in counseling and clinical education from Christian Theological Seminary, Indiana. Furthermore, in 1994, he earned a BSc in counseling from the United Methodist University in Liberia. Professionally, he is working and has worked as a consultant for many organizations as follows: Associates for Peace and Development, African Diaspora Dialogue Project, USA, Program Learning Group/ChildFund, Liberia, Plan International, Liberia, Peacebuilding Office/UNDP, and Ministry of Health, Liberia. He also served as Dean of Student Affairs at the United Methodist University in Liberia for three years. His expertise and skills include dialogue, community reconciliation and transitions facilitation, program management, advocacy, policy formulation, and academic research. His passion is in research and building capacity. Djimet Dogo is currently the Manager of IRCO/Africa House, a one‐stop service center that provides an array of services for African immigrants and refugees in Portland, Oregon. Prior to coming to the United States, Djimet ran Chad‐ Nonviolence, a human rights organization in Chad focused on bringing warring groups together. In Portland, Djimet draws upon his experience as a human rights activist in Africa to seek assistance for Portland’s growing African refugee population. Djimet holds a master’s degree in public administration, a BA in communication, and a BA in liberal arts from Portland State University; a BA in English from the University of Chad; and degrees in peace, human rights, and conflict resolution from Austria and France. Mindy Johnston has an MS in conflict resolution from Portland State University where she became very involved in restorative justice work with incarcerated men. Mindy currently supervises the Crime Victim Advocacy Program at Lutheran Community Services Northwest, a program she developed in both Vancouver, Washington and Portland, Oregon. She also manages the Reception and Placement Program, which resettles refugees in Clark County, Washington. Mindy lived in Java, Indonesia for four years, studying traditional music and language, followed by further language study at the University of Wisconsin’s Southeast Asian Studies Summer Institute. Mindy directs Portland’s only Javanese gamelan ensemble and has started a nonprofit organization called Gamelan Rakyat (meaning Gamelan for



About the Authors

ix

the People), with the hopes of taking gamelan into prisons and other disadvantaged communities. Julie Koehler works at Mercy Corps on curriculum development, training, facilitation, and youth development. She has been a member of the Mercy Corps Gender Working Group for over three years. While at Mercy Corps she has delivered workshops on humanitarian negotiation in Afghanistan and Guatemala, advocacy and good governance in Mongolia, and do no harm. She has also participated in evaluations of programming in China, proposal review across Mercy Corps countries, and internal gender resource development. Julie teaches a course on gender and international development through the Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies program at Portland State University. She also serves as league mediator for the local women’s roller derby league, the Rose City Rollers. She is completing her master’s degree in conflict resolution at Portland State University with a focus on gender, cross‐cultural communication, and peace education. Mary Lind currently serves Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) employees as Conflict Management Specialist/Senior Trainer. She offers classes, coaching, and custom interventions for groups, teams, and individuals focused on effective approaches to workplace conflict. Since 2002, Mary has served as mediator, facilitator, instructor, and coach in a variety of community, workplace, and international settings. Mary earned an MA in peace education from UPEACE and an MS in adult education/ conflict resolution from Portland State University (PSU). She taught graduate and undergraduate students at PSU for eight years, and taught faculty and students at PSU, UPEACE, and the Indianapolis Peace Institute. Her background in international education and interethnic dialogue facilitation shaped her conflict resolution practice and teaching, believing every conflict is an intercultural conflict, and every person is best qualified to address their conflict with others. Sa’eed Mohamed Haji is a native of Somalia. He lived in Kenya from 1996–1998 as a refugee immigrant. He came to the United States in February 1998, with no knowledge of English, and Portland Community College in Oregon was the first formal school he had ever enrolled in. In 2004, six years after his arrival in the United States, Sa’eed earned a bachelor’s degree in political science from Portland State University (PSU). In June 2010 he completed a graduate degree in conflict resolution at PSU. Rukia Mohammed was born in Somalia and raised in Kenya. She is an active member of the Somali Bantu community and served as a secretary of the Portland Somali Bantu community organization. She was a participant in the first ADDP dialogue process in the Somali group, and served as a facilitator in the second dialogue process. She earned an associate’s degree in social science from Portland Community College, and she is currently working toward a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education at Portland State University.

x

About the Authors

Gloria Ngezaho, husband, father, published author, community organizer, and Oregon congressional candidate, is originally from Burundi, central Africa. He holds a certificate in interfaith conflict resolution from the United States Institute of Peace, and earned both a BA in international studies and an MA in conflict resolution from Portland State University. He is expected to complete his doctoral studies at Concordia University‐Portland by the end of 2016. Carmina Rinker Lass holds an MA in conflict resolution from Portland State University. During her graduate studies, she worked with ADDP as a needs assessment coordinator. Prior to and following her graduate work, Carmina studied intercultural conflict resolution, dialogue and reconciliation among divided communities, French, and microfinance strategies for poverty alleviation. Her studies took her across Europe and to India. Most recently, Carmina’s work has focused on economic empowerment, financial capability, and lending among low‐ income and underserved communities in the United States. Currently, Carmina is the Director of Training and Consulting for Credit Builders Alliance, a nonprofit organization that works at the national level to help move people from poverty to prosperity through credit building. Caroline Sarkis is a PhD candidate at George Mason University’s School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. She has published on international legal responses to sexual and gender‐based violence as crimes against humanity, and dialogue processes in diaspora communities. Caroline’s dissertation research focuses on the engagement of the Trust Fund for Victims of the International Criminal Court in the Democratic Republic of Congo. She holds an MA in conflict resolution from Portland State University where she won the 2007 Distinguished Master’s Thesis award from the Peace and Justice Studies Association. Barbara Tint is a Professor of Conflict Resolution at Portland State University. Her work in peace and conflict resolution stems from her background in political psychology, where she has focused largely on the psychological dynamics involved in the causes of, intervention in, and prevention of international conflict. Her primary focus is on post‐conflict peacebuilding and reconciliation processes. In addition to teaching, she works domestically and internationally in areas including dialogue, intercultural relations, power and status, resilience, and gender relations. She served as Director of the Diaspora Dialogue Project from its inception in 2007. She travels the world providing training, consultation, and facilitation in a wide range of community, governmental, nongovernmental, and educational contexts.

About the

Partners

One tree cannot make a forest.

— Liberian Proverb

This project was a true partnership. None of us could have accomplished this work without the other. We all learned so much along the way and have been inspired by what true collaboration can do.

Andrus Family Fund (AFF) The Andrus Family Fund, a sub‐fund of the Surdna Foundation, was established in 2000 to give fifth‐generation foundation family members between the ages of 25 and 45 an opportunity to learn about and participate in organized philanthropy. In its first year of operation, the AFF Board selected two program areas in which to focus its energies: community reconciliation and the passage of youth out of foster care toward independent living. At that time, the board also adopted William Bridges’ Transition Framework with the firm conviction that intentionally and consistently paying attention to the internal transitions people go through, as they confront external change in their lives, is the only way to make social change sustainable. The mission and focus of AFF have changed since the completion of this project. To read more about the Andrus Family Fund, please visit www.affund.org.

Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization (IRCO) Started in 1975, IRCO is a community‐based, nonprofit 501(c) 3 organization assisting refugees and immigrants through the various stages of integration into U.S. society. The mission of IRCO is to promote the integration of refugees, immigrants, and the community at large into a self‐sufficient, healthy, and inclusive multiethnic society. Reflecting great diversity, IRCO’s clients represent many countries and regions throughout the world. IRCO is the leading refugee organization in Oregon

xii

About the Partners

and Southwest Washington, investing in refugees and immigrants enabling them to become self‐sufficient, long‐term contributors to the community. To read more about IRCO, please visit www.irco.org.

Africa House IRCO’s Africa House is a focal point for the local African community and a “one‐ stop” service center providing an array of community‐building, cultural adjustment, and culturally specific services tailored to the African immigrant and refugee community resettling in Portland, Oregon. Africa House is guided by an Advisory Board of representatives of Portland’s 30 African ethnic groups, the first such coalition of African ethnic communities in the United States. Since its start‐up in 2006, Africa House has served over 1,500 individuals with direct linkage, referral, and community education services and increased the visibility of Africans in Portland through leadership development and community engagement.

Portland State University Conflict Resolution Program (PSU CR) Portland State University (PSU) is Oregon’s largest university and an internationally recognized leader in civic engagement and community‐based learning. PSU’s Conflict Resolution Program was founded in 1993 and offers both bachelor’s and master’s degrees in conflict resolution. Both degrees draw from, and contribute to, theories and practice in the field. Graduate study blends research and internship experiences to prepare students for professional work. The program blends education and training in theory, research, and practice to create an optimal experience for future practitioners in the field of peacebuilding and conflict resolution. For further information, please visit http://www.pdx.edu/conflict-resolution/.

Foreword — Paula Green

Barbara Tint, Djimet Dogo and their team in Portland, Oregon offer us an exciting new avenue for advancing refugee resettlement. They have successfully engaged with community leaders from the African diasporas who now live in Portland to build trust and mutual understanding among newer refugees who were enemies on a distant shore. Rather than carry their enmity and fear of each other into their new lives, the Diaspora Dialogue Project (DDP) assists recently arrived refugees in building positive relationships that support their acculturation and integration into a new homeland. This is compassionate civic engagement at its best. DDP is also dialogue at its best. Dialogue, this book tells us, is a process of structured conversations and activities that allow participants to discover the common ground that binds them as members of the human community. Recognizing core human needs for safety, security, respect, and well‐being, dialogue members gradually shed stereotypes and misperceptions of each other, slowly replacing these negative images with positive thoughts and caring connections. As refugees struggling to acclimate to a radically new and often confounding environment, these participants have so much more in common than that which separated them, and through DDP, they are able to truly benefit by recognizing and acting on this mutuality. What DDP has accomplished requires a great deal of skill. Results such as former enemies forging common bonds and recognizing each other’s humanity cannot be taken for granted. This is conscious, demanding, deliberate, dialogue work, every activity planned, scrutinized, and amended. That all this was done so well with mixed facilitation teams of Africans and westerners, academics and community leaders, is very much to their credit and certainly part of their acceptance by the community. This volume, presented in attractive and well‐organized form for easy access, ­documents the five‐year process of DDP from first vision to final evaluation. Supported by a generous grant from the Andrus Family Fund and in collaboration with Portland State University, the Immigration and Refugee Community Organization (IRCO) and its Africa House, DDP pioneers a unique direction for

xiv Foreword dialogue among a diaspora population as a model. The manual invites readers to imagine how this process might be adapted for their own context of refugees or long‐term resident populations who could benefit from sensitizing themselves to whomever they identify as “other.” I can immediately imagine wide use of this format within the fractured commons of the United States and other countries currently facing enormous challenges of refugee integration, whether or not these refugee populations also arrive with fearful or antagonistic histories toward each other. As a dialogue facilitator at home and abroad, I plan to share this manual with professional colleagues so that we might undertake our own refugee dialogue project, perhaps with a different mix than the one identified by DDP. The background of the project, the models and frameworks, the plans, timelines, caveats, and obstacles, as well as the excellent dialogue session handouts and templates for facilitation are ready for adaptation and use by seasoned facilitators. I especially appreciate the research issues presented in the volume, including documentation on the challenges of refugees, reflections on dialogue and its efficacy, resources for further study, implications for refugee policy, and a thorough evaluation structure with essential assessment tools. Five years is a long project and this span has allowed for serious observation, adjustments, tracking, reflecting, and evaluating. Many details are presented here and the persistence, continuity, and capacity for improvement as they went along have strengthened the program. The touching use of quotes from African cultures, the voices of refugee participants before and after their dialogue experience, and the chapters on recruitment strategies and cultural awareness bespeak genuine respect for the participants in the program and the Portland community. Early in its formation, DDP engaged community leaders and especially consulted elders, women, and youth, creating a sense of wide ownership and encouraging each group to offer its unique perspective and guidance. The team consistently attended to cultural values of dignity, ritual, sharing of food, prayer, and collective orientation. The facilitation, research, and writing teams include Africans from the diaspora, some of them students or community workers and several graduates of this dialogue program. The strategy of DDP appears to be one of full inclusion and affirmation, itself a part of the healing of refugees. DDP has “walked its talk” and its process of collaboration is reflected in its outcomes. DDP has adapted the Transition Framework to their diaspora context that provides a guide to understanding and appraising the process of change thrust upon newly arrived refugees. I found this tool especially indicative of the project’s sensitivities to refugee adjustment and success. The Framework allows each individual to track his/her progress through endings, a neutral zone, and new beginnings from a psychological and social point of view. Behavior and its causes, as well as strategies and interventions, accompany each step in the transition process, markers on the path toward adjustment and integration into their new world. This framework seems like a genuine gift for participants and their kin, allowing everyone to remember that there is a process of adaptation and that a healthy transition is within their grasp.

Foreword xv The Syrian exodus in the face of the violent disintegration of their country has thrust migration and refugee issues onto the world stage with heartbreaking alacrity. Middle Eastern and European countries, especially, are bearing this burden along with the Syrians. But more refugees will come, to North American shores, to Europe, and beyond, as climate change wreaks havoc on low‐lying lands and on global food and water supplies. All of us will be touched, and should be concerned, by the needs for migration and refugee services and by the plight of people unwillingly uprooted from their homes and families. Models like DDP offer a wealth of inspiration, information, tools, and resources that can be adapted for use and included as an added refugee service that addresses the emotional and social needs of the newly arrived. Many of us who are privileged to remain in our homelands can engage in such programs, benefiting ourselves as well as the refugees in our midst, building durable communities where all are valued, respected, and included. Read this book, use its models, and allow your imagination to create new uses for community dialogue wherever there is a sense of “other,” whether that “other” is newly arrived or a longtime resident population. In the coming decades, we will need the wisdom and participation of all members of our community to face yet unknown transitions. This DDP manual allows us to be part of the solution. Mother Teresa remarked that the “problem with the world is that we draw the circle of our family too small.” Diasporas in Dialogue challenges all of us to enlarge our circles so  that no one is left out and all our community members know that they are a ­welcomed and cherished part of the whole. Dr. Paula Green is Professor Emerita at the School for International Training Graduate Institute and the Founder of Karuna Center for Peacebuilding. An international leader in dialogue and conflict transformation, she was given an award by the Dalai Lama as an Unsung Hero of Compassion.

Foreword — Mette Brogden

The terrible events experienced by refugees who have fled from their homelands ­create profound mistrust of their enemies and more generally of the basic foundations of social life. One of the hallmarks of violence and persecution that is particularly ­devastating for human beings is to be reduced from a person with a life history, specific talents and interests, propensities, and individual values expressed in daily life, to a simple instantiation of an identity category arbitrarily subject to degrading treatment or annihilation. Nothing about who one is, or what one has done in life, matters. Refugees speak of this experience as absolutely existentially devastating. Refugees resettle in foreign countries alongside former enemies, who also are fleeing. Extreme episodes of violence impact all sides, horribly. In the country of resettlement, in a context of deeply felt distrust and anger, diaspora peoples must learn how to become neighbors and human beings with each other again. They must do so with existing and with incoming community members. It is actually astounding to me that this is the first book I have seen which addresses this severely distressing circumstance of refugees having to coexist with perceived enemies. This book provides a deeply moving account of the process of rehumanizing others. Barbara Tint, Djimet Dogo and their partners and colleagues who worked to develop and test the methods described in this book are to be congratulated for this timely effort. Now, more than ever, we need this work to help the millions of refugees fleeing conflict and resettling around the world. I first became aware of this project at a national consultation sponsored by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement when I attended Djimet Dogo’s presentation about his work with the Diaspora Dialogue Project on conflict resolution among refugee communities. I immediately knew I wanted him to come to Milwaukee and train us. He graciously consented, and what followed were two days of refugee and former refugee leaders sitting spellbound, working with the ideas he presented from this important project. The concepts about how change happens in stages and what can be done to help those going through those stages – which are spelled out in this

Foreword xvii terrific book – help people to diagnose and make sense of their experiences. These concepts help to order the chaos of aftermath, and they bring the recognition that one can reclaim making choices and express the profound sadness and losses of the experiences of war and extreme tearing of the social fabric. We are social beings. We are meaning makers. Dialogue facilitated by sensitive human beings aimed at helping people to express their pain and wisdom as well as hear the experiences of those identified with former enemies who hurt them, ­provides opportunity for healing. And if we need nothing else, we do need social healing in our era of mass refugee flows and terror events. This book gives very specific approaches about how to conduct dialogue, and shares poignant stories of pain and recovery with others. This engenders hope that there is a way forward with other people out of a history of violence and conflict. We can reclaim our humanity and our values and our lives when we learn how to talk with each other again through the foundational ideas about dialogue. This book will give you hope; the people who worked in the project out of which this wonderful manual was born really have the most intriguing and lovely stories to teach us about how to recover from terrible events. May they all walk in beauty; may all of us learn from their journeys. Mette Brogden, PhD, is a medical/cultural anthropologist and Wisconsin State Refugee Coordinator.

Preface A tree is known by its fruit.

— Zulu proverb

The year is 2016. As of this writing, over 4,000 people have died trying to flee the violent conflicts in Syria and Iraq. People have crossed many miles over land and sea, at great risk, to find a safe haven in the midst of communal wars and violence. The influx of refugees into Europe has reached unprecedented levels; over 1.2 million individuals are expected to submit applications for asylum this year, with 800,000 of those expected in Germany alone. While immediate needs, including those of survival, finding a home, and locating family members, will take precedence, when the dust – and lives – have settled, refugee communities will face the daunting task of living amongst many community members who represent the very groups they were fleeing. They will not be the first – or likely the last – group of refugees dealing with this reality: living side by side with former or current enemies in the diaspora. Surprisingly, little has ever been done to address this significant barrier to community healing and resettlement. Well, we did. This book describes a project that took place during a five‐year period of time working with fractured diaspora communities from Africa in Portland, Oregon, USA. The Diaspora Dialogue Project (DDP), generously supported by the Andrus Family Fund (AFF), was a collaboration between the Conflict Resolution Graduate Program at Portland State University (PSU) and the Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization (IRCO). The project started, as many things do, with a chance encounter. One day in the spring of 2007, in the halls of my university, I ran into John, a Nigerian student in our program, who was doing his internship at IRCO. He mentioned that there were large numbers of refugees arriving from the Great Lakes region of Africa and there were concerns about potential issues related to their history. As Hutu and Tutsi refugees from the genocide in Rwanda and the ongoing conflicts in Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and other parts of the region, these community members were arriving with great trauma behind them and great challenges up ahead.

Preface

xix

As it happened, at that time I was also having conversations with AFF about the possibility of starting a community reconciliation project. As John shared his news, a bell went off, and I wondered about the possibility of attempting community reconciliation efforts with post‐conflict refugee communities coming from that region. I soon learned about IRCO’s Africa House, a newly established service center for African refugees and immigrants in Portland. With no prior connection or introduction, I called Djimet Dogo, the Director of Africa House, and presented the idea of developing dialogue processes with historically conflicted community groups. I fully expected him to be appropriately wary of this strange lady calling from the university. I was prepared to be told to submit a proposal, get in line, or, in the words of the Great Wizard of Oz, “Go away and come back tomorrow.” To my surprise, without a moment’s hesitation, Djimet said, “Yes. Please. But can we do it with all the communities?” Not only had I discovered a generous and receptive heart, I had also unwittingly stumbled upon a vast untapped need that would become the focal point of our shared work for the next five years. So began the Diaspora Dialogue Project (DDP) and the collaboration between PSU, IRCO, and AFF. In investigating previous efforts around these issues, we were collectively stunned to learn that there had been very few efforts of this nature anywhere else, further affirming our desire to pursue this project. Our efforts were predicated on the knowledge that historical conflicts from home regions were traveling with migrant populations and being left unattended in the diaspora. We saw the need and the opportunity to provide a safe forum for community members to come together to address their fractured past, their difficult present, and their uncertain future. While our efforts focused specifically on diaspora communities from Africa, it became clear that these processes were needed and wanted in communities from many other regions. Soon we were getting requests to create similar initiatives with communities from Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America. Beginning in 2007 and ending in 2012, our project consisted of multiple phases. Our goals were to assess community needs, conduct a series of dialogue groups with recruited and selected participants, train participants to become dialogue facilitators, and then run more groups with community members as group facilitators. Capacity building was a critical aspect of our efforts, as we wanted to support group members in carrying this work deeper into their own communities; a primary goal was to have the project impact endure and sustain beyond our involvement. We knew that the more that in‐group community members were involved in the planning and implementation of these processes, the more successful and sustaining they would be. Toward that end, participants’ voices informed the process and are represented as much as possible in these pages. Our dialogue model was developed as an integration between knowledge and experience about dialogue processes around the world and culturally congruent influences from the local contexts of the particular communities we were serving. In collaboration with AFF, we adopted the Transition Framework, their model for social change, that was incorporated into our planning and dialogue processes.

xx Preface At all times, our decisions were driven by Africa House team members, whose understanding of the needs and inclinations of the community members was critical in our planning. While our hope was to serve as many communities as possible, our capacity dictated our direction. After much team consultation and assessment of community needs, it was decided that we would focus on two parallel groups for dialogue: the Somali community and the Great Lakes community, which included participants from Burundi, the DRC, and Rwanda. We also conducted deep assessment and stakeholders’ conversations with the Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Liberian communities who chose to implement different processes of their own with the input we had provided. Our team consisted of PSU Conflict Resolution faculty and students (African and U.S. American) and Africa House staff. Lines were happily blurred when some of our students became Africa House staff, and some Africa House staff and dialogue participants became our students. Our team members were from Burundi, Chad, the DRC, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Liberia, Rwanda, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, and the United States. We met weekly during the course of our work and ate a lot of great African food together. Our work was not always smooth or simple; we learned from and integrated our own team challenges into the work we were doing with the communities. The goal of this book is to share what we learned in the hope that other diaspora communities and the practitioners that serve them might benefit from our efforts. The book is an attempt to take the best of what we did, as well as the learning from the worst of what we did, and offer a tool for dialogue and reconciliation efforts with diaspora populations. We provide both theoretical and practical guidance for dialogue, which we hope will be useful to diaspora community groups, refugee ­service agencies, dialogue and conflict resolution practitioners, academics, and any others whose interest is in developing peacebuilding efforts in immigrant and ­refugee ­communities. While our own efforts were conducted with groups from Ethiopia, the Great Lakes (Burundi, Congo, Rwanda), Liberia, and Somalia, we have written this book so that these processes will be useful for other worldwide diaspora populations as well. This is challenging work, and we more fully understand why so many were surprised that we were successful in this venture. However, it is also extremely rewarding work that fills a vital unaddressed need in worldwide diaspora communities. This book provides neither a formula nor a panacea; other efforts and attempts to implement this work will play out differently than ours. However, through the sharing of our experience and the knowledge we have accumulated along the way, we hope that others will be motivated to attempt similar processes and embark on their own journeys of discovery and reconciliation. In this book, the theoretical sections frame the underlying principles for the dialogue modules. It is crucial that they be understood together. However, a book is only a two‐dimensional tool for learning. We believe it must go hand in hand with further discussion and training around these issues, particularly in the area of ­dialogue facilitation. We cannot stress enough that dialogue facilitation is a complex

Preface

xxi

process and needs to be conducted by trained and informed facilitators. We offer to be your continued partners in these efforts and provide training if necessary and desired. We hope that collectively we might be able to work further with communities around the globe in contributing to a unified and reconciled diaspora. We look forward to collaborating with other communities in these efforts. DDP was a labor of love for those involved, and a testament to the Portland African diaspora community’s drive to heal and to move past historical conflict to come together in new ways. Dialogue participants imagined that the ripple effect of these efforts would spread far and wide – even all the way back home and with other diaspora populations. We hope you can help take it there.

Acknowledgments Great fires erupt from tiny sparks.

— Libyan Proverb

In the course of completing this project and book, there have been many joys and challenges along the way. The greatest joy has been the convergence of the many wonderful people who joined together to make this vision a reality. ●●

●● ●●

●●

First, the deepest gratitude goes to Steven Kelban, Jill Williams, Ingrid Halloway, and the Board of the Andrus Family Fund. Without your vision, generosity, collaborative spirit, willingness to risk on this venture, faith in our work, and ongoing commitment to discovery, we could never have pursued this project nor had the freedom to fumble along the way and learn as we did. There are not enough words of thanks and appreciation to convey how amazing it has been to work with you. To John Ette, who was the tiny spark that lit this fire many years ago. To Djimet Dogo, who took a call from a strange lady all those years ago, and had the spirit and vision to say, “Yes, let’s talk.” To the many team members who have contributed to the evolution of this project. We have learned so much together – thank you for being teachers, partners, and students in this work. Thank you in particular to Roland Clarke and Mindy Johnston for your sustained efforts and myriad behind‐the‐scenes contributions that have bolstered us along the way. To those who have contributed to this book: Marie Abijuru, Daniel Amine, Vincent Chirimwami, Roland Clarke, Djimet Dogo, Mindy Johnston, Julie Koehler, Carmina Rinker Lass, Mary Lind, Sa’eed Mohamed Haji, Rukia Mohammed, Gloria Ngezaho, and Caroline Sarkis, thank you for your ideas, words, and efforts beyond the call of duty. There are many team members who did not contribute written words for this manual, but whose thinking and contributions along the way have been vital to the development of our process: Machar W. Aleu‐Baak, Amanda Smith Byron, Rhea DuMont, Muna Farah, Eileen Farao, Brooke Galloway, Kamar Haji‐Mohamed, Elizabeth Hooker, Roberta Hunte, Shamsa Hussein, Ali Ibrahim, Gina Mason, Dominique Rastrelli, Anna Shamble, Donna Smith, and Adira Zwelling.

Acknowledgments xxiii ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

To Diana Bianco, who helped us learn about Transitions, and who gave us as much help as we needed to incorporate what fit and as much space as we needed to let the communities drive the process. To Lee Po Cha and Jeff MacDonald from IRCO, who continued to support this project in spite of the challenges, and who held the greater good for the communities in their hearts throughout. To Robert Gould, the former Director of the Conflict Resolution Graduate Program at PSU, for always providing support to this endeavor and accommodating the resulting complications and absences along the way. To Stephenie Jahnke, who had to shoulder countless tasks and manage numerous details in ensuring that the logistics of this collaboration ran smoothly. This was definitely not in your job description, and you have handled these last five years with grace and generosity. To Jon Joiner, whose support, encouragement, wisdom, friendship, humor, faith, and welcoming home have been a guiding light to us all. And last, but definitely not least, to the many community members  –  too numerous to mention and whose privacy we want to respect – who risked coming together in dialogue to share stories, hopes, and fears. You stayed committed beyond the emotional and logistical challenges of this work to carry your shared vision of a more unified African diaspora into the future. It is not only you who will be transformed by what you have done, but the future generations of your communities as well. It is for the children that we must find a different way.

01 Diaspora Stories Endings

Marie Abijuru Rukia Mohammed

Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities, First Edition. Barbara Tint. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Marie Abijuru and Rukia Mohammed

2

“

Marie’s Story

My name is Marie – I am from Rwanda. I left my country in July 1996. I left the country because of what happened. You know, in my country we had bad time in 1994, when we have genocide. At that time, many people died, and I thanks God to be alive right now. I don’t know how I can start telling what’s happened over there, cause I was there, but it was so sad. I lived in central Kigali; we didn’t understand what’s going on at that time. But the people, they were suffering.

And that time it didn’t touch my life that much, because we were thinking that p ­ erhaps in one month or three months we gonna find a solution. But after four years nothing good happened, and the genocide start. The war went, they says, 100 days. I didn’t count. Because my husband’s school was closed, they asked him to move to Ivory Coast. And my husband left. I remember when during the war I was pregnant. And my husband left when my son was four months. And I stayed in Rwanda by myself with my son. After 15 months when my husband finished school, he find a job over there, and I decide to leave the country to join my husband in Ivory Coast. Some of my family were there but some got killed during the genocide – the rest of the family was in Rwanda. What happens after genocide? Many people from Rwanda moved to Congo. I never went to Congo, but after what happened in Congo you see what’s going on right now … the people from Congo are saying that the Rwandese are the enemy. Because they come kill, they fight and they kill their people. Even when I was living in the Ivory Coast, Congolese people came in Ivory Coast, at least that time I start hearing that now the Congolese don’t like the Rwandese people because they kill their people. There were many Rwandese and Congolese, but they could not talk to each other because they say they are enemy. But myself because I never went in Congo, only what I saw on TV; I can’t describe exactly what happened over there at that time. But, I know the people from Rwanda were in Congo and killed the Congolese people. And the government, the Rwandese government say that they follow the people who killed the Tutsi. But the Congolese say that we welcomed the people because they are coming to us we give them everything  –  we didn’t expect to see them coming and kill us. It’s why they were not happy, because they welcome the people because they love them, they didn’t know that someone was going to come and kill them because they did. I lived in Ivory Coast for seven years; my husband was working over there. And when the war started in Ivory Coast my husband was a victim. And after that he died, and when he died I was not feeling secure to stay over there and I decide to move and come here in the United States. And it’s how I end up to come in this country; it was not my choice before, I didn’t think even that I gonna come in this country. But because I was not feeling secure, I didn’t want to stay over there, and I didn’t want to go back in Rwanda also. I left there in 1996; I could not imagine going back because what I was hearing or see on TV. I was scared to go back. I want to be in country where I feel secure and have peace of mind and just start over my life.



Diaspora Stories: Endings

3

What happened after genocide the people tried to revenge. The people was killing. The Tutsi was killing the Hutu, because they say the Hutu killed the Tutsi. That was a scare. That scared me. And there were many people in prison, and there were many people coming from Rwanda, and they were trying to quit the country because there was no secure over there. Before I left my country I didn’t see that. But after the people who were in Congo returned in Rwanda, it changed very much. I didn’t want to live that – not because I didn’t want to go back in my country, because I want back in my country. After when I start hearing the people saying the Rwandese are the enemy, even see when the genocide start in Rwanda, the Tutsi and the Hutu was killing each other. Even they do that they have to live together, they have no choice, each one, Hutu and Tutsi still live together. The people become enemies when they have some interest they fight for the power. Or the people who took other people’s stuff. But, until now the Tutsis and Hutus still get married, still work together. I think the people who use the word enemy are the people who want to separate the people. Because the people use those ethnicities to kill each other or to have power. I think the people from outside see that as enemy, but between Congolese and Rwandese, that is something you see that happened and everyone can say that and what I don’t like to hear is if Congolese says I am enemy. I never went in Congo, I don’t know anything about Congo. And someone kill me because of that? Or tell me I’m bad because of that? I am innocent. I don’t know anything related I did. But as human when I see what happened in Congo, I understand very well why some people are upset. But, if the people have to move their country or lost the member of their family because of the Rwandese who crossed the border to come to fight in their country. I understand very well how even myself I can feel that way. As a person I don’t know how it depend of the situation for each other because if I lost my family, I live in refugee camp because of Rwandese who fight in my country. I gonna be upset too. But on the other hand I gonna be upset to all Rwandese or to the government is my question?

”

Marie Abijuru and Rukia Mohammed

4

“

Rukia’s Story

I am Somali. What I have experienced is that life in the refugee camp is very difficult. There are different kind of Somalis and they will tell you that you are lower rate; what they give you is really hard, because you have hard hair or you have darker skin than them. It was really hard, though we are all Somali. There is some ­mentality that some of the other Somalis they are either not Somalis they are something else. It was really tough and hard. I was living in a refugee camp in Kenya because of the civil war that happened in Somalia. We left Somalia in 1992; I was three years old. I have no clue what happened there. The civil war break out. And my mom and my eight siblings – I remember what my parents told me – we run to Kenya; we came to Kenya by walking. And then we spend like four, five, two weeks maybe, on the way, on the way walking to Kenya. And we were in the bush, forest. Animals, lions and all that stuff they were hunting something to eat, so it was really hard, but we made it.

Life in the refugee camp was really hard and difficult. The hard thing was the survival. You have to depend by food that was given by UNHCR, which is not enough for family. The whole month you are given food for 15 days, the other 15 days you have to survive. It was really hard. And for family that don’t have any other family outside the refugee camp it’s really hard for them to survive. Because either one of the family one of the head of the household have to work or build house or either something else, to help family, yea. With the other clans it was violence. Nighttime you sleeping in your little small house, people will knock to your house, just to come and steal something from you, to take something from you. They know you don’t have anything but they will try to get – they will take a penny if you have it just to harass you, just to put you down. Sometimes they were violent – they were raping, beating, all of that stuff. On the school side it was really tough because some of the teachers were Somalis from different clans and when you are a good student, you work hard, you are doing all you can, what they will try to do is to give your points to another student. If you get an A and one of the students from their clan get a C, your A goes to him and you get a C. You did the hard work but someone else get it for free because no one from your clan is teaching at the school. It was really challenging and tough. My expectation was big when I came to the U.S. Chicago was my first city, very big city. I was 18. 2004 was the time I came. Snowy, we have never seen snow in our whole life because we are from a desert area. The surprising thing is our sponsor took us to our apartment. They took us there, no food, no explanation. We don’t know how to get access to all these electronic things, like stove and other stuff. We never used them before. Then we were left there, no one to help us; we don’t know what to do. Just eight of us in the house looking at each other, nothing to eat. We were told when we go to U.S. we get all this help, but it is not right – I don’t think we are in U.S. After four days, the sponsor came back. She say, “How are you guys doing?” The first thing I told them



Diaspora Stories: Endings

5

was, “Take me back from where you guys brought us from. You left us here without helping us, so you just disappear, after four days you ask us how are we doing.” I really get upset and in a fight with those people. And they say, “Oh we are sorry. We thought you guys know.” And I thought, how would you think that we know how to use these. And they apologize and they thought that maybe someone, a Somali might help us. But it just make it worse. Someone came, she saw us that we are not from her clan, and said, “Oh, I am not gonna help these lower class people.” She disappeared. It was really challenging. It was really scary because when you have this person that you thought that you left them back home, you think that you are free from them, you are not scared anymore of them. But when you get here you still get the harassment, you still get the abuse you used to get back home. You feel like, I am not in a safe place still; I thought I was but I am not in a safe place. When she talk to us like that I was like so pissed I thought that you a human being and I am a human being and you live in USA before me. When you came to USA you went to training, people show you how to do this. You didn’t know how to do it too. I was avoiding people from other clans when I was in Chicago. I did a lot of avoiding. I don’t used to interact with them, I don’t use to communicate with them. I see them around; I don’t want to interact with them. My sisters have most of the challenges because they were going to school with them. All the advice I give to them as try to avoid them as much as you can because I don’t want you guys to get into trouble. I used to feel so bad that they are still around me or they are still around us. It was really hard for me, to confront or have a conversation or just like exchanges names saying hi my name is … it was really hard for me, I didn’t trust them, it was really hard.

”

02 Diaspora Populations When the music changes, so does the dance — African Proverb

Barbara Tint Caroline Sarkis Sa’eed Mohamed Haji Vincent Chirimwami Carmina Rinker Lass

Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities, First Edition. Barbara Tint. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.



Diaspora Populations

7

Background and Resettlement Issues Diaspora populations around the world present an ever‐growing global force. Many regions of the world are represented by heavy migration and are often shifting. The increase of migration roots in various issues including vestiges of colonization, civil wars, ethnic conflicts, famine, rural underdevelopment, lack of opportunity, and political complexities. Migration is either forced or voluntary and impacts a wider circle of people from both the home region and the resettlement context. As migrant populations increase, so does the need for services to accommodate them and the challenges they face. This is the case now more than in recent years as we see populations from war and conflict zones facing the refugee crisis that is changing the landscape of populations in so many countries worldwide. The term diaspora broadly refers to a scattered population, originating from the same general region. It now encompasses “a motley array of groups such as political refugees, alien residents, guest workers, immigrants, expellees, ethnic and racial minorities, and overseas communities” (Shuval, 2000, p. 41). People enter the ­diaspora for differing reasons and under differing circumstances. The international body that works most directly with diaspora populations is the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The UNHCR is tasked with addressing concerns related to refugees, asylum‐seekers, internally displaced ­persons (IDPs), stateless persons, and returnees (returned refugees and IDPs) (UNHCR, n.d.‐a). The UNHCR maintains an active web page and database that is useful for the most recent and up‐to‐date information on these issues and populations: http://www.unhcr.org. Although all members of the diaspora share certain experiences related to relocation and cultural adaptation, their status varies depending on the circumstances of their migration. Tipping (2010) provides a useful summary: Refugees are individuals forced from their homes, villages or countries and who apply for admission to another country at an overseas facility such as a refugee camp. The 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention defined a refugee as a person who: “owing to a well‐founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country” (UNHCR, 2002). Immigrants or “voluntary” migrants are not forced from their home country. They might immigrate to join family members, or they are seeking a better life for themselves and their families. They might also be fleeing from adverse circumstances but they are doing so with a greater sense of choice than refugees and are able to do so through different channels. In reality, however, immigrants typically choose to emigrate due to similar struggles in their home country to those of refugee communities. Internally displaced persons (IDPs) share many characteristics with refugees, but while they are displaced from their homes and communities, they remain in their own country. Unlike refugees, they are not protected by international refugee law.

8

Barbara Tint et al.

Asylum‐seekers are persons who have applied for asylum or refugee status, but have not yet received a final decision on their application (UNHCR, n.d.‐b). They are individuals who cross borders into another country and apply for asylum due to fear of persecution in their homeland. The host country can grant or deny applications to these individuals or detain them for further examination or hearing by an immigration court judge. In practice, the UNHCR often considers IDPs and asylum‐seekers under the ­category of refugee, and all are considered forced migrants, as distinct from economic or other “voluntary” migrants (Ager, 1999). The number of forced migrants fluctuates from year to year, depending on the number and nature of conflicts around the world. In recent years, forced population displacement has grown in both size and complexity. While developed countries such as Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States resettle some refugees and displaced persons, developing countries are host to four‐fifths of the world’s refugee population (UNHCR, 2009). The UNHCR estimates that half of the world’s refugees live in urban areas and one‐third in camps; however, in sub‐Saharan Africa seven out of ten refugees reside in refugee camps (UNHCR, 2009). As diaspora populations are continuously fluctuating, the most reliable resource for current statistics about the numbers and origin of current diaspora migration trends is the UNHCR statistics website: http://www.unhcr.org/ en‐us/figures‐at‐a‐glance.html. Regardless of the circumstances that propel people into the diaspora, almost all migrants struggle to rebuild their lives. They share the common experience of undergoing a life‐altering transition, aggravated by the reality that it is typically forced and stemming from adversity. They endure various degrees of loss and trauma, including separation from family, isolation, breakdown of community, discrimination in their new environment, and loss of identity, status, and livelihood. As they resettle, their ability to lead successful lives is further challenged by new ­cultures, religions, climates, educational systems, economic realities, employment situations, languages, and social and political barriers. They are often minorities in their adoptive countries and neighborhoods, which adds an additional layer of ­racism and marginalization they have not previously encountered. Communities in the diaspora face a continuous battle in trying to manage this trauma and loss, while at the same time striving to hold on to their traditional heritage and culture.

Dynamics in the Diaspora Research on the experience of diaspora communities has begun to grow across an array of disciplines. General trends are emerging, and certain dimensions of shared experience contribute to a perception of uniformity that belies the uniqueness and differences within groups. One salient discussion that emerges from this literature is of the struggle to preserve ethnic identity and at the same time adapt to the host culture (Arthur, 2000; Hume, 2008; Koser, 2003). This tension is ever changing and dependent on a number of different factors, including gender, age, class, and the size



Diaspora Populations

9

and dynamics of the local diaspora community. First‐generation immigrants and refugees are often less interested in integration; as long as they have networks of support and resources that allow them to maintain their cultural identity, they can choose to participate in the host society only as they need to for economic or educational purposes (Arthur, 2000; Hume, 2008). Newer and younger generations of immigrants and refugees struggle to balance societal pressure to assimilate into the host culture against familial pressure to maintain their historic identity. Social networks that are based on ethnic, national, religious, or other associations are vital to the social, cultural, and economic survival of diaspora communities. Immigrant networks can aid immigrants and refugees as they navigate through the myriad challenges they experience after arriving in their new country. These ­challenges include language, adaptation to new cultural norms, social assistance, education, redefined gender roles, and more. This is in addition to the challenges of past trauma that most immigrants and refugees have typically endured. Identity associations within diaspora communities are dependent, to some degree, on the size and make‐up of that community in the host environment (Hume, 2008). Diaspora community members often need each other in different ways than they did in the home context. Their shared experience of loss, transition, adjustment challenges, and new minority status shifts the relational dynamics. Smaller communities feel a greater need to join together for a greater sense of unity, connection, and security. While this is challenging in circumstances of community difference, it also provides a great opportunity for mutual interdependence as reconciliation is fueled by this shared need in a new land. For example, a pan‐African identity is more prominent in smaller diaspora communities, in which many regions might be ­represented, but with only a handful of individuals from any particular country, region, or ethnicity. Conversely, in areas with larger African populations, identity and associations tend to develop along more national, religious, or ethnic lines (Hume and Hardwick, 2005). Boundaries between groups become stronger as unity and identity needs are served by increased numbers of specific tribal or national groups. This phenomenon might occur on a smaller level as well. For example, if a community of Somali refugees is small yet ethnically diverse, they may be able to band together under the shared Somali identity; as the community grows with new arrivals, however, ethnic divisions might once again become more prominent. Most diaspora communities remain deeply connected to others in the diaspora and in the homeland. Community members are connected to their own history and memories of place, to others who have migrated to different parts of the world, to friends and relatives whom they have left behind, to ongoing social and political events back home, and to the possibility that they might someday return. In conducting our dialogue processes, one thing that became particularly clear was the power of this connectivity. In some of our sessions, group members worked together to develop a concept of how they saw their experience in the dialogue groups and in the diaspora experience itself. They created the Model of Diaspora Interconnectivity, (Figure 2.1), which informed much of our thinking and work within the dialogue

10

Barbara Tint et al.

International community

Home region in Africa

International diaspora

US diaspora

Portland diaspora communities Portland dialogue groups Inner experience of each individual

Figure 2.1  Model of Diaspora Interconnectivity. Source: Author. The model is b ­ idirectional in influence, as community members felt that what was happening inside their own dialogue circles would inform the wider diaspora communities, circumstances back home, and the international community. Similarly, they believed that global events and relationships from the home context continued to inform diaspora populations worldwide, their dialogue groups, and their own internal experiences. This Model of Diaspora Interconnectivity reflects the communal nature of the diaspora, as well as the power of diaspora communities in impacting others across a wide range of circumstances. It also reflects the hope and possibility that reconciliation processes in diaspora communities have the potential to impact wider circles in the diaspora and in the home context.

process. The experience of each diaspora member is deeply tied to the many connecting layers of other group members around the world. Sometimes refugees or immigrants choose not to actively engage with their own communities in the diaspora. Some community members lack essential skills or the desire to assimilate and ultimately form networks that are based on ethnic, national, religious, cultural, and economic survival (Lyons, 2004). Others, with significant language skills, want to assimilate in the host society or do not want to draw attention to their cultural heritage. For some, the hope of assimilation is connected to the hope of success in the new context and maintaining a diaspora identity and community is sometimes seen (whether it is real or imagined) as a barrier to that. It is also true that, along with the loss and transition that diaspora communities face, for some, their new lives provide opportunities they would not have had at home. This might include educational opportunities, greater freedom from persecution,



Diaspora Populations

11

shifting gender roles (which are often empowering to women and challenging for men), the development of language skills, and the ability to start fresh in a new ­context. Whether the changes are painful, liberating, or both, for most diaspora community members, the transition from one context to the next is rarely a smooth or predictable journey.

Social and Cultural Barriers to Assimilation According to the UNHCR population statistics database, approximately 5,233,061 refugees – not including internally displaced persons, asylum‐seekers, or voluntary immigrants – immigrated to the United States between 2000 and 2012. The n ­ umbers of refugees immigrating to Europe at this time are growing day by day. Stein (1981) posits that immigration patterns of the “new refugee” differ remarkably from the pre‐1960s understanding of refugee migrations where “new refugees” are culturally dissimilar to their hosts and “likely to lack kin and potential support groups in their country of resettlement” (p. 330). Conversely, he notes that refugees of the Cold War were more similar to their European and North American hosts and had support systems in their host land to cushion their adjustment. However, voluntary ­resettlement agencies (VOLAGs) will direct refugees to particular locations and consider the networks and affiliations refugees already have when determining resettlement locations (Mott, 2009). Thus, support networks are moderately in place for the influx of refugees. Similarly, chain migration patterns arise from these ­existing ­networks due to sponsorships of family and community from their country of origin. The increase in ethically diverse refugees within many countries has had great implications for the adjustment and integration experiences of these populations. Several theories have emerged regarding integration of immigrant and refugee ­communities within host nations. Park and Burgess (1921) defined assimilation as a process where groups “acquire the memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other ­persons and groups” and are thus incorporated in a common cultural life (p. 735). Gordon (1964) expanded on this concept, breaking down the assimilation process into seven different types comprising cultural, structural, marital, identificational, attitude receptional, behavior receptional, and civic assimilation. In Gordon’s model, cultural assimilation is the first and somewhat inevitable step toward integration; nevertheless, this step does not necessarily lead to structural assimilation, which “is seen to be the keystone of the arch of assimilation” (p. 81). Gordon warns, however, that this degree of assimilation leads to the disappearance of the “ethnic group as a separate entity and the evaporation of its distinctive values” (p. 81). Recent research on immigrants and refugees has changed our understanding of assimilation and integration from the classical theories proposed above. Indeed, studies “demonstrate that groups of different origins exhibit different assimilation or adaptation patterns” (Mott, 2009, p. 86). Education, economic status, age, and even gender play a significant role in adaptation patterns (Arthur, 2000; Mott, 2009). For

12

Barbara Tint et al.

instance, younger refugees are more resilient and adaptable than their older ­counterparts (Lin, Tazuma, and Masuda, 1979; Mott, 2009); groups with higher ­education and skills may experience rapid social mobility compared to those with little education (Mott, 2009). Adding to the complexity of integration patterns, for some refugees, assimilation into the host society represents an affront on their ethnic identity and culture (Arthur, 2000; Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind, and Vedder, 2001), which then encourages individuals in diaspora communities to separate rather than assimilate. Some refugees may view their experience in the host country as transitory, with their true desires and goals being to return home and improve the situation in their home country (Mott, 2009). For others, the process of cultural integration can be the ultimate goal, and an experience fraught less with conflict or culture shock and more with hope and aspiration (Chaichian, 1997; Hoffman, 1990). Social mobility and education can heavily affect refugee and immigrant experiences in host nations. Educational credentials can be critical to finding employment opportunities, which can help struggling families become independent and self‐sufficient. However, as is often the case with people fleeing conflict zones, refugees are frequently unable to get their diplomas or paperwork in the chaos of fleeing their countries (Mott, 2009), and therefore have to start all over again. In many instances, even if they were able to bring documents demonstrating their levels of education in their homelands, generally the host nation requires students to present official transcripts, which can be hard to get from a country overwhelmed by intractable conflict. These transcripts also do not guarantee transferable credits into higher educational institutions in host countries, as their educational system in many cases differs from most developing countries from which the majority of refugees and immigrants come. These obstacles lead to severe underemployment in immigrant communities. According to the Migration Policy Institute, approximately 1.8 million college‐educated immigrants are working in low‐skilled jobs as a result of cultural or bureaucratic obstacles (Johnson, 2013). And while some of the barriers to full employment are sometimes related to language, in many cases credentials from the home country do not comply with standards in the host nation. In addition to difficulties transferring educational and professional credentials to resettlement contexts, refugees also experience frustration surrounding the l­ anguage barrier and their lack of fluency in the common language of their host nation. For instance, Mott (2009) discusses the frustration of immigrants not being able to find everyday items in her study of African refugees in the United States: “[Respondent] C23 went to a store in Washington DC trying to find ‘Jik’. She continued to go from store to store but was unable to find it. Later, she was told that ‘Jik’ is called bleach in the U.S.” (p. 182). Another respondent tells his experience of eating “snacks” on the bus not knowing that his “snacks” were actually dog food. While not knowing the right name for a common household item like bleach may seem a minor inconvenience, language barriers can exacerbate feelings of loneliness, isolation, and ­frustration. These educational and language barriers often lead to underemployment for refugees. One respondent in Mott’s (2009) study noted that while he was a



Diaspora Populations

13

college graduate, his limited English skills prevented him from getting employment. “I am not working. I am having problems finding jobs. In Somalia, I was a government civil servant” (p. 185). As these issues become greater obstacles to assimilation and integration, this can drive desires for segregation from the host communities as well as desires for ­repatriation to their homeland. Arthur (2000) states that many refugees who have experienced downward mobility after resettling develop a greater desire to return home. Some respondents in Mott’s (2009) study also expressed desire to return to their homeland, describing “life in the U.S. as a constant struggle” (p. 174). However, the economic realities of repatriation are sometimes prohibitive, and life in the host country, while challenging, is often better than circumstances back home; refugees often have greater freedom in charting their destinies in their host country than in their homeland. Furthermore, the vision of returning home remains an unfulfilled reality for so many because the circumstances in the home context make it unsafe and often impossible to return. Navigating through unfamiliar social mores and policies can further complicate the resettlement process to the extent that self‐imposed isolation in the host nation becomes a norm for immigrant and refugee communities. However, an early body of research shows that immigrants and refugees arrive in their host nation with a certain degree of willingness to adopt the identity and cultural aspects of the society (Berry and Sam, 1997; Liebkind, 2001; Phinney, 1998). At the same time, preserving ethnic identities and the retention of cultural patterns are essential sources of adaptation into the host society (Zhou and Bankston III, 1994). Historically, the United States and other host nations have welcomed millions of new immigrants and refugees each year. These countries are responsible for providing needed services to the refugee communities (Phinney et  al., 2001) and enacting integrating or assimilating policies. VOLAGs, in coordination with ­governmental agencies, provide critical assistance in the form of financial and social services, ESL (English as a Second Language) classes, job placement, and psychological counseling among others (Mott, 2009) to help address some of the challenges experienced by refugees. This type of assistance can have significant influence on helping refugees adapt to life in their host nation. In spite of providing necessary services, these agencies often cannot significantly assist community members in navigating the social dynamics in their host communities. For instance, negotiating shifting conceptualizations of gender, race, and identity can be particularly challenging for refugee communities who often have different understandings of these issues. Cultural differences between diaspora communities and the host nation can create difficult and unintended conflict resulting in immigrant communities increasingly choosing segregationist policies over those of integration. The experiences and difficulties that diaspora communities encounter can significantly affect the willingness to assimilate into the host society and, as a result, many communities prefer to remain separate from their host community, opting instead for a policy of segregation to that of assimilation or acculturation.

14

Barbara Tint et al.

Similarly, many immigrant communities reject acculturation, preferring to build ethnic enclaves that will lessen daily interaction with the host society. Gordon (1964, cited in Zhou and Bankston III, 1994) suggested that first‐generation immigrants and refugees may not accomplish complete full acculturation into the host society as they “must free themselves from their old cultures in order to begin rising up from marginal positions” (p. 823). However, over the generations, ethnic traits begin to gradually fade away to the extent descendants of immigrants become susceptible to the dominant culture, which facilitates a complete blending in the host society. For instance, Great Britain’s policies of multiculturalism have encouraged cultural diversity, mutual tolerance, and equality for immigrants and cultural minorities rather than assimilation (Fomina, 2006; Grillo, 2010). (For a full discussion of multicultural policies in the United Kingdom see Barry, 2001; Joppke, 2004, 2009; Kymlicka, 1997, 1998, 2010; Kymlicka and Rubio Marin, 1999; Parekh, 1995, 2000a, 2000b). To this end, immigrants and ethnic minorities were free to express their cultural values and ways of life within British society. Thus the implementation of British integration policy meant that minorities would be supported in equal opportunities in the public and political domain, but the private domain allowed for the existence of separate languages, religions, and family practices (Rex, 1998, as quoted by Fomina, 2006; Grillo, 2010). Yet in spite of all these provisions, minority groups in Great Britain are ­increasingly disenfranchised. Policy and practice are not always aligned. Recent studies show that ethnic and religious minorities are increasingly polarized and that these ethnic groups have little interaction with the white majority. Indeed, these communities often have their own schools, places of worship, and self‐sustaining infrastructure that isolates them from the greater society. These communities often live separate and parallel lives, with many of them increasingly living on the margins of society. Ghettoization in these communities is rising, and what is perhaps more disturbing is evidence that suggests that this segregation is conducive to increasing racially and ethnically motivated violence (Home Office, 2001). And while it is often the case that younger generations integrate more quickly than their parents, studies show that the younger generations in Great Britain are integrating less well than their ­parents, and as a result could feel even more alienated and disenfranchised from mainstream society (Fomina, 2006). One possible explanation for this increasing alienation for younger generations is their representation in schools and education. The 1998 Commission for Racial Equality reports that the level of education varies from group to group and is often represented along ethnic lines. “For example, Pakistani/Bangladeshi ethnic groups are strongly underrepresented in further education. In this group two times less people between 20 and 24 years study than in the Indian ethnic group” (as quoted by Fomina, 2006). Conflict also arises from immigrants navigating the complex race relations in their host society. For example, Arthur (2000) notes that “[i]n their interactions with Americans, the immigrants portray an American society that holds little or no respect for people of color, particularly blacks … Immigrants of the African d ­ iaspora in the United States find themselves caught in the complex web of race relations in



Diaspora Populations

15

America. The relationship between African immigrants and the dominant society is characterized by racial exclusion, de facto segregation, prejudice, racism, and discrimination” (p. 74). Racial discrimination based on skin color is an unfamiliar concept to many African immigrants who come from countries where blacks are in the majority. Some have argued that black immigrants perceive that success is a function of ability and motivation (Bryce‐Laporte, 1973; Lowenthal, 1972; Arthur, 2000), while African Americans perceive black immigrants as “unburdened by the injustices of racism and discrimination in America” (Arthur, 2000, p. 79). Much scholarly attention has been dedicated to researching gender dynamics among diaspora communities (Achankeng, 2013; Benson, 1994; Hajdukowski‐ Ahmed, Khanlou, and Moussa, 2008; Koyama, 2014; Martin, 2004; Mayblin, 2008; McSpadden and Moussa, 1993), particularly as these dynamics influence family life, economic status, childrearing, and autonomy. Martin (2004) states that women ­refugees are “both agents of change and sources of continuity and tradition” (p. 13) as they are charged with ensuring traditional cultural continuity for their families, but have increasing independence and agency within their host communities. As such, women generally remain responsible for domestic duties (Martin, 2004), and are responsible for instilling traditional cultural values and norms (Arthur, 2000). In addition to these traditional responsibilities, immigrant women are now faced with changing family structures and dynamics (Gustafson and Iluebbey, 2013; Martin, 2004), with women entering the workplace to supplement their husband’s income. For women, this financial empowerment often leads to a greater sense of freedom and the ability to make decisions for themselves and their families (Gustafson and Iluebbey, 2013). Increased agency and independence for women, however, often destabilize traditional male roles and identity as the sole breadwinner, which can lead to depression, alcohol abuse, and domestic violence (Gustafson and Iluebbey, 2013; Martin, 2004). The 2015 humanitarian crisis in Europe has brought increasing attention to ­relationships between host communities and immigrants. The number of refugees coming into Europe has sparked a heightened crisis in how host nations are dealing with the influx, as well as creating conflicts among European nations on how to best address the needs of these refugees. The sheer number of refugees coming into Europe has strained available social services and refugee organizations. To this end, many incoming refugees are being housed in refugee camps, which offer only ­temporary solutions and few opportunities for families to support themselves, find jobs, or integrate into the wider communities. Jacobsen (2001) states that host governments often argue that refugees can bring security problems, which are easier to control and manage in camps. However, camp ­conditions often lead to high rates of conflict and violence, especially against women and children, and have become zones of drug smuggling, human trafficking, and gun running (Jacobsen, 2001). “These problems suggest that placing ­refugees in camps worsens rather than addresses the security problems, both for the host country and the refugees ­themselves” (Jacobsen, 2001, p. 13). Nevertheless, these perceived security issues between the host community and the refugee communities are a

16

Barbara Tint et al.

primary factor in feelings of resentment by locals towards refugees (Agblorti, 2011; Jacobsen, 2001). Agblorti (2011) further identifies two other issues that are likely to lead to resentment and conflict. He posits that refugees increase the ratio of people to resources in a given region, leading to an overuse of local resources. Together with the perception that refugees are poor and are already a strain on resources, this compounds this resentment. Another issue that leads to host community resentment is the perception that host communities are often neglected by humanitarian agencies. This ­concept is supported by Charny (2009), who states that “in the world of internally displaced persons and refugees the host communities are almost invisible.” The needs of host communities become even more salient when their members are also poor, and expending resources for clean water and food puts additional pressure on an already struggling community. In light of the growing resentment toward refugees, increasing xenophobia, ­particularly in Europe, is becoming a worldwide phenomenon. Those fleeing war and trauma are often being seen as the enemy; fears in host community populations are triggered by issues of difference, political posturing, and ignorance of real issues and beliefs. Other than the discomfort of cultural difference that plagues many groups encountering another for the first time, there is great fear that incoming refugees will cause violence in the resettlement context. There is irony in this, of course, because the large majority of refugees are fleeing the very same violence they are being accused of potentially perpetrating. Dialogue processes between incoming and host communities can provide a forum for constructive contact, understanding, and building relationships to reduce conflict and the potential for violence. We see that there are many factors that affect assimilation processes for immigrants. Social mobility, language barriers, education, underemployment, changing family dynamics, and xenophobia can deeply affect the integration of immigrant communities into a host nation, and these factors are exacerbated for refugee populations that have little support and family ties in their host ­communities. While refugee and host governmental agencies can help mitigate some of these factors, the complexities of the  immigrant and refugee experience can contribute to isolation and feelings of ­disenfranchisement within the immigrant population. These feelings and factors can also lead to increasing conflict toward the host society, which can influence assimilation or segregationist attitudes. Regardless of the degree of integration or segregation within the host nation, immigrant and refugee communities face difficult challenges in their new environment both within their own communities and in their interaction with the host community.

Relationship to the Home Context Diaspora communities remain deeply involved in social and political issues back home. They represent a significant contribution to both peace and conflict in their homelands (Baser and Swain, 2008; Bercovitch, 2007; Collier and Hoeffler, 2004;



Diaspora Populations

17

Koser, 2003; Lyons, 2004; Skrbiš, 2007). As these communities may have social, political, and economic power, they can deeply affect the conflict cycle in the home or groups they left behind (Bercovitch, 2007). These influences can include contributing to escalation and continuation of the conflict by supporting activities to ­perpetuate the conflict or to reconstruction and reconciliation by engaging in ­constructive dialogues about issues related to the conflict. Members of the diaspora with hardline attitudes can bolster the conflict through financial and political assistance to insurgents, making it difficult for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Collier and Hoeffler (2004) argue that since diasporas are more grievance‐­ conscious than their resident counterparts, they are more likely to finance rebel activity. Pirkkalainen and Mahdi (2009) contend that financial contributions from diaspora communities to opposition groups in their homelands are thought to be significant. According to the World Bank (2011) Migration and Remittance Fact Book, recorded remittances received in developing countries in 2010 are estimated to be $325 billion, exceeding official aid and contributing to up to 10 percent of GDP in many developing nations (World Bank, 2011, p. vii). It has also been claimed that the support of diasporas to insurgencies has probably surpassed that of the state (Pirkkalainen and Mahdi, 2009). Diasporas can also exert political and ­military influence to escalate the conflict. Through lobbying activities of host governments, international organization, media, advocacy, as well as providing military personnel and training, diaspora communities can significantly alter the dynamics of conflict (Bercovitch, 2007). Just as diasporas can contribute to conflict escalation and continuation, they also can play a critical part in conflict termination and reconciliation processes. Diaspora community members with flexible attitudes can contribute to the normalization of relationships and proactively engage in peacebuilding programs to benefit their homelands. For instance, Irish Americans significantly contributed to the financing of the conflict in Northern Ireland, but their involvement was also critical in the ­success of the peace process between the IRA and the British (Bercovitch, 2007). By participating in dialogue and problem‐solving workshops that “break down inflexible perceptions of the conflict” (Bercovitch, 2007, p. 33), diaspora communities can significantly contribute to the peace process. Similarly, business investments also play an important role in reconciliation and rebuilding processes. Business ­investments can provide jobs for demobilized soldiers, revive business confidence, and boost the local economy, thereby promoting long‐term peace in conflicted societies. One predominant hypothesis has it that diasporas participate in constructive conflict resolution in the homeland context if they stop relating to homeland development through political activities. Mahamoud (2006) found out that diasporas could be more effective in promoting peace through development and networks of domestic peace activities and civic institutions. Due to generally advanced educational levels, diasporas are well equipped to contribute positively to the peace process by making their expertise available to conflicting parties in the homeland in order to help them settle differences through peaceful channels of d ­ ialogue. For example, substantive knowledge gathered during Burundian diaspora dialogue at the University

18

Barbara Tint et al.

of Leuven in Belgium produced informed recommendations including the creation of systems for communication, consultation, negotiation, structures to enhance peace, promotion of a political climate capable of integrating the viewpoints of all parties to the conflict, and the enhancement of security (Public International Law and Policy Group [PILPG], 2009). After drafting the above recommendations, diaspora members agreed to continue frequent meetings in order to develop tangible proposals for solving specific issues such as power sharing, addressing past impunity of leaders, a new economic system, and regional relationships. In 2007, ten members of the Burundian Parliament met with 180 ­representatives of the Burundian diasporas in Belgium, many of whom represented civil society, and engaged in discussions about reconstruction, consolidation of democracy, inclusiveness, and potential participation of some members of the diaspora in the government (PILPG, 2009). Another example of diaspora contribution to peacebuilding in their country of origin comes from the Somali diaspora community in Finland. Concerned by the humanitarian challenges in their homeland, Horst et al. (2010) point out that a small group of Somali diaspora members approached Finn Church Aid, Finland’s largest development organization, asking why it wasn’t involved in a humanitarian mission in Somalia. This proactive move led to several follow‐up meetings, which ultimately led to the starting of the peacebuilding project in 2008. The project supports ­traditional and religious leaders in the peace process and is entirely run by Finnish Somalis selected not for their peacebuilding skills but on the basis of their qualifications and expertise in Somali affairs. We see that the influences of diaspora populations upon issues of regional conflict are critical. PILPG (2009) indicates that an increased awareness of different points of view on the conflict may lead to the creation of a space for dialogue to address the complexity of the conflict. This may alter the positions of diaspora communities and potentially form a broader diaspora identity with shared interests. Engaging these populations continues to be a vital dimension to overarching peacebuilding strategies.

Conflicts Within the Diaspora As conflict is a primary cause of migration (Terrazas, 2009), refugees experience pressing challenges related to the exporting of historical native conflict into the resettlement context. Historical challenges and conflicts are imported with the communities themselves and are powerful forces amidst people’s transition. Most in the diaspora are still living with the memories and consequences of the internal conflict and politics of the motherland. These conflicts in homeland countries affect ­diaspora communities in their resettlement experiences in a variety of ways. While typical resettlement efforts address issues such as housing, education, employment, health care, language, and other issues vital to successful integration, little has been done to address the historical conflicts following people into the diaspora. This often means that former enemies are sharing services, resettlement classes, and apartment complexes but are harboring mistrust, fear, and enmity toward those across the room. Former enemies often live



Diaspora Populations

19

next door to each other, are reluctant to visit ­service agencies staffed by someone from a conflicting tribe, or are being ostracized by the very community members whom they thought would provide support in the new land. This not only impairs successful resettlement, but also buries the trauma and enmity that people have imported, preventing community healing and a unified diaspora. While shared need and mutual interdependence in a new and unfamiliar context have the potential to unify people across conflict lines, increased fear, trauma, and insecurity related to resettlement can also harden the barriers between conflicted people and groups. Intercommunal conflict in these communities, therefore, becomes a major obstacle to successful resettlement and community building, so vital to recent immigrants. Though other community needs are a significant focus of resettlement programs, very little has been done to provide the opportunity for diaspora communities to deal with their own historical conflict. We have seen the significant efforts that have been made to engage diaspora populations in homeland peacebuilding processes; less attention has been devoted to conflict between diaspora communities in the resettlement context. While there has been some documented effort to bring diaspora communities together in dialogue (Busbridge and Winarnita, 2015; ­ Ohanyan, 2012), the efforts in this domain are limited in relation to the significant challenges in worldwide resettlement contexts related to the importing of historical contexts. Other work related to assimilation and multicultural issues has been explored (Scuzzarello, 2010), but this focuses on intergroup relations between ­refugees and the community members in the resettlement context. As previously noted, this is a critical issue, and is becoming more and more a vital dimension of refugee resettlement given the current refugee crisis and the backlash, resistance, xenophobia, and political posturing happening in host countries. This is true on both the community and governmental levels. Given the large numbers of diaspora communities worldwide that have been propelled into their diaspora status due to community conflict, there have been far too few processes of this kind to address the conflicts that communities carry into their new worlds. As world events continue to force people to flee in large numbers, this dilemma will remain and only increase in severity if steps are not taken to address these issues with intention and skill. Although all refugees share certain experiences related to resettlement processes, each community has its own unique experiences of conflict, fueled by the myriad forces at play in each region. While it is not possible to provide an adequate overview of all of the conflicts within the diaspora context, it is important to note that any work of this nature must be grounded in understanding and knowledge of the particular circumstances of each group. It is the responsibility of any outsider working with diaspora populations to learn about the many layers that inform each conflict. Understanding the cultural, political, religious, and historical dimensions to the forces that have contributed to the migration experience is a critical factor in diaspora efforts. While much can be learned from the community members themselves, grounding in background knowledge is foundational to this work. Similarly, it is also the responsibility of any insider working within these communities to be aware of the multiple perspectives that inform the situation, especially

20

Barbara Tint et al.

when these perspectives may be in conflict with their own. That is, any inside community member will have their own experiences, perspectives, and biases that might be different from other community members with whom they are working. Ensuring that all perspectives are included, as well as those rooted in the resettlement context, is another critical dimension to successful community conversations.

Voices from Within To understand a bit more about the challenges facing diaspora populations, we provide the following anecdotes, shared by community members, which reveal some of the issues that have emerged within their resettlement experiences. These are only a few of the many examples of the struggles within and between these communities. The need for community healing and dialogue is apparent. so many problems in different African communities. For instance, “weWehavehaveconflict between different Somali clans, and then we have a conflict bet-

ween Somalis and Ethiopians. We have problems in the Great Lakes community. We have a problem inside the Congo where we have different groups, and at the same time we have the Congolese conflict with Rwandese because of war in Eastern Congo. With the Liberians: between the Americo‐Liberian – the descendants of former slaves – and original or native Liberian. So there are a lot of problems in the African community; for each refugee group there is a problem. And they bring those problems with them to the United States. It makes it hard to organize the community when there are those conflicts. And we are so scared to tackle this issue because it is very sensitive and we don’t know where to start.

”

I remember when we had this project, I went to the Office of Resettlement “meeting in Arizona. I was talking to a director of a refugee program from

another state. He is Congolese, and he told me in front of the O.R. official that this can’t be possible, to bring a Congolese and Rwandese together in one room, where they share food. That he himself, right now, as a director of a refugee organization, will never sit down with a Tutsi client and share food. He said that in front of all the officials. I was stunned.

”

I had in my car 3 Somali women and I was taking them down“townI remember for a hotel job, housekeeping job. It was raining; I saw a Somali Bantu

woman walking in the rain. I pulled over. I said, “I know her. This is one of my clients. I need to pick her up and maybe drop her where she is going.” And so those Somali women said, “No, you are not going to pick her up.” I said,



Diaspora Populations

21

“Why?” One said, “We don’t want a Somali Bantu to sit in front.” I said, “You’re telling me you are all Muslim, why are you saying this?” So I pulled over. I say, “This is my car. If you don’t want it, you get out, but I will pick her up.” So I picked this lady up, and all these three Somali women were sitting at the back, and the passenger seat next to me is empty. So I asked this lady to get into the car. So she got into the car. She said, “Hi, Salaam,” and all of them say, “Salaam,” but you can feel it was not genuine. And the three Somali women were just holding their nose. I didn’t say anything until I dropped this lady off. I said, “Why were you holding your nose?” They said, “We don’t share space with the Bantu; they stink.” And at the same time they were saying, “We are all Muslim; we don’t have any problems.” So you see how it is contradictory?

”

our country’s [Rwanda] independence celebration, the women “wereDuring asked to cook our traditional food and the men were asked to bring bev-

erages to the program. I prepared some food and took it to the program. When I entered the hall with the food and sat it on the table, the person in charge of the food asked me who asked me to bring food to the program. I told her that today was Rwanda independence celebration and every Rwandan was asked to contribute. After that, a group of Tutsi women spoke among themselves. They were in the majority and I was the only Hutu. The leader came to me and said that they had enough, and asked that I take my food off the table. I felt terrible and embarrassed, and took my food and left the program.

”

my first day in college, I was very nervous and scared because it was “myDuring first time entering college since my transition to the United States. When I entered the orientation hall, I saw a couple of students who looked like people from my country. I decided to sit with them. When they realized that I was a Bantu after I introduced myself, they decided to change their seats after the break. I felt different and rejected by my own people in a strange land.

”

have a lady that is half Tutsi and half Congolese, one of my clients in “2003.WeHer son got killed in a car accident after she got here. The Congolese had a website and put on it that they should celebrate because they have to use one bullet less, because this Tutsi got killed and they should celebrate the Tutsi death. This lady was so shocked. She thought she is Congolese because her dad is Congolese. She never lived in Rwanda, all her life she lived in Congo. But still she is still completely excluded from the Congolese community. She told me this problem and I personally didn’t believe it, that Congolese living in Portland can do something like this. So I just listened to her.

”

Barbara Tint et al.

22

the Liberian and Ethiopian communities, they have been here so long “andWith they think that they have enough skill to do this job on their own. They

tried. We tried Liberian mediation; there are people coming from Seattle who mediate, which I thought was going to go smoothly; it didn’t happen and the problem is still continuing. Not only in Portland, but also in other states, like Minnesota, where there is a large Liberian population. There is a problem between the native Liberians and the Americo, who are the descendants of former slaves that moved from [the] United States to Liberia. The problem is there, and this is one of the reasons the Liberians have the civil war. The problem continues here. Also, another complication with the Liberian community is that in some cases the victim and the perpetrator of the civil war are all in the community. People know each other individually and there is nothing done about it, so people, when you talk to them about coming together in [the] Liberian community, they just say, “oh, if this person is there I’m not coming,” so it makes it hard.

”

This family from the Great Lakes, a Hutu family, was living upstairs in an “apartment, and there was a Tutsi family living downstairs. The Hutu family

was so scared; overnight they just moved out without telling people. Everyone was wondering why they broke the contract. They preferred to break the contract and pay the fine than share space with the Tutsi family. I didn’t know about it. Both families are our clients – not only clients, but they even work for us. They are community leaders, and I didn’t know until we came to this project; this issue came out during the dialogues. I didn’t know. I was so stunned, that wow, those people, when they come here to IRCO or Africa House, when you see them, they are openly talking as if there is no problem. At the same time, they are so scared of each other, they have to move away from each other.

”

visiting with a prominent human rights activist in Congo. I “tookWeherhadtoa angroup IRCO classroom where there is a Tutsi Congolese woman and

her family in that class. And I told the visitor, “You know what, there is a Congolese family here. Let me go introduce you. They are in the class.” I took her to the class. She didn’t even say hi; she just looked at that client and said, “She is not Congolese. This is Tutsi Rwandese. I am not even going to say hi to her.” She walked away. This is a human rights activist; she was paid by the Department of State to come to the United States and learn about human rights. She walked away without saying hi to this lady. That is how I knew how strong this issue is and how much work we need to do.

”

03 The Transition Framework If you want to know the end, look at the beginning — African Proverb

Diana Bianco Barbara Tint Roland Clarke

Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities, First Edition. Barbara Tint. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

24

Diana Bianco, Barbara Tint, and Roland Clarke

As part of our work in DDP, we used a model of social change called the Transition Framework, a model integral to the community reconciliation efforts supported by AFF. At the time of this project, AFF was guided by the belief that social change efforts will have a better chance for success when the emotional and psychological effects of the change process are recognized and addressed. Attending to the internal transitions experienced by participants in social change and community reconciliation processes increases the likelihood that these efforts will have a greater impact at a deeper level of people’s experience and will sustain over time. The Transition Framework was used both as a framing construct in the planning and development of the dialogue processes and as a teaching tool with participants in dialogue and training sessions. In this chapter, we present a basic outline of the Framework, offer tools in considering its applicability, and address both the benefits and challenges of using the Framework in these processes. Our case study contextualizes the Framework as it applies to the diaspora populations we served in this project. Specific ways in which to use the Transition Framework in intergroup processes are also offered in Chapter 6 on Dialogue.

Change vs. Transition While the terms change and transition are often used interchangeably, there is a fundamental difference between them. It is important to more fully understand this difference in order to be able to effectively work with the Transition Framework in community reconciliation efforts. Change happens to everyone. Change is an external event that happens in all of our lives. With change, there are clear boundaries between the old and the new. ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

We get married or divorced. We move to a new city or country. We have babies or our teenagers move away. We lose someone dear to us. We get promoted or lose our jobs.

Sometimes change is something we choose, such as a positive move to a new job or city. Sometimes change is something that we do not choose; it is imposed on us, as in the case of an unwanted divorce or a forced or unavoidable move to a new country. Transition is an internal response to change. Any type of change, whether we choose it or not, forces us through a process of psychological adjustment  –  a transition. While change is external and tied to a certain situation, transition is the internal, emotional process of coming to terms with the effects of that change. ●● ●●

We grieve, get angry, or feel stuck. We get confused and uncertain in new situations.



The Transition Framework

25

Figure 3.1  Change vs. Transition. Source: Bridges, 1980.

●● ●● ●●

We get nostalgic and try to hold on to the past. We get scared about possible success or new expectations and demands. We have bursts of new energy and creativity.

Transition is that internal, emotional response to change that needs to be addressed in order for the change to be successfully sustained. Change can happen overnight, but the emotional adjustments that take place alongside that change can last for years. The refugee or immigrant experience is an example of the difference between change and transition. There are various dimensions of change for a refugee or immigrant: the move to a new country, the shift of job or status, separation from family members. The transition related to these experiences is the underlying psychological process that people experience in the intense and long‐lasting ­emotions associated with the relocation and the adjustments that go with it. While the change might happen abruptly, the transition can last for a very long time.

The Transition Framework Author William Bridges (1980) developed the Transition Framework to help ­people understand and talk with others about the powerful emotions involved when change happens. In the Bridges Framework, each transition is made up of  three stages: Endings, which can produce joy, relief, sadness, anger, or remorse – and possibly some combination of all of those; the Neutral Zone, which can bring fear and ­confusion along with space for creativity; and New Beginnings, which can bring a mix of confidence about what has been gained and anxiety about sliding backwards. While change is often painful and scary, particularly the magnitude of change inherent in forced or traumatic change, it is the transition

26

Diana Bianco, Barbara Tint, and Roland Clarke

that brings even greater challenges due to the loss of identity from Endings, the  disorientation in the Neutral Zone, and the fear and risk of  failing in a New Beginning.

The Three Stages Endings Even though a new situation may arrive with a bang, transitions do not. Sometimes, even when a change has already occurred, we remain stuck or in denial, wanting to hold on to the way things were. When we acknowledge that a change is real, that “the way things were” is no longer possible, we can experience loss. The result can become a time of mourning. Endings force us to let go of the old way, which sometimes goes beyond behavior to involve attitudes, assumptions, beliefs, and relationships that shape our self‐ image and identity. “Letting go” does not mean forgetting; it means shifting away from our habituated way of doing things and the identity that has been formed around it. Neither does it mean abandoning all of the old ways. There are significant parts of the past that continue to serve us; remembering and honoring that is key for those who have suffered great loss. However, endings also require a level of acceptance for a past we cannot undo, recreate or hold onto, especially when attempting to do so interferes with our needs in the present and future. In s­ ituations of great loss, “letting go” is more like moving forward, carrying the pain and joy of the past life into the future. In community reconciliation, this may mean letting go of an image or historical experience of a group of people. It might also mean no longer identifying ­ourselves in opposition to another group. In a dialogue or community reconciliation process, ­participants might have to let go of status, turf, power and influence, relationships, personal identity, or membership in a specific group. This often creates sadness, anger, resistance, and the temptation to hold on tighter to what seems to be slipping away. The Transition Framework posits that as we go through life, in order to move ahead we typically have to leave something behind. To move forward, we may need to transform the person we used to be and find the new person we will become in our new situation. All New Beginnings, even those that are positive, require an Ending of some sort.

“

When I started the program, I entered with hatred and anger in my heart and didn’t want to be in the same room with people from the other tribal group. However, as the dialogue process continued, and as I listened to what others were sharing, my anger and hatred went away. I was forced to end anger and hatred towards members of the other tribal group.

”



The Transition Framework

27

Indications that someone is at an Ending ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

Anger at the people who contributed to or caused the situation. Resistance to talking or thinking about the future. Desire for things to stay the same. Fear of what the future will bring. Feelings of helplessness or loss of control. Significant grief over the loss experienced. Mistrust of others.

Supporting people through Endings ●● ●●

●● ●● ●●

●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

Identify what they are losing. Accept the reality and importance of what people’s loss means to them. Do not be surprised by what might seem like an overreaction. Receive and provide information as best you can about the situation. Acknowledge the losses openly and sympathetically. Expect and accept the signs of grieving, including anger, bargaining, anxiety, sadness, disorientation, and depression. Treat the past with respect. Help people to see what might compensate for the loss. Look for ways to soften the impact. Help define what needs to end and what does not. Use ceremony, rituals, or symbolic events to provide closure. Help people figure out what they have lost and what they might replace, redefine, reinvent, or relinquish.

The Neutral Zone After something ends, we have to get through an uncomfortable in‐between time, when the old way is gone but a new way hasn’t fully formed, doesn’t yet work or feel comfortable. The “Neutral Zone” is the “in‐between” phase where we have accepted endings, but the new way of doing things has not yet settled or been established. The Neutral Zone can feel confusing and chaotic. Even if a change sounded good at the beginning, and even if the change was our choice, we may feel lost, anxious, defensive, and discouraged. People around us can become impatient; they may want us to “move on” or “get over it.” But the Neutral Zone cannot be rushed, and we all go through this phase in our own way and time. The Neutral Zone can also be very creative. Everything is up for grabs, so there is less holding us back than at other times in our lives. We have an opportunity to ­create a “new” identity or a different way of being in the world or relating to others. While it is scary and ungrounding, we can also flourish in the possibilities. Just as if

28

Diana Bianco, Barbara Tint, and Roland Clarke

we were facing a blank canvas, we don’t yet know what will appear, but we can ­imagine and move toward beautiful images. Possibly the hardest part of being in the Neutral Zone is being patient when we feel disoriented or uncertain. We need to live with being confused, because that is when we do our best problem solving and when we are at our most creative. We also need to know that our struggles are normal and a necessary stage in transition. Often, we are more troubled by our concerns about our feelings than by the feelings themselves. The Neutral Zone creates space for creativity and growth, but the loss of familiar boundaries and supports creates a powerful temptation to jump at the first opportunity that looks or feels familiar. Through struggling in the Neutral Zone, we can let ourselves explore all paths to New Beginnings.

“

During the first week of the program, especially during the orientation, I felt that I was in the wrong place and was sitting with my enemies. Making the decision to sit in the same room with a person that I never thought I would ever sit with was challenging, confusing, and difficult. On many occasions when I went home, I felt not to return the next day. I was always tempted to quit the program. Sometimes, I asked myself why was I attending this program, and what was I doing talking and sitting with people who had done so many wrong things to my people. It was so frustrating and confusing to me. 

”

Indications that someone is in the Neutral Zone ●● ●● ●●

●● ●● ●●

Constant worrying about the future. A desire to try something different. Feeling confused and disoriented; things don’t make sense the way they used to. Feeling lost and scared about choosing the wrong path. Being excited – and overwhelmed – by the possibilities. Knowing that the change is good but not knowing how to make it work.

Supporting people through the Neutral Zone ●●

●● ●● ●●

Normalize the Neutral Zone. Help them understand that it is natural to feel frightened, frustrated, or confused. Provide training, education, or other opportunities for people to be successful. Encourage experimentation. Help people see losses or setbacks as a way to find new, more successful paths.



The Transition Framework ●●

29

Help people regain what is often felt to be lost in the Neutral Zone: control, understanding, support, and purpose: ◦◦ Control – help people set realistic and achievable goals; share information so they know what to expect; try to minimize other changes. ◦◦ Understanding – ask people what they need to know to help them with change. ◦◦ Support – offer support; provide opportunities for people to support each other. ◦◦ Purpose  –  help people connect to their purpose and the things they care about.

New Beginnings The final phase of transition is the “New Beginning”  –  when we are emotionally ready to do things in a new way and embrace the possibilities of the future. We reach the New Beginning after we have parted with the old and traversed the chaotic Neutral Zone. This phase is where a new way of doing things, a new identity, or a new opportunity for growth and progress comes into focus. The New Beginnings phase initially brings a feeling of finally having “arrived,” mixed with anxiety about backsliding. New values, attitudes, and, most of all, new identities have emerged. The New Beginning does not erase the past; a new identity has emerged that includes a new and different understanding of what the past means. Like a birth – the archetype of all new beginnings – this third phase of transition happens on its own schedule. Things can start when we say they will, but the beginning will happen only when we are inwardly ready. And that can take a while. The transition always takes longer – sometimes much longer – than the change.

“

Midway in the dialogue process, I started to trust others from the other tribe. For me, being a Hutu, I was shocked so many times of the empathy members of the group showed me. Now, I am able to visit members from the other tribe’s homes and eat their traditional food together. Before the program, in no way this would ever happen. We are friends now. 

”

Indications that someone is at a New Beginning ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

What was once new is becoming normal. Thinking about the past does not cause as much distress as it once did. Feeling good about where things are. Less worry about the future. Renewed energy and hope.

Diana Bianco, Barbara Tint, and Roland Clarke

30

Supporting people in New Beginnings ●● ●●

●●

Clarify and communicate the purpose behind the change. Continue to paint the picture of the new way and how it can meet an individual’s needs. Reinforce the new beginning by acting consistently and highlighting and celebrating success(es).

Transitions Are Not Always… … Linear. Transitions do not move in a straight line. We move back and forth ­between feelings associated with Endings and with the Neutral Zone. Just when we think we have safely arrived in the New Beginning, the sadness of memory can pull us back. … Automatic. Transitions happen at their own pace. We cannot force our hearts to heal. Sometimes the Ending is so painful or the Neutral Zone is so confusing that

New identity

BEGINNINGS

3

Renewal

The new chapter

Being with It

NEUTRAL ZONE

2 Creativity

ENDINGS

1

Loss

The wilderness Chaos In-between time Letting go Saying goodbye Acknowledgment

Figure 3.2  Transition Framework Expanding Circle Model. Source: Bridges, 1980.



The Transition Framework

31

we need to pull back. We may go backwards and seek escape through fantasy about the past or denial about the present. … Successful. People forced to deal with constant, traumatic change need patience, love, understanding, and support. Otherwise, our New Beginning can end in burnout, cynicism, hopelessness, or an all‐out resistance to any new change – good or bad. … In the same order. Sometimes a change occurs and then we go through a transition (i.e., we lose our job and then have to go through a period of loss or adjustment before we move on). However, sometimes a transition might occur first, which leads us to a change (i.e., we go through an internal process of decision and struggle with a job, which we then decide to leave).

Transition, Social Change, and Community Reconciliation In a community reconciliation process  –  which explores how communities can acknowledge a fractured past and move toward a new and more hopeful future – the change may be that one group begins talking to another group. Structured ­dialogue begins where previously there had been animosity, negative feelings, or estrangement. The engagement between the two groups becomes a significant change for all involved. Understanding transition can help participants in a reconciliation or dialogue process shift away from the way things used to be and reorient toward a different way of relating. In a dialogue process, paying attention to transition can help participants understand the range of emotions they and others experience as they explore reconciliation. The concept of transition is relevant in the context of social change, which, at its core, seeks to transform individuals and communities. The Transition Framework prompts us to raise and address questions that we might otherwise ignore. It urges us to face the emotions and anxiety that often surround change. Transition forces us to be more reflective about our response to reconciliation and social change and to develop initiatives that have a greater likelihood of success. Because the emotions associated with change can be difficult, it is no wonder that many social change efforts are met with resistance – from the individuals and communities that the change is meant to benefit, and from the organizations that are charged with implementing the change. Understanding that people are uncomfortable not with the change itself, but with the potentially painful process of transforming themselves in light of that change, can allow social change agents to devise more effective strategies. Understanding transition might not make a painful change easy or prevent us from being on an emotional roller coaster. However it can normalize difficult ­experiences, provide a shared language to discuss the change, reinforce commitment to a dialogue or reconciliation process, facilitate more empathy for others, and provide hope for the future.

Diana Bianco, Barbara Tint, and Roland Clarke

32

Guide to Stages of Transition in Community Change Processes While everyone experiences transition differently, there are some common behaviors that can signal when a person or group is in each of the three phases, especially in community reconciliation processes. The following charts identify some of the more common reactions people may have when they experience community changes, some possible causes for the behaviors, and ideas for guiding people through each stage of transition.

Endings Behaviors

How do I know if someone is in Endings (what behaviors do they demonstrate)?

Self‐protection

Unwilling to engage in discussion/think about possibilities different than the status quo.

Blaming

The problem is the other group. They are getting in the way of our hopes/vision.

Resistance/non‐ participation

Unwillingness to participate in dialogue or come to the table with other parties.

Inability to see the future

Lots of conversation about the past, the “way it used to be,” past traumas and events.

Vocal distrust in the other party’s leadership

As long as “x” is in charge, we will never get anywhere.

Expressed desire for revenge

No interest in dialogue until “x” group has paid for what they did.

Underlying Causes

What are the reasons for Endings behavior?

Feeling of risk

Engaging in dialogue suggests that we are doing something “wrong” now and/or we may have to do something differently.

Fear of being blamed

Concern that the process will solidify and deepen story of blame.

Distrust

Disbelief that the “other” will change their behavior.

Tension within party lines

Lack of internal unity makes it riskier to talk with the other party.

Hopelessness/ helplessness

Belief that nothing about the current situation can ever improve.

Common Emotions

What are common emotions during Endings? Anger * Grief * Fear * Depression * Helplessness



The Transition Framework

33

Intervention Strategies

What intervention strategies can help someone through Endings?

Stay the course

Persist with a process even when parties are resistant to participating. Leave the option open to do something different.

Develop a more nuanced understanding of stakeholder groups and work with multiple ones

Different groups may have different endings. Devise different strategies to deal with different kinds of endings. Use stakeholder groups that may be further along to create momentum.

Work within stakeholder groups first

Help each group talk about and recognize their own endings before asking them to work with the “other.”

Create forums for mourning and grief

Use dialogue sessions, rituals, ceremonies.

Work with the leadership

Talk with them about the complexity of the problem. If possible, do a double interview – publicly appearing together.

Anonymous questionnaires

Jump‐start your process with individual input that can be solicited anonymously to make it less threatening.

Neutral Zone Behaviors

How do I know if someone is in the Neutral Zone (what behaviors do they demonstrate)?

Cautious optimism

Willingness to talk about the future as different than the present and past, but not always.

Visible signs of progress

Agreements made, initiatives launched publicly, structural ways of interacting across groups established, etc.

Participation

Willingness and sometimes eagerness to participate in a process with the “other.”

Dialogue or implementation happening

Alternatives for a different future are being articulated in some form.

Public events derail progress, but only temporarily

Incidents in the community or public domain that indicate “old” ways of interacting derail forward momentum or cause significant disruptions. At the same time, you can get things back on track in ways that were not possible before.

34

Diana Bianco, Barbara Tint, and Roland Clarke

Fractiousness within stakeholder groups

Smaller factions within stakeholder groups protest work with the “other.” The “fight” shifts from across stakeholder groups to within them.

Underlying Causes

What are the reasons for Neutral Zone behavior?

Desire for things to be different

No matter how risky it is, the possibility of a different future is worth engaging.

Threats to group identity

While people may want change, it often entails recasting a group identity that is at war with the “other” by definition. A more complex view of the “other” requires an identity shift. Slipping back into the “old way” at times is part of the identity struggle.

Fear of splitting within groups

Intra‐group divisions regarding agenda/ strategy may make leaders less willing to work with the “other” because they do not want to risk losing dissenting members of their own group.

Common Emotions

What are common emotions during the Neutral Zone? Cautiousness * Optimism * Frustration with steps “back” * Hope * Disappointment

Intervention Strategies

What intervention strategies can help someone through the Neutral Zone?

Revisit why this is important

Build opportunities into your process to talk about why participants want to change the situation.

Continue to work with leadership from all stakeholder groups

Set up regular meetings with leadership (together AND apart) to keep things on track when setbacks happen.

Work with the press

Find reporters who will report progress in a positive way to build momentum and good feeling/pride among participants.

Create systems and structures for ongoing dialogue

Use resource centers, facilitated forums, etc., that are a resource for addressing issues as implementation of agreements moves ahead.

Continue to help each group work with their internal divisions

Ongoing retreats to air individual agendas/ concerns and to resolve differences.



The Transition Framework

New Beginnings Behaviors

How do I know if someone is in New Beginnings (what behaviors do they demonstrate)?

Success on the ground

Elements of agreements are implemented on and off the ground.

One‐on‐one interaction transformed

Individuals across conflicting groups can work productively together.

Rhetoric about the “other” is more positive

Public conversation about the value of the other group.

Community‐based structures in place to manage future problems

(e.g., the launch of a Community Problem‐Solving Center)

Outside conveners and facilitators are less needed/ lead less

Efforts are now being led by people in the community, with original conveners as backup.

Underlying Causes

What are the reasons for New Beginnings behavior?

Progress on the ground outweighs skepticism

When enough different behavior is experienced, people begin to believe that progress is possible.

Ownership shifted from conveners to participants

It is no longer easy to bow out when the initiative is being led by your own stakeholder group.

Common Emotions

What are common emotions during New Beginnings? Hope * Pride * Excitement * Fear

Intervention Strategies

What intervention strategies can help someone through New Beginnings?

Celebrate along the way

Find ways to publicly mark milestones and progress to demonstrate that progress is recognized.

Be mindful of new transition cycles

There may be new transitions on the horizon. Be ready to work on Endings with new groups or on new issues.

Stay focused on implementation and resources needed

Do everything you can to shore up resources needed for implementation.

35

36

Diana Bianco, Barbara Tint, and Roland Clarke

Case Study Using the Transition Framework within African Diaspora Communities Being a refugee, immigrant, or asylee is, unfortunately, the ultimate experience of transition. Endings are long, difficult, and often forced, making the resistance that goes along with them profound. The layers of loss and change are many. People can be in the Neutral Zone (renamed the Chaos Zone by many of our participants) for years, and the challenges and complications are both internal and external. For many, the challenges can last a lifetime, and the difficulty of having part of oneself in one world (the home context) and part in another (the new context) never goes away. New beginnings are slow to come for many, and the resistance to change is rooted in the reluctance of many to give up the hope of ever returning home, or living life as they had in the past. This is particularly true of older community members. Beginnings can also provide opportunity and a bright future, but for many in the diaspora, their new experiences will always be tinged with what they have left behind. The Transition Framework was a powerful dimension of our work; in utilizing the framework within the context of DDP, we found that the model sparked some of the most productive outcomes of the dialogue sessions. We offer these materials for you to draw from in working with other diaspora communities. However, it is imperative to contextualize the material to fit your group and purpose, as we did in our project, and to use it in ways that are congruent with the needs and realities of the populations with which you are working. The prescriptive dimension of this model and others like it can be problematic if not integrated meaningfully. We used the model in two primary ways: 1.  In exploring the experience of being a refugee or immigrant and the ­transitions inherent in moving from one context to another. In that realm, using the Transition Framework ●● Increased the participants’ willingness to come together as a group. ●● Provided participants a way to understand their experience. ●● Enabled the participants to more deeply explore their Endings in their home countries, the ongoing distress of orienting to a new place, and the hope of a new future after a long period of settling in. ●● Gave participants a common language and common ground to ­identify their shared experience. ●● Created the opportunity for mutual empathy amongst former “enemies.” ●● Normalized difficult periods of time that, for many, lasted for years. ●● Helped participants identify changes and transitions that occurred in their journeys to the United States, and the links between those changes and the tension, division, and conflict experienced in their communities.



The Transition Framework 2.  In exploring the experience of being in dialogue with members of opposing groups and the transitions inherent in moving from “enemy” to ally. In that realm, using the Transition Framework ●● Provided a common focus and task as participants strove to identify where their communities placed themselves along the spectrum of Transitions. ●● Helped alter the social structure of their communities, facilitating a change in community life and behaviors. ●● Improved social relationships among mixed community groups. ●● Provided participants with a tool that they then used to encourage other community members to make changes to their social and community lives. ●● Created more of a sustained change in community relationships as participants understood that some of the discomfort and resistance they were experiencing was a normal part of the process. ●● Empowered participants to make meaning of their experience on ­multiple levels, including social, institutional, and political. ●● Allowed participants to express their visions for the future, and to  identify the steps needed to rebuild their relationships and ­communities. ●● Offered participants ways in which their communities could create New Beginnings relevant to their identity and culture. African Perspectives of Transition and Change While there were many ways in which the Transition Framework was effective within the context of DDP, we were also aware of and sensitive to the elements of the model that had to be understood from and utilized within the cultural perspective of the communities. In integrating the model into the African community context, we found that: ●●

●●

●●

The Western concepts of transition and change resonated for most participants and had much similarity to what transition and change meant in their culture. Participants told fascinating stories to explain their understanding of these ­experiences. There is a collective mindset that must be considered when using the concept of transition and the practice of dialogue with African immigrants and refugees. Participants held that change and transition manifest in a collective framework. For example, if a person dies, the physical change takes place singularly, but the emotion is felt by all members in that community. A strong spiritual element was presented as part of the experience of transition, for both individuals and the collective.

37

38

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Diana Bianco, Barbara Tint, and Roland Clarke While community members embraced the model, they sometimes felt ­challenged by the concepts, which did not always fit with their understanding. Language sometimes provided a barrier to fully understanding the concepts, which could be challenging and abstract for people trying to make concrete sense of them in a foreign language. Some of the wording of the model did not always fit people’s experience, even if the concepts did. Participants often renamed the stages of Transition, for example: ◦◦ Ending: “momentary stop,” “to complete,” and “to move from.” ◦◦ Neutral Zone: “confusion,” “critical time,” “chaos zone,” “questioning period,” and “challenging zone.” For most, this phase felt anything but neutral. ◦◦ New Beginning: “moving forward,” “living in the present,” and “a new me.” Some participants felt that Beginnings came before Endings and emphasized a circular experience of the model, which often felt too linear to them. Participants responded extremely well to the use of Transitions as a way for them to tell stories about their lives, a culturally congruent aspect of African culture. Because of the strong connections between local and distant communities, change and transition were seen as processes that dynamically intersected spheres, from the local diaspora to national and international diasporas and communities back home in Africa. Time was seen as a fluid and elastic concept, where the process of transition could span generations. Ritual was a powerful tool in understanding and illustrating the experience of transition. Generational, gender, and age differences often impacted how participants understood, integrated, and made sense of the Transition Framework. For example, younger participants (ages 20–30) cited many more examples of New Beginnings in their personal stories than the older generation (ages 31–50). New Beginnings for the younger generation involved adapting to life in the United States, going to school, making new friends, and helping their families negotiate difficult situations in the community. The analogy of being “between two chairs” was heard in the older generation’s stories and experiences, as they described constantly questioning how to negotiate their new life in America, and many expressed feeling disempowered.



The Transition Framework

39

I am here in the U.S. physically, but emotionally I’m still part of my “community in Africa. It would take me a long time for my transition to complete, or I may never transition completely. ”

“

I felt like a prisoner and depressed when I was in the refugee camp in Kenya, but after one month in the U.S., I felt complete freedom. I’m happy, in school, have a job, have new friends, and [I’m] driving my own car. I hate to remember my life back home and my life as a refugee in Kenya.

”

The Transition Framework provided a vital dimension to the dialogue work in DDP. While it was linguistically and conceptually challenging for some, it allowed participants to share their experience of endings, chaos, and new beginnings in ways that normalized their deep‐rooted struggles, provided common ground, created mutual empathy, and increased the feeling of unity. Community members were eager to bring this back to their communities for wider use and there is great potential for its impact within the wider diaspora. For more information on the Transition Framework, please see: http://www.transitionandsocialchange.org.

04 Recruitment

When spider webs unite, they can halt even the lion — Ethiopian Proverb

Daniel Amine Barbara Tint Mindy Johnston

Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities, First Edition. Barbara Tint. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Recruitment

41

Introduction During our work, we found that the recruitment of participants was one of the most important phases of the project. The term recruitment refers to the process of ­identifying, attracting, screening, and selecting potential participants for dialogue. This process can be very challenging when working with communities with long historical tensions, and our experience proved to be no exception. Because the project was new and unknown, it was often met with resistance on the part of community members. Obtaining commitment was very difficult given the communities’ skepticism, and under circumstances in which people were leading complicated, busy, and stressful lives. Additionally, sometimes people would commit to participating, but then not follow through. Understandably, the initial phase of recruitment was the most difficult; subsequent efforts were easier as word of the ­dialogue groups’ success spread quickly. For our project, we were fortunate in that we had a half‐time staff person whose job it was to serve as community liaison and manage recruitment. It was a very demanding role and one that required patience, flexibility, persistence, humor, and generosity, along with a strong network of people who could assist with these efforts. In designing the recruitment process, it was crucial to develop effective strategies that maximized interest and minimized barriers to participation. The following are our best practice recommendations for recruitment, based on our experience in these efforts.

Consultation and Research Consultation with multiple stakeholders and research on the communities in question are crucial to the recruitment process, providing team members with increased knowledge and awareness of the groups with which they will be working. This is particularly helpful and important for those who are outsiders to the communities in question. These efforts provide information about the historical and cultural background of the participants and increased understanding of community needs. This step also assists in minimizing cultural mistakes in the development, planning, and implementation of the dialogue groups. Effective consultation and research should include the following: ●●

●●

Consult with other professionals and organizations that have experience working with the populations you are hoping to engage. This will not only provide essential information for your efforts, but also give credibility to the reconciliation efforts through partnering with established organizations. Engage with community members who are bicultural in that they understand their own communities deeply, but also understand and can navigate the terrain of the host world. Often these are community members who have been in the diaspora for a long time and/or have worked in social service agencies connected to the refugee communities.

42 ●●

●●

●●

●●

Daniel Amine, Barbara Tint, and Mindy Johnston Conduct a community needs assessment (see Chapter  7 on Evaluation). It is essential to work from within the communities to assess identified issues and people’s interests, needs, motivations, and availability for dialogue and community reconciliation processes. Form a multicultural team of people to work on the project. It is invaluable to have the multiple perspectives from various cultures as well as the benefit of both insider and outsider voices in the planning, development, and implementation of the project. Identify key community members who support the project and can provide influence in the larger community populations, as well as insight into how to be most effective and helpful in these efforts. Network with other professionals or groups who are conducting similar work.

Outreach Networking and collaborating with a variety of established community‐based organizations is a vital aspect of outreach for recruitment. Because the project aims to bring people together who have a history of political, regional, tribal, clan, land, and other conflicts, outreach needs to be conducted with strategic and sensitive consideration of these issues. Because of the many community organizations that typically exist within diaspora contexts, it is essential to approach as many of these organizations as possible in order to make sure that different factions of each community are represented in your outreach efforts. Outreach and recruitment will likely take more time than you expect, so plan as much time as possible for these efforts and know that it might be several months before you have generated enough commitment in community groups to begin dialogue. Things to consider: ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Strategize about whether recruitment should be done by in‐group members, out‐group members, or perhaps a team of people representing both. Sometimes having an in‐group community member paired with someone from an agency, university, or other organization can provide an effective recruitment team. Consider the identity relationships of recruiters and potential participants. (For example, in our work, an Ethiopian recruiter sometimes elicited suspicion on the part of potential Somali participants.) Host a series of independent community meetings to explain the project and provide interested stakeholders an opportunity to learn more about it. Meet with people in their churches or mosques as an effective point of ­connection, particularly if the project is supported and endorsed by religious leaders. Attend as many community‐based meetings as possible to inform people of the project and to make the personal connections that will invite people into the process. Communicate with community elders, leaders, and other permanent community members in person and through phone calls and emails. Elicit their interest and support, which can wield a great deal of influence in the larger communities. The buy‐in of elders is crucial to a project’s success.

Recruitment ●●

●●

●●

●●

43

Work with women’s groups and youth groups, as appropriate, to generate interest among these populations. Utilize personal connections and relationships whenever possible to invite ­people into the process. Provide a brief brochure or handout that presents key information about the project. Follow up as much as possible (in person, by phone and in writing) to ensure continued interest and commitment on the part of participants.

Selection of Participants In considering the composition of dialogue groups, it is crucial that you be strategic in the selection of participants. While there may be strong interest among many people, there are a variety of issues to consider in the composition of your groups. It can be difficult to turn away interested parties who show strong motivation. If there are potential group members whom you feel are not a good match for the p ­ reliminary criteria you develop, you can explain that while participation is limited, ­additional opportunities might be available at a later time. Although you will not necessarily achieve a perfect balance of group members, the goal is to have as ­balanced an ­identity representation within each group as possible. Various issues to consider in these efforts include: ●●

●●

Age: Do you want mixed‐age groups or groups made up only of elders, youth, and so on? There are advantages and disadvantages to any configuration. For example, mixed‐age groups allow the older community members to model for younger ones, and let younger members learn from and follow in the footsteps of the elders. However, mixed‐age groups also run the risk of challenges related to value or communication issues among disparate ages, as well as potential disempowerment of the elders by a young population that might disregard traditional ways in favor of a more assimilated perspective. Groups that are made up only of elders or youth can allow those populations to strengthen and develop a coalition that can have a great deal of power in the wider community. However, they can also perpetuate insularity that might be counter to the wider community reconciliation efforts. Gender: Do you want mixed‐gender groups or single‐gender groups? Again, either choice has its advantages and disadvantages. Mixed groups allow for a variety of issues to emerge around gender roles and for both genders to play a role in the community reconciliation efforts. Single‐gender groups allow for deeper sharing to emerge that might not occur in mixed groups. In some of our processes, different participants expressed that they had difficulty speaking openly in front of the opposite gender. Furthermore, in some communities, sitting together in processes like this might be counter to community values around gender relationships.

44 ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Daniel Amine, Barbara Tint, and Mindy Johnston Tribal or ethnic affiliation: Ideally, any group will have a balance of tribal or ethnic group members connected to the historical conflict being addressed. However, sometimes, while these identity affiliations are at the root of the conflict, many people do not want to be identified in this way, nor do they want these issues explicitly on the table. This becomes challenging in the attempt to develop balanced groups while respecting the identity concerns of the participants. This is why community input on the planning team is critical as it can balance voices that might initially deny the real issues at play and who important players are. Power relationships: In any historical conflict scenario, there exist dynamics of power amongst the parties involved; often these power dynamics are at the root of the conflict or are a significant dimension of its evolution. In developing groups for dialogue, it is important to consider these issues. Dynamics of power exist across multiple dimensions of intergroup relationships, and they can impact how freely people feel about sharing in groups with those who have traditionally had power in their conflicted societies. This could have a great impact on both the process and content of dialogue. These issues can be a core dimension of what participants talk about, so knowing about and planning for this is crucial. Nationality: Some of the diaspora groups have conflicts that span a number of countries. Deciding which countries to include must be done thoughtfully. For example, we included the countries of Rwanda, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Great Lakes group, but did not include participants from Tanzania or Uganda, also considered to be Great Lakes countries. This was due to the size of the populations from these countries in Portland, as well as the belief among Africa House staff that the issues centered primarily around the three countries with which we chose to work. Relationships: In forming groups, be thoughtful about the relationships among the potential participants. In some groups we had spouses, co‐workers, close friends, and so on. While this is inevitable in close‐knit, collective communities, it is important to consider how these relationships will impact participation and the group as a whole. Ripeness: Community and participant readiness for engagement is a key element to the successful implementation of processes such as these. Considering the “ripeness” (Zartman, 2001) of a community conflict allows for understanding if, when, and how to enter with intervention strategies. Ripeness addresses participants’ motivation and readiness to enter into peacemaking or reconciliation efforts. While Zartman’s theory originally addressed ripeness in mediation and not dialogue, many of the same principles apply. Within the diaspora populations, various issues informed a community’s readiness for entering these processes. Length of time in the diaspora was one factor; participants who had recently arrived were not ready to consider these issues in the face of their more immediate adjustment and survival needs. Similarly, participants and communities who had been resettled for a very long time did not feel as strong a drive to address issues they felt had been buried long ago. Readiness was also impacted

Recruitment

●●

●●

●●

45

by the degree to which communities felt impaired by the conflicts between them. The concept of a mutually hurting stalemate, a state in which parties are locked into reciprocal and destructive processes, is often what drives them to consider new solutions. And seeing a way out – in this case, the dialogue processes – brings new possibilities to old problems. In our work, we learned that for most community members, being resettled anywhere from between six months to seven years was a good window in which to attempt dialogue. This might vary within different communities, but this is essential to consider when recruiting participants. Dialogue work can certainly foster a certain readiness that might not initially be there, but moving too soon or too late can have little impact at best, or a detrimental one at worst. Influence: Choosing participants whom you think will have an impact in the wider community is key to the development of dialogue groups. The greater potential there is for influential group members to transfer their experience to the larger diaspora, the more likely it is that the project will have long‐lasting impact. Receptivity to dialogue: Since group members might come to dialogue with differing perspectives, strong emotions, historical enmity, and mistrust, it is important to select participants who have the ability to sit with each other in spite of these issues. Maturity, willingness to explore the relevant issues, ability to embrace other perspectives, and courage are some of the qualities that increase success in this regard. Language ability: Groups might be conducted in the communities’ native language(s) if the facilitators are in‐group members or if they are bilingual. They also might be conducted in the host country’s language if the group members do not share another language or if the facilitators are from outside the group. Sometimes there will be a few participants who need translation. Be thoughtful about these issues, including whether or not you want to use translation (which can be challenging in a dialogue context) and whether participants have enough shared fluency to create a successful dialogue experience. Much can get lost or misinterpreted when language is not shared; therefore it is imperative that the crucial material that emerges in dialogue not be compromised in this way. Also, language can represent one aspect of power. If the group is conducted in a ­colonizing language, or one that privileges some group members over others, it presents a significant issue that can impact the dialogue.

Challenges There are many expected and unexpected challenges in the recruitment process and solicitation of community participation. Anticipating these challenges can help ­prevent unnecessary strain on available resources and can accelerate the process of establishing dialogue groups. Of course, every community is going to have its own

46

Daniel Amine, Barbara Tint, and Mindy Johnston

particular set of strengths, quirks, and challenges that need to be carefully c­ onsidered in planning and recruitment efforts. Some of the challenges that we encountered include: ●● ●●

●●

●● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Weakly organized or inactive community organizations. Misperception of the purpose and use of the dialogue project. This led either to resistance to participating or interest in participating for the wrong reasons. Mistrust of the system and fear of further division among conflicting groups from the same area or region. Fear of reprisal from participants’ own communities for sitting with “the enemy.” Ongoing conflicts and political turmoil in the home regions escalating and ­deepening conflicts in the diaspora communities. Cultural, religious, and traditional expectations, as well as language barriers, made it difficult to have balanced or mixed groups. Busy personal lives filled with multiple jobs, children, school, and so on, made it difficult for participants to commit to or follow through with group meetings. Convincing participants that the project was designed to help them to discuss issues that matter most to their communities. Difficulty in making sure that all constituencies and dimensions of communities were contacted and represented. Confusion as to whether people were representing themselves or their communities (or both) in dialogue, potentially enhancing in‐group divisions. Ensuring that participants understood the dialogue process, as this was potentially a new concept for people. It required a certain level of willingness and ­vulnerability on the part of the participants.

Further Recommendations In addition to the strategies outlined above, we offer the following recommendations to address these challenges and to facilitate a successful recruitment process: ●●

●●

●●

●●

Build on the belief that most community members who have struggled with group divisions and conflict would like things to be different. The motivation, therefore, is strong to consider the possibility of creating a more unified ­diaspora. Convey to community members that being selected for dialogue groups is an honor, thereby providing additional motivation to participate. Provide food and drink that are culturally appropriate in many traditions. It is an important component in recruitment in order to bring people together to socialize in a way that builds trust and positive interactions between conflicted communities. Have patience with the process. Communities had more trust in the project after the first round of dialogue sessions occurred. We came to believe that there are certain growing pains to endure in order to build trust and credibility within the communities.

Recruitment ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

47

Respond in a timely way to requests made by the participants, in order to build trust and keep people engaged with the process. Be as flexible as possible in working around the needs of your target population. Keep detailed records of your work that can be used to help get funding and build credibility for your project. This can also be useful in informing policy makers and persuading them to think about the benefits of dialogue and to ­consider making it a more integral part of service agencies’ work with i­ mmigrants and refugees. Start early with your recruitment efforts. Take more time than you think you will need for the recruitment process. Offer multiple sets of dates and times that the participants can choose from for presentations about the project. Provide incentives, if possible, for group members. These might be in the form of food at meetings; a small stipend to cover transportation, childcare, or time off from work; and/or a certificate presented at the end of the dialogue series. Invite potential participants to think about the youth of their communities – their children and grandchildren – and the hopes they have for their future. Enlist participants’ interest by encouraging their roles as community reconciliation leaders. Accept that while you might strive for balanced groups that remain committed from beginning to end, attrition, personal lives, and unexpected circumstances will likely result in an imperfect composition of groups. Forge ahead, regardless of the challenges.

05 Cultural Considerations The local blind man knows the local bush paths more than any stranger — Zambian Proverb

Caroline Sarkis Barbara Tint Gloria Ngezaho Roland Clarke Mindy Johnston

Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities, First Edition. Barbara Tint. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.



Cultural Considerations

49

We have seen how diaspora communities face multiple challenges in their new settlement contexts. Economic, social, educational, linguistic, and political barriers all present difficulties for refugees and immigrants integrating and adapting to their host land. The factors informing diaspora experiences in host communities are complex and multidimensional. These factors, including education, gender, race, employment, and cultural understandings, are exacerbated for refugees by the trauma and shock of fleeing violent conflict. Although government agencies can help facilitate the integration process for refugees specifically by coordinating language classes, employment, and shelter, the cultural disparities often encountered within these communities vis‐à‐vis their host communities can hinder assimilation processes. As a result, some of the diaspora communities opt for segregation and separation from host societies. The conflict experienced by diaspora communities within their host nations is often informed by social and cultural understandings of particular and disparate worldviews. As culture is so closely tied to our consciousness, it affects experiences and perceptions are socially structured (Avruch and Black, 1991). As a result, socially constructed perceptions impact interactions ­between diaspora communities and their host societies. As diaspora communities experience trauma and loss as a result of leaving their homelands and are often challenged to rebuild their lives amid new cultural norms, religions, educational systems, economic realities, employment situations, languages, and social and political barriers, the large number of diaspora populations globally requires an understanding of the complexities and factors associated with their unique experiences. Perhaps one of the most salient issues that affect diaspora communities is that of cultural adaptation. Regardless of the circumstances of their migration, immigrant communities must adjust to new languages, living conditions, employment, educational systems, and cultural contexts. Even without the challenges that ­accompany forced or conflict‐driven relocation, moving to a new country evokes some culture shock. In the cases of new immigrants and refugees, this culture shock  can often be exacerbated by the trauma experienced with living  –  and ­fleeing  –  violent conflict. Degrees of assimilation and acculturation success vary across ethnic groups and individuals within those groups. The ability to navigate this cultural adaptation is part of what informs a successful transition into the ­diaspora; individuals and groups are constantly striving to succeed in their new land while maintaining their home cultural identity and practices. In considering the development of dialogue work within diaspora communities, balancing this cultural terrain must also be considered to maximize the potential for culturally congruent, sensitive, and accessible processes. This chapter will explore cultural dynamics, how they impact resettlement experiences, and how they must inform the development of dialogue processes between diaspora communities. The context of the African communities served through DDP will provide a case study analysis of these issues.

50

Caroline Sarkis et al.

Perspectives on Culture What is culture? There is vast literature already written regarding culture (Avruch and Black, 1991; Avruch, 1998; Hofstede, 1997, 1998, 2001), cultural integration and assimilation (Arthur, 2000; Barry, 2001; Gutmann, 1994; Kymlicka, 1995, 1998; Modood, 1998; Parekh, 1995; Phinney et  al., 2001), and intercultural conflict ­resolution (Avruch, 1998; LeBaron, 2003; Ting‐Toomey, 1999; Ting‐Toomey and Chung, 2005; Ting‐Toomey and Oetzel, 2001; Trujillo et  al., 2008). There are a myriad of definitions of culture across the fields of anthropology, conflict resolution, and sociology. In some ways it is considered one of the most difficult words to define (Williams, 1983 as cited in Avruch, 1998). Tylor defined culture as a “complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (1871, p. 1). Tylor’s definition emphasized that culture is a learned behavior that ties those belonging to shared communities. Tylor’s definition proposes that all people have culture, regardless of their social status. Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) posit that culture “consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, and on the other as conditioning elements of further action” (p. 181). This definition advances the theory that culture can be expressed not just through behavior and time, but that it is also highly symbolic in nature. It presupposes that members of a shared culture will have a mutual understanding of meaning surrounding particular events, dates, and artifacts. Díaz‐Rico and Weed (2006) assert that culture is conceptualized in many ways to reflect societal beliefs, arts, morals, law, custom, and any other commonly acquired traditions by members of a particular group in society within a limited context. Expanding on varying definitions on culture, Díaz‐Rico and Weed (2006) maintain that, “Culture is the explicit and implicit patterns for living, the dynamic system of commonly agreed‐upon symbols and meanings” (p. 232). Culture, then, reflects shared meaning and interpretations that help form both the physical space and ­relationships of a group. According to Avruch and Black (1991), culture is tied to consciousness; the “culture‐as‐consciousness perspective is organized around the understanding that humans use locally received or constructed common sense to perceive, interpret, evaluate, and act on and in both external and internal reality” (p. 31). As a result of these shared meanings and interpretations, culture is often unspoken and implicit. One can certainly “study” cultural norms and customs before visiting another country to be somewhat knowledgeable in etiquette; however, a cursory study of these customs does not allow for a deep understanding of shared meanings and



Cultural Considerations

51

symbolism. Therefore, due to culture being the primary lens by which humans interpret the world around them, intercultural interactions, rooted in differing ­perspectives, values, and meaning, can often be laden with conflict.

Cultural Impact on Conflict and Conflict Resolution Ting‐Toomey and Oetzel (2001) define intercultural conflict as “the experience of emotional frustration in conjunction with perceived incompatibility of values, norms, face orientations, goals, scarce resources, processes, and/or outcomes ­between a minimum of two parties from two different cultural communities in an interactive situation” (p. 17). Cultural conflict, then, is an incompatibility of how people from different cultures perceive and understand the world around them. Some cultures are clearly more similar than others. For instance, in broad strokes generalizations, British culture is more similar to U.S. culture than it is to Somali, Japanese, or Egyptian cultures, which, in turn, are very dissimilar to each other. This is because the culturally shared beliefs and values of British and U.S. cultures are much more comparable. They are more individualistic, have similar concepts of time and timeliness, and have somewhat similar or shared beliefs of patterns and norms culturally learned at an unconscious level including family structure, political and economic structures, and interpersonal dynamics. We know that there are also a wide range differences within any group, so our ability to understand culture must allow for both the shared and unique dimensions within any culture. As a result of these differing beliefs and values, conflicts between people of d ­ ifferent cultural backgrounds take on different dimensions. Ting‐Toomey and Oetzel (2001) explain “[c]ultural values, together with individual attributes and situational factors, shape and mold conflict attitudes and behaviors. Cultural values drive the core meanings and metaphors that we hold toward conflict. How we define the conflict situation, how we frame our attitudes and outlooks on a particular conflict episode are strongly influenced by the imprint of our cultural values. Cultural values influence the norms, symbols, and meanings we use to deal with a conflict scene” (p. 11). Therefore, not only does culture affect our worldview and how we interpret the world around us, it also affects how we understand and engage in different conflicts. As a result of culture being tied to our consciousness (Avruch and Black, 1991) and the primary lens by which humans interpret their world, “culture shapes the way people perceive a conflict and respond to it” (Worchel, 2005, p. 741). As such, culture will influence how people interpret interactions with others; a benign interaction for one person could be offensive to the next. As social individuals, we all belong to different social groups, each with its own culture. Each family, religious community, professional organizational structure, and social affiliation has its own language, unwritten social rules, and cultural markers. At the heart of conflict and its resolution is the relationship between those in conflict. LeBaron and Pillay (2006) write that the relational dimension of conflict

52

Caroline Sarkis et al.

and its resolution underlies both the material – the “what” of the conflict – and the symbolic or the meanings that are imbued by those involved in conflict. “The symbolic and relational dimensions emphasize the need for relationship‐building as a precondition to and a product of conflict resolution. While the material dimension is where conflict is manifest, concrete, and visible, relationship‐building … can ­create the atmosphere for sustainable change at the material dimension…. When relationship‐building is seen as a priority in the face of conflict, efforts to solve material problems become more productive” (p. 20). Ting‐Toomey (1999) underscores the importance of trust‐building skills as a ­critical component of intercultural conflict management. In this respect, she emphasizes that trust‐building skills in times of intercultural conflict can help parties to listen to each other in order to then communicate better. These skills create space for understanding different worldviews and ways of dealing with conflict that can, in turn, allow for common ground. Hofstede (1997, 1998, 2001) identified five dimensions of cultural difference that influence workplace, interpersonal, and social dynamics. These dimensions are power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long‐term orientation. While the research informing these constructs has been the subject of some debate regarding methodology and general conclusions (see Baskerville, 2003; Hofstede, 2001, 2002; McSweeney, 2002; Osland and Bird, 2000; Søndergaard, 1994), these constructs still provide a useful frame for considering some of the differences and challenges that different cultural groups encounter in a resettlement experience. In considering the differences in culture put forth by Hofstede, it must be understood that these differences do not exist in clear bipolarity; there are many differences among individuals within cultures and that context will very much inform how these constructs manifest (Osland and Bird, 2000). While cultural knowledge provides outsiders with a starting point from which to conceptualize and explore the worldview of particular communities, generalizing about a cultural group denies the multiple perspectives and nuances amongst the individuals within a particular community. The application of Hofstede’s work to intercultural conflict is focused primarily on the areas of ­individualism/collectivism and power distance. Individualism/collectivism reflects the orientation a particular group has toward group cohesion, identity, and responsibility. Worldviews of individualistic cultures are often incongruous to those of collectivist cultures where the latter emphasize community and unquestioning loyalty toward the group, and the former underscore personal achievement. Power distance addresses the degree to which cultures accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place that needs no further explanation or justification. In high power distance cultures, clear social stratification is expected in relationships between elders and youth, bosses and employees, parents and children, teachers and students, and so on. In societies with low power distance, people strive to equalize the distribution of power and demand justification for inequalities of power. Power distance strongly affects how people from different ­cultures will deal with conflict. For instance,



Cultural Considerations

53

reaction to a conflict with an employer will likely elicit very different responses and actions from individuals from a low power distance culture such as Denmark, Austria, or Sweden compared to those from high power distance cultures such as the Philippines or Guatemala. Culture also impacts communication styles, where those typically from collective cultures tend toward a more high‐context form of communication, where messages are more symbolic, indirect, and circular in their delivery. Low‐ context communication styles, typically in individualistic cultures, are more literal, direct, linear. Conflict often ensues when people encounter others with differing communication styles that are interpreted through their own lens. High‐context communicators might think that low‐context communicators are aggressive and rude. Low‐context communicators might thing that high‐context communicators are evasive and dishonest. Not only can differences in communication styles contribute to a conflict, they can, in fact, interfere with its resolution as people will have differing needs and preferences as to how to approach a resolution process. Culture influences many other things – in fact, everything – including how people interpret space, gender dynamics, the need to save individual or collective face, and the concept of time (Ting‐Toomey and Oetzel, 2001). These cultural differences become heightened in diaspora contexts where the underlying values are often different in the host community. These differences can often be misunderstood from the outside and be in conflict with Western norms of managing and engaging with conflict, often adding to misunderstanding and increased conflict.

Integration of Cultural Understandings in Dialogue and Peacebuilding Processes Culture plays a central role in determining approaches to conflict resolution processes. In considering the development of peacebuilding work in diverse communities, we must always navigate the question of what is universal and what is culturally specific. Approaches to dialogue and conflict that are culturally incongruent can cause more harm than good. Lederach (1995, 1997) has written extensively on peace processes in divided societies and underscores the necessity of elicitive solutions to conflicts. In this model, “[t]he emphasis is not only on empowerment as participating in creating models [of conflict resolution], but also in seeking resources and root in the cultural context itself ” (1995, p. 55). In this respect, the role of third‐party interventions is not to influence mediation processes based on their own cultural markers and understandings, but rather to explore ways in which groups in conflict may draw on their own experiences to build relationships and trust. As a result of eliciting solutions from participants, facilitators in these settings must constantly measure to ensure relationship and trust building are occurring.

54

Caroline Sarkis et al.

In this respect, facilitators must provide participants opportunities to evaluate and reflect on their actions and behavior “according to the standards and values of that setting, rather than judging their approaches according to outside criteria” (Lederach, 1995, p. 60). This will include the empowerment of community voices in contributing culturally rooted values and rituals within work that is still grounded in the knowledge and experience of skilled practitioners. In this respect, questions that focus on what worked, what could have gone better, and what needs to be changed are key to empowering participants in designing their own process that still embraces conflict resolution values and approaches, but allows for elicitive approaches to the process. It is a difficult and delicate dance but one that is essential for this work to achieve the goals of supporting diaspora community members in their historical and adaptation struggles. The last two decades have seen an increased interest by practitioners in leveraging indigenous and traditional peacebuilding and conflict resolution approaches. The underlying assumption is that these practices are more participatory and relationship focused than their Western counterparts, and are therefore more likely to result in community buy‐in and lasting change (Davidheiser, 2006; Doe, 2009; MacGinty, 2008; Werner, 2010). In dialogue processes, facilitators must understand the c­ omplexity surrounding diaspora communities rooted into cultural aspects and immigrants’ quest for assimilation into the host society. Discussions about culture can be a wonderful vehicle for dialogue group members to explore and share their own perceptions about culture and their experiences within their host nation. Due to the delicate nature of peacebuilding dialogue, facilitators must have a careful understanding of the dynamics influencing the parties in the dialogue process. Multiple culturally rooted issues will deeply impact conflict resolution and dialogue processes for parties in conflict. As each cultural group has its own constructed meanings, values, beliefs, and practices that inform dialogue processes, practitioners need to understand as much as they can about the worldview of the populations with whom they are working. This will impact many dimensions of the development of dialogue work in diaspora communities: the decision to engage, the recruitment process, the framework and model of dialogue interventions, the choice of facilitators, and the implementation of processes with the communities. As much work in conflict resolution and dialogue in host countries is rooted in the traditional methods of that country, practitioners must think sensitively and deeply about the development of processes that encourage community members to engage. Culture will – and should – inform everything including the make‐up of the groups (age, gender, relationship), the choice of facilitator, the kinds of processes at the beginning, middle, and end of dialogue, rituals, food, outcome, and the degree of public or private engagement about the work. Cultural similarities and differences at deep levels of values and beliefs will inform both the engagement between differing groups in conflict and the engagement between the participant communities and their host partners in dialogue.



Cultural Considerations

Case Study In the planning and implementation of DDP, we integrated culturally grounded knowledge and practice into our dialogue and capacity‐building efforts. We considered traditional African peacemaking processes and incorporated multiple dimensions from the specific community contexts into the design. As each cultural group has meanings, values, beliefs, symbols, and practices that inform what they bring to dialogue, this is always at play. Much of this might be obtuse to cultural outsiders, and it is the responsibility of any dialogue practitioner to try to understand as much as they can about the worldview of the populations with whom they are working. This information can come from the participants themselves, cultural informants (in‐group community members who have successfully bridged the new context and are fluidly bicultural), and additional outside research. DDP’s multicultural team was invaluable in this regard. Through the experience of this dialogue project, we learned a great deal about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of certain strategies and approaches in developing culturally congruent dialogue and reconciliation efforts. This section will provide an overview of certain aspects of African peacemaking processes and share our efforts in the creation of culturally sound design. Peacemaking and Reconciliation within the African Context Peace is built upon inherent cultural values that are exported along with the diaspora populations and their conflicts. Although each community has its own meaning systems, values, and traditions, there are some overarching principles that fit with almost all of the communities with which we worked. We cannot address all the local approaches to resolving conflict in the African context, but it is our goal to provide some insight from the wisdom of these unifying principles in reconciliation and reunification efforts. While it is important not to glorify or romanticize indigenous traditions, as they have some inherent challenges of their own and are not necessarily fully inclusive or empowering, we can learn a great deal about a community through these cultural approaches to resolving conflict. The following are some pan‐ African concepts that we found useful in the development of our process. This is offered as a way to demonstrate how we incorporated cultural knowledge into the processes we developed with the communities. Ubuntu Ubuntu is an important and overarching worldview among the countries of East, Central, and Southern Africa; it is the core foundation or element at the heart of ­traditional African conflict resolution and peacemaking. Within the African context, it captures the essence of what it means to be human. Simply

55

Caroline Sarkis et al.

56

explained, ubuntu means “a person is a person through other people” (Tutu, 1999). The concept of ubuntu suggests that we are human because we live through others; our interdependence is such that our humanity is intertwined with the humanity of others (Masina, 2000; Murithi, 2006). Ubuntu emphasizes the attitude of togetherness in the spirit of interconnected humanity. This concept highlights the principles of reciprocity, inclusivity, and a sense of shared destiny between people that leads to a framework for offering and receiving forgiveness. This often leads to consensus‐building processes that involve the larger community in seeking resolution and harmony. With the philosophy of ubuntu and its emphasis on long‐term relationships and reconciliation, people can often overlook past transgressions. Murithi (2006) offers four key lessons from the ubuntu process of promoting peace which are reflected in many local practices: ●● ●●

●●

●●

Public participation is central in creating social solidarity. Reconciliation is a process that supports both victims and perpetrators as they go through the difficult process of resolving conflicts and making peace. Expressions of guilt and remorse and the granting of forgiveness are key to achieving reconciliation. The essential unity and interdependence of humanity are constantly referenced in the reconciliation process.

Collective Orientation Connected to ubuntu, but carrying additional implications, is the collectivity of most African communities. Collective societies operate with an emphasis on group rather than individual identity; individual desires are subjugated to group obligations or norms. Family systems are extended and the webs of family relationships are strong. In‐group harmony is a core value and one that often transcends the pursuit of individual rights or justice (Ting‐Toomey and Chung, 2005). There are strong allegiances within group boundaries, and potentially stronger barriers between groups. Collectivity proves to be a powerful force in both the causes of and cures for conflict. Because of the strong collective norms in such communities, transgressions against in‐group community members carry great weight and consequence. However, the value of maintaining group cohesion provides an incentive for healing and forgiveness that might be less prevalent in individualistic societies. Power of Elders During the years of traditional leadership in Africa, conflicts were addressed in a variety of ways. Most conflicts and their resolution methods were predominantly local. Elders and tribal leaders were the ones responsible for intervening in conflicts among villagers or between tribal communities. The



Cultural Considerations

57

importance of the elders in most African communities remains to this day, and many African countries and ­villages have a Council of Elders, which is assigned the official responsibility of addressing communal or national disputes. In a less formal capacity, elders have the power and status to intervene in family and community disputes. In diaspora communities, the power of the elders is significantly compromised due to a variety of factors, including the challenge of learning a new language, the fractured dimension of families and communities, which can reduce deference to the role of the elders, the lack of official power that elders carry in diaspora contexts, and the generational dynamics of younger community members who want to assimilate and leave the old ways behind. Storytelling and Song Songs, stories, parables, and proverbs are powerful tools for meaning‐making in many African contexts. Communication is often symbolic, indirect, and embedded in cultural stories. Songs, stories, and sayings contain messages and moral teachings aimed at reducing conflict, often focusing on the negative aspects of conflict. The themes of such stories and songs demonstrate: (1) responsibility through reciprocity; (2) honesty and loyalty through mutuality and deference; (3) faith and compassion through inner strength and self‐­ control; and (4) the importance of mutuality and consideration for others (Mugisha, 2010). Faith Religion, spirituality, and faith are powerful dimensions of cultural norms and values, and are significant in social conceptions of peace (Bouta, Kadayifci‐Orellana, and Abu‐Nimer, 2005; Gopin, 1997; Said, Funk, and Kunkle, 2001). Spiritual questions address some of the most profound existential issues of human life, such as freedom and destiny, right and wrong, good and evil, forgiveness and retribution, and the sacred and profane. Faith‐ based values such as tolerance, humility, repentance, social justice, compassion, mercy, pardoning, and accountability are key ­elements of a religious viewpoint (Gopin, 1997). These perspectives have a tremendous impact on cultural values within the African context; regardless of the religion, many African communities possess a strong spiritual element that informs their approach to peace and conflict. Understanding a community’s religious beliefs and ideas is fundamental to understanding its potential for and orientation toward peacebuilding. Spiritual principles and ideas on peace and security often appeal more to religious communities than philosophical ideas or secular laws and can be great resources and motivators for religious communities in working for peace (Bouta et al., 2005).

58

Caroline Sarkis et al. Gender Gender dynamics play a significant role in most African societies. The boundaries of men’s and women’s roles have been heavily prescribed (Chinwe Nwoye, n.d.; Dimandja, 2004; Mugisha, 2010). Men have traditionally held power in public and private domains and have typically had the final say in most matters. Historically, women have been excluded from arenas of power and their participation in public processes is allowed only when sanctioned by the male elders in their communities. Women’s power often operates behind the scenes through domestic and community relationships. It has been rare in traditional African society to see men and women sitting at the same table, though this is changing in some places, such as Rwanda. As women’s roles are primary in educating the children in traditional African societies, their influence on socialization can inform perspectives on peace and conflict; while women may have less power in official domains, their potential for influencing future generations is profound. In diaspora communities, gender dynamics often shift dramatically. Women gain power through increased opportunities in education, employment, or simply by living in societies that have a different perspective on the roles of men and women. These shifts can be difficult for men; domestic and family structures within the diaspora are often challenged as immigrants try to find their way amidst shifting mores. Ritual Ritual is a powerful aspect of most African peacemaking processes and provides a layer of meaning that cannot be conveyed through words alone. Communities each have their own rituals and these rituals are vital for a variety of reasons. They anchor ceremonies and traditions that carry the weight of previous generations, culture, and history. They bring an element of the sacred into the process, which provides an important opening where there might otherwise be resistance or roadblocks. They are a great unifier, and are used to open and close reconciliation and dialogue sessions in most African conflict resolution processes. Rituals are also used to celebrate peace and reconciliation and times when community harmony is restored. Even when people are divided, a meaningful ritual can reduce hostility and remind people of ubuntu and their shared goals. One of the most important aspects of many gatherings in African societies is food. Whether it is a funeral, a wedding, or some other type of celebration, one can always count on food as being part of the ritual, a way in which people come together and share. “Breaking bread” is a great peacemaking tradition, and one not to be overlooked.



Cultural Considerations Face, Honor, and Dignity Face, honor, and dignity are all core issues within African communities. In most African cultures, one doesn’t show the same face or act the same way in public as in private. An individual must know what to say, how to behave, and when to act, in order to gain respect in the community and protect the family and community position. These lessons are ingrained in children from the time they are little, passed down from one generation to another. Consequently, even when there are problems in the community that need to be addressed, people are often unwilling to come forward; they don’t want to break the strong community norms or rules. Therefore, in‐group members will often reveal very little to those from the outside. Integration of African Cultural Practices with Western Notions of Dialogue and Reconciliation While the above constructs tend to be applicable across a wide range of African cultures and contexts, many dynamics were particular to the specific groups with which we worked. While we cannot generalize to all contexts nor address the particulars of each community, we want to emphasize that it is critical to be aware of the potential impact of these factors when designing and implementing reconciliation processes within any population. Many refugees feel doubly challenged, facing not only the accustomed difficulties of trying to resolve conflict in a traditional way, but as diaspora members, trying to bridge the gap between the traditional ways and Western approaches to resolving conflict. Within our work, we attempted to develop best practices by integrating Western models of dialogue and reconciliation with practices grounded in the cultural traditions of the communities with whom we worked. We used both prescriptive and elicitive elements of dialogue and training (Lederach, 1997), and continuously adapted our methods to accommodate new cultural information. We did this in a variety of ways: ●●

●●

●●

●●

Conducting weekly team meetings with multicultural team members and cultural informants who contributed to the development of the process. Using ongoing evaluation to assess our methods and processes (see Chapter 7 on Evaluation). Working with participants to develop their own rituals for dialogue, which included prayer, music, community food offerings, and incorporation of cultural symbols. Engaging community elders to either participate in dialogue themselves, or when they could not, due to issues of language or logistics, inviting them to be a part of the process in other ways such as choosing who should represent the community or giving official blessings or sanction to the process.

59

Caroline Sarkis et al.

60

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Utilizing storytelling and parables as integral dimensions of the dialogue process. Paying attention to the needs of each community with respect to status relationships. This included breaking groups into sub‐groups of men and women, elders and youth to maximize safety and culturally congruent relational dynamics. Inviting participants to inform the process by asking them to choose agenda items for dialogue when it was congruent with overarching goals. Utilizing local languages to conduct dialogue processes, facilitated by in‐ group community members. Facilitating groups with trained community members, increasing a sense of ownership, and reducing gaps in understanding. Adapting the Transition Framework in multiple ways to work more effectively with these communities. This included renaming certain aspects of the Framework, rethinking the perceived linearity of the model, and critiquing its relevance to participants’ individual and community experiences (see Chapter 3 for greater detail). Encouraging participants to use their dialogue experience in their wider communities, thereby building in connection to their everyday lives.

Challenges in Integrating Western and Traditional Practices While we made every attempt to find a constructive balance between Western and traditional African processes, there were inevitable challenges. Some of the gaps in the creation of a culturally congruent process included the following: ●●

●●

In an attempt to create equal ground and give everybody equal voice in the dialogues, the design sometimes created a situation where status dynamics between men and women, elders and youth, or members of different tribes were challenged. This was sometimes in line with the values held by DDP (i.e., to allow marginalized groups a greater voice), and sometimes in conflict with community values, thereby compromising the dialogue (i.e., men and women being less able to speak freely in the mixed groups). Limited team capacity did not always allow for the ideal configuration of culturally congruent groupings (i.e., we did not have enough facilitators to hold groups separately when possibly ­appropriate). Exit interviews and surveys were somewhat less effective than they might have been, particularly with outside interviewers. Where trust is a big issue, participants may say what they think will please the interviewer, what is seen as expected or culturally appropriate, instead of sharing more openly.



Cultural Considerations

●●

●●

●●

●●

61

Some of the language of the Transition Framework was confusing and challenging to participants. To some, it felt linear and difficult to integrate with their perspectives. This was more true for those whose English was limited. It was sometimes challenging to find a balance between addressing certain topics (such as identity affiliation) in dialogue and wanting to respect some participants who did not want to talk about those issues openly, while others did. Being aware that direct discussion of sensitive issues was inappropriate in certain situations. Finding symbolic and less direct means of approaching certain issues was sometimes desirable but not always easy to do. Continued challenges existed in successfully bridging generational differences, particularly between elders and youth.

Conclusion Culture is fluid and dynamic. As soon as we think we have some understanding of a group’s cultural norms, we are likely to have an experience that challenges our newly found knowledge. There are differences and degrees of cultural values and behavior within any group, and this is more likely to be the case in diaspora communities where people have differing degrees of assimilation into the new context. Furthermore, people have differing motivations when it comes to holding on to t­ raditional ways or adopting the new (this is often the case with generational differences, where younger community members want to adapt to the new context while older generations struggle to preserve identity and tradition). Culture will impact everything. It will impact the resettlement experience of any group coming from afar. It will impact how groups interact with each other; even though groups may come from the same general region, there are likely to be differences in cultural worldviews, beliefs, and values that can impact their interactions and perceptions of each other. It will impact how groups perceive and engage in the dialogue processes that they are a part of. Therefore, regardless of the groups with which you may be working, it is imperative that you both learn as much as you can about each group’s ways of being and that you be willing and able to adapt that learning along the way. Discussions about culture can be a wonderful vehicle for dialogue group members to explore their own perceptions about their culture, illuminate areas of shared experience and difference, and provide out‐group facilitators with a window into the participants’ worlds.

06 Dialogue He who knows only one side of a thing, knows little of that — African Proverb

Barbara Tint Julie Koehler Mary Lind Vincent Chirimwami Roland Clarke Mindy Johnston

Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities, First Edition. Barbara Tint. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Dialogue

63

In developing our community collaboration, our decision to create and facilitate dialogue processes was based on a belief in dialogue as a transformational tool for peacebuilding and reconciliation. Peacebuilding dialogue is a form of group interaction with a particular intent, purpose, and process: members of conflicted groups come together in the aftermath of deep‐rooted and historical fragmentation toward the goals of engaging in safe space and community conversations. In many communities where there has been longstanding conflict or trauma between groups, dialogue has been used to provide a safe and structured process for fractured parties. Out of these processes, there is often (but not always) increased mutual understanding, healing, reconciliation, and action for the future. This chapter will explore both the theoretical and practical dimensions of dialogue as a tool in community reconciliation, and pro­ vide a recommended model and framework for dialogue with diaspora communities.

Definition and Principles of Dialogue Derived from the Greek term dialogos – dia meaning “through” and logos meaning “the word” – dialogue speaks to the flow of exchange through words. At its most fundamental, dialogue refers to parties coming together with the goal of increased mutual understanding. Though dialogue can occur between individuals or groups of various parties, in peacebuilding work, it is most commonly used as an intergroup process between members of conflicted societies. Dialogue processes derive from the principles behind the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954), which proposes that one of the most successful ways to reduce intergroup conflict, prejudice, and enmity is positive intergroup contact. This contact must be implemented through carefully considered mechanisms that allow the group interactions to successfully transcend the personal, social, and politically informed barriers that keep groups in conflict. Defining dialogue is a challenging task, as the word is used in so many ways to mean so many different things. For our purposes, we assert that dialogue is a safe, intentional, constructed process that is based on certain principles, methods, and goals, which are rooted in the desire to develop mutual understanding and an enhanced relationship. These principles, methods, and goals will be elaborated on later in this chapter. The aim is that through these intentional, structured, and safe contact experiences, parties engage in ways that shift the relationship of enmity and reduce the power of competing social identities. One definition suggests that inter­ group dialogue is “a form of democratic practice, engagement, problem solving, and education involving face‐to‐face, focused, facilitated and confidential discussions occurring over time between two or more groups of people defined by their different social identities” (Schoem, Hurtado, Sevig, Chesler, and Sumida, 2001, p. 6). Saunders suggests that dialogue is “a process of genuine interaction through which human beings listen to each other deeply enough to be changed by what they learn” (2001, p. 82). Feller and Ryan (2012) address the critical aspect of understanding and defining dialogue as a very particular dimension to peacebuilding work that includes efforts toward coexistence, relational movement, encountering the other,

64

Barbara Tint et al.

challenging assumptions, using creative and flexible approaches to group conflict, and implementing holistic interventions. Contrary to debate, where parties are trying to persuade, convince, or win, dialogue operates as a safe space to explore difficult issues and honor multiple perspectives. While change often occurs as a result of dialogue, the goal is not for parties to try to change one another, but to make a commitment to listening, sharing, and understanding in the spirit of exploring challenging historical relationships. The hope is that through constructive and safe intergroup contact, parties can engage in ways that shift a conflicted relationship and create space for healing and reconciliation. In most cases, dialogue requires people to encounter painful feelings and experiences that have polarized them for so long and to face themselves and others in new ways. Though it is rarely a smooth road, through successful dialogue processes, possibilities for new relationships emerge. While the use of dialogue in different contexts has certain shared principles, there are variations to its practice as well. These include differences in group goals, par­ ticipant numbers, duration of the process, meeting frequency, facilitator roles, content or process focus, and post‐dialogue follow‐up. Zuniga and Nagda (2001) divide dialogue processes into four general types, acknowledging that these often overlap: collective inquiry, a process by which groups attempt to find shared meaning and synergistic relationships through collective thinking and discourse; critical‐ dialogical education, a focus on consciousness raising and looking at group differences from a social justice perspective toward the goal of individual and systemic change; community building and social action, a process that attempts to bring large numbers of people together around community issues needing attention and mobilization; and conflict resolution and peacebuilding processes, where group members in conflicted societies come together to look at new ways to approach the conflict and deal with the substantive and the psychological issues embedded in the situation. While not all dialogue processes and methods are the same, there are core goals and principles at the root of almost all dialogue work. Within both the content and the process of dialogue, relationship is the focal point for transformation among conflicted parties (Lederach, 1997; Saunders, 2001; Schoem et al., 2001). According to Saunders (2001), relationship combines a variety of elements: identity, inter­ dependent coexistence of needs and interests, nature and working of effective power and limits on behavior, and evolving perceptions. Each of these elements is significantly impacted during long‐term conflict and must be addressed in its healing. Dialogue focuses on the transformative possibilities within these elements and addresses each of them in the process of intergroup engagement. An intentional process that seeks to create deep understanding and transformative experiences for group members, dialogue provides a structure in which parties explore how their thoughts, emotions, consciousness, beliefs, and narratives diverge and how they come together. Through the experience of long‐term traumas, groups develop societal beliefs about the other that perpetuate fractures in societies. These beliefs are accompanied by emotions, values, and perceptions of the other that are often as protracted as

Dialogue

65

the conflict that caused them. Therefore, any efforts toward reconciliation and community building must attempt to create an opening for shifting these beliefs so that not only the reconciliation of past events is possible, but so is the opportunity for building a new future as well. This shifting of relationship must happen on the emotional as well as the intellectual levels; the reconstruction of meaning and identity occurs when there is deep movement around the issues that have brought parties together. Ellinor and Gerard (1998) identify four essential and interrelated qualities of dialogue work: suspension of judgment, suspension of assumptions, deep listening, and inquiry and reflection. Through these processes, there is an emphasis on safe vulnerability rather than strategy, transparency rather than opaqueness, and curi­ osity rather than conclusion. Because dialogue is a reflective and reflexive process, participants are invited to reconsider their experiences in ways that allow for new constructs to emerge. Bohm (1996) suggests that dialogue involves the evolution of a new culture among participants, where meaning becomes more important than truth and members of a dialogue process develop shared meaning around issues that emerge. The concept of meaning systems (Park, 2005; Park and Folkman, 1997) suggests that at the very core of human existence is the need to find meaning and value in life. Global meaning systems – beliefs, values, goals, feelings – are typically constructed unwittingly on the part of group members so that a group culture around collective experiences develops in deep and often unconscious ways. In societies where there has been collective trauma, the process of meaninglessness occurs when beliefs or values are violated. Meaning‐making is the process by which individuals and groups set about trying to restore meaning after a trauma. It is through dialogue that new meaning‐ making can occur in safe and transformative ways. Some core principles that apply to all forms of dialogic process include: ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

Goal of mutual understanding Focus on relationship Deep listening Awareness and suspension of assumptions Awareness and suspension of judgments Spirit of inquiry Spirit of reflection Give voice to deeply held beliefs and feelings Bear witness to others’ stories and struggles Observation of self and others Mutual respect Willingness to be vulnerable Development of shared meaning and responsibility Acceptance of differing and multiple perspectives Willingness to sit through difficult moments Follow‐up and collective action when appropriate

Barbara Tint et al.

66

Phases of Dialogue While there are many different kinds of dialogue, with variations in process, content, and structure, in almost all dialogue work there are general phases that will frame the process. Saunders (2001) has developed a model of dialogue based on his many years of experience in interethnic conflict situations. What he dubs a “public peace process” is very much rooted in the utilization of citizen peacebuilding as a way to address long‐term fractures in divided societies. Particularly, his work centers around citizen dialogue groups held during and following parallel processes occurring at the official, governmental level. While these stages provide a framework for dialogue, they do not exemplify a formulaic or linear process; these stages are fluid, circular, and develop in ways that are dependent upon the context and population. We have adapted them below (see Figure 6.1), adding a component on the establishment of safety. Furthermore, we assert that the activities of reflection and evaluation are ongoing and will inform the choices made at any phase of dialogue. ●●

Deciding to engage: The decision to engage is often one of the hardest steps in dialogue, as it is an act of risk and participation in a difficult, and not yet

Deciding to Engage

Acting Together to Create Change

Establishing Safety and Commitment

Reflection and Evaluation

Shifting Relationships and Perceptions

Identifying issues and relationships

Deepening Exploration of Issues

Figure 6.1  Phases of Dialogue (adapted from Saunders, 2001).

Dialogue

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

67

rewarding, process. People may take a long time before they are willing to agree to sit down with others with whom they have been in conflict. Establishing safety and commitment: Once parties have agreed to participate in dialogue, the most crucial dimension of the process is creating safety, trust, and commitment. This is achieved by participants gaining an understanding of the experience they are entering, by the group creating collective guidelines for interaction, and by facilitators instilling confidence through their competence and approach in creating a safe space as participants enter dialogue. Identifying issues and relationships: Identifying issues opens the door to naming the main areas that will become the focus of dialogue. This is usually a combination of issues that are already understood or established and those that emerge through the process of dialogue. At this stage people are often holding on to their long‐held perceptions, beliefs, and feelings. Deepening exploration of issues: Probing issues is typically the heart of a process, where participants move into deeper territory around what has been identified. This is often where painful emotions and relational dynamics emerge that will guide the process in the direction it most needs to go. Persevering through this phase can be extremely challenging for participants, and requires skillful and comforting facilitation. Shifting relationships and perceptions: Shifted relationships emerge through successful dialogue around difficult issues. At this stage, participants often experience internal movement around beliefs, emotions, and perceptions. They have a newfound willingness and ability to see and engage with each other in different ways. Acting together to create change: In many (but not all) dialogue processes, movement to action is an important goal that ensures that the shifts that occurred in dialogue translate into some change in the participants’ worlds and/or the larger world (through community gatherings, education, activism, policy efforts, etc.). Action derived from the dialogue that has taken place provides a concrete manifestation of the relational shifts. Reflection and evaluation: At every stage in a dialogue process, facilitators should be reflecting on the process in order to use developing insights to inform the next steps. Reflection and evaluation are ongoing, and any stage of a process can be altered by things that have happened along the way.

The phases of dialogue become cyclical in nature, as once relationships have shifted, new change will allow people to decide to engage in different ways even after the formal dialogue process has finished. Furthermore, the change that has occurred during the dialogue process often has a ripple effect, as additional community mem­ bers are motivated to engage with others in new ways when they hear of the success of the dialogue. Within that, there are key dimensions that inform the process. Of greatest importance is establishing willingness of the participants. While there will naturally be some level of resistance, participants must be motivated and feel assured in the safety of the process. Once safety is established, as participants share

68

Barbara Tint et al.

their histories and experiences there is also the sharing of pain, loss, and fear. As parties revisit these difficult emotions, increased polarization and impasses can occur. It is in these moments, however, that transformative opportunities arise; as parties have their pain witnessed and acknowledged by the other, the possibility of moving through the impasse emerges. It is then that healing and a transformed rela­ tionship can emerge. Parties can consider their circumstances through new eyes and explore alternatives for the future that may have been beyond their capacity to see. As participants look toward the future, follow‐up can take the form of education, social action, therapeutic support, or continued contact experiences. The rocky road toward reconciliation has begun.

Peacebuilding Dialogue As we consider dialogue between groups wounded by historical grievances, any type of process might be helpful. However, it is primarily in the realm of conflict resolution and peacebuilding that we focus our attention. Dialogue has long been used by groups in conflict and recent decades have shown an increase in the use of structured dialogue as a peacebuilding tool. Many have written about its use and methods in myriad contexts (Abu‐Nimer, 1999; Arai, 2015; Bohm, Nichol, and Senge, 2004; Dembinska and Montambeault, 2015; Ellinor and Gerard, 1998; Feller and Ryan, 2012; Fisher, 2001; Isaacs, 1999; Kelman, 2001; Nagda and Derr, 2004; Saunders, 2001; Schoem et al., 2001; Stains, 2012; Tint, 2009). Today, in fractious communities worldwide, dialogue is employed at different stages of societal fissures to increase understanding between parties and to create possibilities for movement and transformation. It can be used while conflict and structural divisions are still very much alive, with an attempt at fostering under­ standing among community members toward the hope of reducing conflict and vio­ lence, as in Israel/Palestine (Abu‐Nimer, 1999; Kelman, 2001; Reich and Halabi, 2004). It is most often used in a post‐conflict phase where an official conflict may be over, but community divisions, tensions, and emotional scars remain. Rebuilding and reconciliation are the main tasks of these processes, such as is the case in Cyprus (Volkan and Itzkowitz, 1994), South Africa or Rwanda (Villa‐Vicencio and Savage, 2001), the Balkans (Botcharova, 2001), and Northern Ireland (Corry, 2012; Fitzduff, 2002; White, 2003). Dialogue is also used to address longstanding political issues such as interracial tensions in the United States (Day, Bernard, and Smith, 1999; Hubbard, 2001). Dialogue processes can also be utilized long after a conflict is over but emotional scars last into future generations, as is the case with dialogue between descendants of Holocaust survivors and Nazi perpetrators (Bar‐On, 1999, 2006; Busse, Emme, Gerut, and Lapidus, 1999; Tint, 2009). Sometimes, groups may have minimal contact beyond the dialogue process itself, as with participants in Korean/Japanese reconcil­ iation efforts (Hundt and Bleiker, 2007) that take place outside of the relational context of the participants.

Dialogue

69

Dialogue can be effective at multiple points of intervention: official or governmental (Track I) levels, unofficial but influential (Track II) levels or grassroots (Track III) levels between a wide range of community groups. While useful at any point, dialogue has been used primarily at the Track II and III levels. When governments negotiate peace treaties, citizens are often left to do the unfinished healing work in communities. Dialogue work conducted at the grassroots level allows for reconcili­ ation processes to impact large numbers of people over long periods of time so that official decisions are more successfully integrated and accepted among communities in conflict. These processes are often difficult to execute and sustain at the community level, even when political agreements have been reached. The work is long and takes a significant amount of commitment, vision, and strength. Peacebuilding dialogue in societies with histories of enmity or large‐scale atroc­ ities differs from other kinds of dialogue on a number of levels. First, these dialogues are often laden with more traumatic memory and emotional content than those rooted in other kinds of community issues. While it is not to be confused with therapy, dialogue of this nature does have a therapeutic and emotionally focused component that is not as apparent in other intergroup processes. Processing of deep emotional scars, painful experiences and memories, and lasting residue of historical events are critical components of these processes. Second, in peacebuilding work, groups are brought together as a way of dealing with larger societal issues that impact almost all members of the groups. Members are attempting to simultaneously process both structural and personal dimen­ sions of a pervasive phenomenon that they are often not in a position to influence; the focus then becomes the individual experience of these structural, political, large‐scale social issues. The issues and emotions that need to be addressed have occurred on the collective level and been experienced quite personally on the individual level. Third, in most dialogue work associated with groups in conflict, the fracture between groups is rooted squarely in the past. While any dialogue process certainly focuses on certain dimensions of past events, dialogue around painful and conflicted histories demands that parties address past injuries as a primary focus of what has brought them together. Constructive exploration of history is a necessary component of these processes. Collective memory is a powerful force and will be alive in the present as people explore the past (Cairns and Roe, 2003; Tint, 2010a, 2010b). Finally, while good peacebuilding work involves operating elicitively (Lederach, 1995) and developing processes organically through what arises between parties when they come together with dialogic intent, dialogue work in deeply fractured societies typically requires a more focused or structured process to serve as a container for the deeply challenging dimensions of the process. Effective dialogue work of this nature can and must provide both safe and structured processes and work from within the meaning systems and needs of the community members themselves. Too much structure can limit the needs of the participants, while too little structure can create chaos and tangents that leave participants feeling unsafe. It is a challenging balance but one that must be managed at all times.

70

Barbara Tint et al.

Dialogue and Identity As a large majority of communal conflicts worldwide are assessed to be identity based (Rasmussen, 1997; Rothman, 1997), exploring issues of identity through peacebuilding dialogue is key to finding paths toward community reconciliation. As identity is both relational and constructed, meaning is created by circumstances and encounters; dialogue offers parties in conflict spaces for shifting of identities precipitated by shared meaning‐making and positive encounters. As a result, facili­ tators of dialogue processes must address the contextual dynamics that shape the processes and outcomes of dialogue in order to support and ensure more inclusive visions of belonging and social identity (Hopkins, 2008). In identity‐based conflicts, one of the core elements that contributes to the entrenchment of the conflict is the polarization of identities. There is often the manifestation of a zero‐sum perception of identity on the part of social groups (Halabi, 2004; Hicks, 2001; Hopkins, 2008; Kelman, 2001, 2004). Parties often feel that the very survival of their own group or identity is inextricably tied up with the negation of the other – that the two literally cannot coexist. Threats to identity on both sides contribute to a sense of self‐protection, attachment to one’s own group narrative or beliefs, and a high resistance to receptivity to the other. When threat­ ened, social boundaries become more entrenched (Bradatan, Popan, and Melton, 2010; Tajfel and Turner, 1986; Volkan, 1997), thereby positioning anyone outside of the immediate identity community as an outsider. Identity, then, is defined not only by our belonging to a group, but also as not belonging to others. Typically, the phenomenon of in‐/out‐group dynamics becomes intensified during war and conflict, so the out‐group dynamic moves more toward enmification and sometimes dehumanization (Gross Stein, 1996). Within dialogue, it is the humanization of the other and the shift in perceptual identity constructs that allows the fractured past to emerge into a different vision of the future. In dialogue, the opportunity to challenge this experience of identity as zero‐sum is presented and parties avail themselves to a shift that precludes the negation of the other for their own survival, allowing for the possibility of a new transcendent and coexistent identity relationship. In conflicts that have been longstanding, people’s identities are embedded in the conflict narrative. Therefore, a shift in the relational conflict invites a shift of the identity defined around it. While people can maintain the important social identities that connect them to their group, they can have an experience of transformation that allows their identity to shed some of the enmify­ ing elements that have kept them entrenched in conflict. Humanization of the other can emerge in an atmosphere of safe contact processes. In diaspora communities, people’s identities are already challenged through the trauma of loss and relocation. Therefore, they are often more attached to pre‐diaspora identities and also struggle with the identity shifts that occur in the resettlement process. These shifting identity dynamics can prove to be a challenge in dialogue as people may be reluctant to shift any further given the loss and transition they have already experienced. It is also an opportunity as the shifts

Dialogue

71

that have occurred in people’s identities through their relocation experience represent something they have in common and can build on in the development of connection and community. Some core aspects of identity in intergroup conflict to consider include: ●●

●● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●● ●●

Identity is a fundamental human need which, when unfulfilled, can propel individuals into conflict and often violence. People need recognition, acknowledgment, and respect for their identity. In conflict, groups often have a sense of collective identity and a shared percep­ tion about themselves and each other. In conflict, groups often feel that their identity is at risk through the development of the identity of the other; the situation can become one of “us” vs. “them.” In conflict, people often have distorted views of the other and might see the other as the enemy, subhuman, or evil. Identity differences are often manipulated and exaggerated by outside forces as a way to divide and conquer groups in conflict. Identity is often connected to specific land or territory that is in contention. Strong group identity development can lead to nationalism, which is often used to justify one’s own group as superior over others.

History and Dialogue History and memory are also key elements to understanding and intervening in long‐term conflict. In peacebuilding dialogues, history is a crucial topic for explo­ ration. Many have written about the connection between history and conflict and the need to address history in processes of reconciliation (Arai, 2015; Cairns and Roe, 2003; Montville, 2001; Pennebaker, Paez, and Rime, 1997; Tint, 2010a, 2010b). Within communities of longstanding and/or traumatic conflict, wounds are deep and history is long. Perspectives on history are also subjective and rooted in the strong identity narratives we have discussed. Working with historical material in dialogue is challenging, because the past cannot be undone, the consequences of the past are very much alive, people will argue about the historical facts of the past, and people will have a very difficult time shifting their perceptions of things that happened long ago. A critical dimension of dialogue between groups with long­ standing conflict is to understand that within diaspora communities, history has much to do with why immigrants and refugees have been forced into their current circumstances. Therefore, the past lives very much in people’s present realities; their differing perspectives on historical events contribute to a great deal of the fissures between them. Effective dialogue will allow for exploring the multiple perspectives on history while creating space for parties to envision a new future together. This will often include a shared walk through history (Montville, 1993, 2001) with an emphasis on acknowledging grievances, accepting responsibility, and expressing contrition.

72

Barbara Tint et al.

Acknowledging differing narratives of group histories is an essential element of finding other, more mutually acceptable narratives to replace the ones mired in enmity. Another core element is the telling of personal stories of loss; whereas political or national stories tend to reinforce polarization, personal stories allow participants to hear and understand each other’s pain and fear in very different ways (Tint, 2010b). Through these dimensions of the process, new ways of considering old problems emerge. Some core aspects of history in intergroup conflict to consider include: ●● ●●

●● ●● ●●

●●

●● ●● ●●

●●

●●

●●

The development of group identity is strongly connected to history. Perceptions of history are subjective and are influenced by the recorders and reporters of historical information. History is often transformed in the retelling. Parties in conflict often have different perspectives on history. History remains alive for parties in conflict, and moving forward is difficult if historical issues have not been addressed. History is often rooted in the myths through which societies develop stories about pivotal figures and events. Commemoration is a way in which parties keep events from the past alive. Parties often compete for the role of historical victim in longstanding conflicts. Perpetrators of historical wrongs often want to look forward, while victims of historical wrongs are more invested in looking back. Community leaders, parents, and community storytellers play key roles in sharing the history of communities. History is both created and passed down through families, schools, media, religious organizations, and other institutions. Crafting a shared version of history is a part of the process of reconciliation through dialogue.

Power and Dialogue Another significant challenge of dialogue work is in addressing the power imbal­ ances that are inevitable between parties in conflict. While contact theory suggests that ideal intergroup experiences should promote equal status among participants (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998), equal status rarely exists in conflicted societies and both real and felt inequality do not cease when parties enter into dialogue (Agbaria and Cohen, 2000; Hopkins, 2008; Hubbard, 2001; Rouhana and Korper, 1996). For parties of lesser power, it can be injurious to conduct dialogues from the perspective of “we are all in this together,” because it can minimize the impact of power differ­ entials in the development of the conflict, as well as minimize the real structural injustices occurring in the present. In many scenarios, groups are brought together while there are still very significant power differentials between dominant and subordinate groups (e.g., between Jewish

Dialogue

73

Israelis and Palestinians, between blacks and whites in South Africa, between differing tribal groups where one continues to be marginalized). Therefore, groups having less power come to dialogue with a very different agenda than those in a higher power role. Higher power participants tend to be more interested in better commu­ nication, whereas lower power participants are more interested in justice and action that will challenge the status quo (Abu‐Nimer, 1999; Hubbard, 2001). While higher power participants often want to get to know more about the other, lower power participants have less of a need or desire for this, as their position in society has already required that they know more of the other than the other knows of them. Knowledge and ignorance of the other’s experience are not symmetrical in conflicts between groups of unequal power (Baker Miller, 1995; Rouhana and Korper, 1996). Because dialogue work is a process by which peacebuilding occurs slowly through relational change rather than structural change, it can be challenging for small groups of individuals to address larger structural issues that they are unlikely to impact in significant or immediate ways. This can become frustrating for partici­ pants who are invested in societal shifts. This reality becomes even more challenging when the view of the other as “enemy” is reinforced by ongoing structural issues of oppression; minority participants tend to be weary of processes that create a “feel good” experience only to be followed up by continued injuries and injustices within their everyday worlds. Not only do those who come from different power positions have different agendas in dialogue and reconciliation work, they have different responsibilities as well. If the goal of dialogue is a transformed identity, then both parties have to seriously reconsider and shift parts of their own identities as a way of creating more room for the other (Hicks, 2001). Those from high power groups need to reconcile that their behavior, or that of their group, has been responsible for the suffering, pain, and humiliation of the other. This can lead to a sense of exposure, humiliation, or self‐loathing. Those from the low power group are challenged to let go of their “victim” identity, which has allowed them some of their own source of power – the moral high ground – during the conflict. While these shifts are challenging for both groups, it is particularly difficult to ask this of victimized parties. In dialogue, a skilled facilitator needs to support perpetrators in taking responsibility while helping them maintain their dignity and to support the low power group to find alternatives to their victim identity without denying them the justification of their pain. For true, sustainable peacebuilding to occur, dialogue needs to be linked to action and change that address injustices that have perpetuated the conflict. Attempting to address power inequities becomes particularly challenging in cases where the roles of victims and perpetrators are not clear‐cut, or where power ineq­ uities manifest in different ways for different parties. In many conflicts, both sides have been victimized and both sides have perpetrated atrocities. There are many conflicts where there are “competitions of victimhoods” (Montville, 2001), which suggests that dialogue and reconciliation work require that both sides have to share the roles of assuming responsibility and relinquishing the victim position if there is to be significant movement or change. In working with groups where the different

74

Barbara Tint et al.

forms of power between them have impacted the conflict, it is essential that skilled facilitation help parties address and explore how these dynamics of power have influenced the conflict and their personal experience. If the issue of power is left unaddressed, it can perpetuate its influence and leave subordinate groups feeling further marginalized. In diaspora populations, individuals and groups come with complicated histories related to power differentials. This includes the relationship that existed among groups in the homeland, the role that colonization and occupation have played in the histories and lives of many diaspora populations, the loss of power and status that some community members (often men and elders) feel through their resettlement experi­ ences, and the gain in power that others may feel (often women and youth). Diaspora communities often create a microcosm of the power differentials that existed in the homeland. So while all groups might be struggling with the same levels of struggle or oppression related to their new relocation context, the in‐group power differentials are still very much at play, and in some cases strengthened as people attempt to hold onto some levels of power and privilege lost in the resettlement process. Some core aspects of power in intergroup conflict to consider include: ●● ●●

●● ●●

●● ●●

●●

●●

Power imbalances always exist between parties in conflict. Power exists in many forms (e.g., economic, racial, educational, structural, individual). Perspectives on conflict are strongly influenced by degrees and positions of power. Power issues must be addressed and explored in dialogue, but this should be done carefully so as not to alienate either side. Power relationships are often culturally based. Parties with differing degrees of power have different needs and motivations for dialogue. Dimensions of power will likely impact the degree of safety and vulnerability people experience in dialogue. Those with less power are typically more aware of and sensitive to power dynamics than those with more power.

Dialogue and Reconciliation While not all dialogue work seeks reconciliation, nor can expectations of reconcili­ ation be imposed on communities in dialogues, peacebuilding efforts between groups with historic conflict often open the door to reconciliation as a possibility. There has been much written about reconciliation and intergroup peacebuilding processes (Bar‐Siman‐Tov, 2004; Bloomfield, Barnes, and Huyse, 2003; Helmick and Peterson, 2001; Kriesberg, 1998; Lederach, 1997; Tint, 2009). Reconciliation is a process where parties come together to repair injured relationships and fractious histories. Reconciliation will almost always require some space in which parties come together to heal the past and imagine a different future. It has at its core a

Dialogue

75

commitment to looking at perceptions of history, addressing past injuries and rela­ tional transgressions, creating accountability for and acknowledgment of wrongdoing, making space for apology and forgiveness, providing emotional and/or material reparations, and working toward concrete changes to address social injustice. Dialogue is well aligned with reconciliation in a number of ways. Reconci­liation is a process, like dialogue, which focuses on relationships as the transformative dimension in peacebuilding (Bloomfield et  al., 2003; Kriesberg, 1998; Lederach, 1997). It is seen as both a process and an outcome (Bar‐Tal and Bennink, 2004), which does not dictate readiness or results but acknowledges the fluid, organic, and ongoing nature of these powerful relational processes. Lederach (1997) suggests that reconciliation is a place of encounter and acknowledgment, where past and future meet; dialogue is a practical manifestation of this concept of encounter and provides the link in the present between past and future. Reconciliation processes call for levels of depth not typically achieved in many peacemaking processes. Dialogue supports this depth through its focus on safety, its intensive nature, and the time and space provided for transformation. Further, reconciliation work is a developmental process, which often spans significant periods of time and can benefit from the extended dimension of many dialogue models. Kelman (2004) suggests five components necessary for reconciliation: mutual acknowledgment of the other’s nationhood and humanity, development of a common moral basis for peace, confrontation with history, acknowledgment of responsibility, and establishment of patterns and institutional mechanisms of cooperation. The principles and practices of dialogue clearly parallel these components and provide the ideal mechanism by which to achieve them. While many conflict resolution and peacebuilding practices achieve some dimensions of this view of reconciliation, dialogue is a process that focuses deeply on content and process, on substance and relationship, on past, present, and future and on the psychological and the concrete dimensions to conflict. Some core aspects of reconciliation to consider in intergroup conflict include: ●● ●● ●● ●●

●● ●●

●● ●●

●● ●● ●●

Mutual acknowledgment of one another’s humanity. A process, which does not happen in an instant or overnight. Created by all parties. Commitment and desire to be in a less conflicted, more positive relationship with one another. Recognition of the interdependence of the parties in conflict. A place where the past is acknowledged and explored, with the hope of creating a different future. An accounting of history from multiple perspectives. Willingness to relinquish an established status or position and genuinely adopt a different position in order to facilitate a new relationship. Acknowledgment of wrongdoing. Apology, accountability, and repentance. Willingness to engage in public or semi‐public forgiveness processes.

76 ●● ●●

●●

Barbara Tint et al. Ritualistic modes of healing. Willingness to engage in building a new reality and letting go of old scripts about the other. Investment in and support for local/community leadership in developing and maintaining future processes for continued reconciliation.

Dialogue and Transition Participants in dialogue almost always go through some process of transition. The very act of choosing to enter into dialogue opens the door for a transition process, where people end resistance to engaging with the other. Letting go of previously held beliefs and feelings about the other is a difficult and gradual process. Early stages of dialogue are typically more structured so that participants feel safer in their initial exposure to one another. As deeper exploration of issues occurs, participants often enter the Neutral Zone, where what they have believed or held on to begins to shift; however, they have not yet moved into a new relationship or belief system. There can be internal or even group chaos, uncertainty, and complex emotions. The vulnerability that people can feel at this stage in dialogue requires sensitivity to safety as well as skillful intervention. There can often be resistance and backsliding as people reconsider new ways of looking at the world and each other. Sometimes they feel as if their very identity is at stake. As relationships and perceptions begin to shift, the possibility for New Beginnings develops as the ability to imagine a different future emerges. New Beginnings take form in concrete ways during the development of action steps, which connect that relational transformation to social action and community change. For more on the relationship between dialogue and transition, please see Chapter 3 on the Transition Framework.

Challenges to Dialogue Work Though dialogue is a process that facilitates many dimensions of intergroup healing, it is not a panacea for all situations, nor is it always the prudent choice for intergroup conflicts. Dialogue presents the opportunity for parties to sit with each other with the intent to respect, listen, and transform historically fractured relationships, but it must be used cautiously and deliberatively so that it maximizes its positive potential and minimizes its potential for further harm or injury. Zartman’s (2001) notion of ripeness  –  the conditions of readiness that allow for individuals and groups in conflict to avail themselves of conflict resolution or transformational processes – applies to dialogue work as well. Groups brought together prematurely run the risk of being too raw or protective to benefit from the process; conversely, groups brought together too late run the risk of being either so entrenched in their

Dialogue

77

histories they may not benefit as well, or so removed from it that they have passed the transformational window of opportunity. Motivation for potential outcomes is a critical component to engaging people in dialogue work. While it will always require some element of risk and commitment, the process of intergroup engagement must be presented to potential participants in a way that they connect with the possible benefit. If the risk outweighs the benefit, dialogue is much less likely to begin or succeed. Another challenge to dialogue work is the potential lack of follow‐up in many cases of intergroup encounters (Abu‐Nimer, 1999). Well‐intentioned organizations, community leaders, and third‐ party interveners often bring parties together for intense encounters without appro­ priate follow‐up, which can create a number of significant problems. First, parties (particularly youth) can be vulnerable upon “reentry” to their com­ munities; if they have just undergone a shift in meaning, perspective, or identity, it can be difficult for them to retain this in the face of familiar conditions that reinforce their previous selves. Second, parties from all groups run the risk of estrangement or hostility from their own communities if they are perceived as betraying their group by joining with “the other”; this phenomenon can create a new set of fissures at the intragroup level. Third, parties who experience a positive, transformational experi­ ence in dialogue can often experience a feeling of betrayal following the encounter when they reengage in their worlds, with some of the same intergroup difficulties or social injustices that precipitated the conflict. This sense of betrayal can produce a hardening that is sometimes more impenetrable than their original barriers to the other, as now it is layered with, “see, I trusted them, and look what happened.” Another challenge to dialogue processes is finding both commitment and capacity in a facilitator team. Many might be motivated to attempt these processes, but not all will be skilled or equipped for this work. Poorly facilitated processes run the risk of causing more harm than good. We cannot stress enough the importance of competent and trained facilitators for this work. Good intentions are not enough when strong, painful, and often traumatic material emerges in groups of this nature. Many other kinds of processes might be possible or useful (e.g., community conversations, public meetings, coffee hours) which can open the door for connection and communication. But these processes are different from the constructed and intentional work of intergroup dialogue. While dialogue work is certainly not an infallible process, when done well, it is one of the most useful and successful methods of dealing with groups in conflict.

Dialogue in Diaspora Communities Having framed some of the core principles of dialogue and reconciliation, we now share our framework for dialogue and skill‐based strategies. The model and frame­ work offered here are presented in the hope of making available safe and construc­ tive processes for resettlement populations around the world. While we are providing structured templates and activities for your use at the end of this chapter, we know that your own process will likely deviate based on the particular needs and goals of

78

Barbara Tint et al.

your groups. This book is a written tool for group interaction; it is only two dimen­ sional in nature and is best utilized with ongoing discussions about these issues and dialogue training for facilitators where necessary. We believe strongly in elicitive facilitation, which allows for the group’s needs, meaning, values, and methods to drive the process. At the same time, we know that in groups with strong historical conflict, structure builds safety and these templates are offered as a basis for the adaptation and implementation in each context. These templates are offered for working with groups that have imported their conflict his­ tory. Much of what is offered here can also be adapted to looking at the intergroup issues between refugee communities and host communities. Historical issues might not be present, but issues of identity, adaptation, transition, change, and relationship will all be at play.

Dialogue Facilitation Dialogue is a sophisticated process and should be led by skilled facilitators. The tem­ plates we provide are only the skeleton; the flesh of this work is rooted in good facil­ itation. Because dialogue between groups in conflict is complex and rooted in deep history, emotions, and relational challenges, facilitators should be sufficiently trained or experienced before conducting dialogue groups. The facilitators’ role is central to the development and outcomes of the dialogue process. Facilitators need to build relationships and establish credibility with the participants in order to estab­ lish respect, safety, and buy‐in for the dialogue process. We recommend a co‐facilitation model for any dialogue group. Co‐facilitation is useful for many reasons, including allowing for diversity of perspective, balance of facilitation styles, division of labor in designating specific areas of focus during dia­ logue, bias accountability, increased capacity for seeing and managing complex dynamics, and added support in dealing with highly emotional situations. Co‐facilita­ tion provides an opportunity for planning and debriefing with dual perspectives and insights. Consulting with a co‐facilitator at all stages in the dialogue process maximizes learning from observation and reflection, and allows for adjusting inter­ ventions as necessary.

Tips for Facilitators Before Dialogue Begins Be aware that dialogue facilitation is a very particular skill; do not attempt to facilitate a dialogue unless you are prepared to do so. ●● Be thoughtful, intentional, and thorough about the selection of dialogue participants. ●● Prepare dialogue participants with appropriate information before entering dialogue. ●●

Dialogue ●● ●● ●●

79

Be prepared with appropriate materials or information. Set up chairs in a circle or other intentional structure for interaction. Spend time with your co‐facilitator identifying your goals, roles, and strategies for dialogue.

At the Beginning of Dialogue ●● Set the spirit and tone of the group. ●● Establish and maintain the safety of the space. ●● Spend as much time as necessary on collectively establishing group guidelines and their meaning for participants. ●● Clarify and identify differences between dialogue and debate. ●● Identify the goals and purpose of the dialogue. ●● Set pacing and timekeeping. ●● Remind participants they are free to pass as needed. ●● Pay attention to non‐verbal communication, both yours and participants’. ●● Trust your instincts about what you hear and what you don’t hear. ●● Know as much as you can about cultural dynamics and pay attention to particular cultural signals. ●● Be aware of power relationships and dynamics within the group. ●● Support the concept of multiple perspectives, rather than views that are right or wrong. ●● Develop and pose effective dialogic questions. ●● Model dialogic communication for participants. During the Heart of the Dialogue ●● Monitor process agreements and group guidelines. ●● Balance leading the group with structured questions and following participants’ leads. ●● Support the group in deciding on the direction of the dialogue when it serves overall dialogue goals and needs. ●● Do not assume that silence means that everyone understands or agrees. ●● Take a break if you or participants are feeling overwhelmed, if participants need a cooling‐off period, or if emotional content requires reflection. ●● Consult with your co‐facilitator openly during dialogue sessions and privately during breaks as needed. ●● Encourage the participation of quieter voices and invite the restraint of more dominant voices. ●● Normalize heightened emotions, difficult situations, and difficult conversations. ●● Enhance safety and foster the courage of participants to stay with the hardest and most challenging material. ●● Ask probing questions that generate deeper reflection and response. ●● Solicit and receive feedback from the group and make appropriate adjustments throughout the process of dialogue.

80 ●● ●●

●●

Barbara Tint et al. Plan activities for small groups, and be intentional dividing the groups. Over time, minimize your own role; the goal is to have participants talking more to each other than to you. Identify and address challenging behaviors and content to encourage reflection and behavioral change.

Toward the End of Dialogue ●● Make sure all voices have been heard sufficiently. ●● Observe and reflect the growth and changes you have seen. ●● Invite participants to reflect on their own process. ●● Ask about unfinished business that might still be lingering. ●● Cultivate action plans that can carry the dialogue process out into the community. ●● Facilitate closing rituals as appropriate. ●● Debrief with your co‐facilitator to increase reflection and learning.

Planning Considerations Planning dialogue sessions can be challenging and difficult, particularly when working with groups where there has been longstanding conflict or trauma. In planning, there are numerous factors to consider in creating an experience that avoids causing further harm and maximizes the potential for reconciliation between people or communities. Planning must be thoughtful and intentional. Based on our own experiences, we offer the following areas for consideration when planning a dialogue process of your own.

Cultural Issues It is important that facilitators have an awareness of the participants’ background and identity before going into dialogue sessions. There are several components that make up identity, including ethnicity, race, country of origin, tribal affiliation, religion, age, gender, education, and socio‐economic status. People will often have multiple layers of identity, layers that join them in some ways and divide them in others. Understanding these important cultural elements and incorporating them into the planning and layout of dialogue is essential for creating a safe and con­ structive space, allowing more opportunity for understanding and increasing facilitator credibility. Having a high level of cultural competency also helps the facilitators anticipate what topics might emerge in the dialogue, and helps them respond appropriately to the needs of the participants. When planning meals, rituals, schedules, and other structural dimensions of the process, be aware of the traditions and restrictions of the partici­ pants’ culture. For additional information on working with the cultural dynamics related to diaspora populations, please see Chapter 5 on Cultural Considerations.

Dialogue

81

Who Facilitates When planning for dialogue, you want to carefully consider who will serve as facilitators. We used a combination of in‐group and out‐group facilitators in different pairings. Each pairing had advantages and disadvantages. In‐group facilitators are people who are from the region and are members of the participants’ culture, people who have personal understanding of and experience with the issues and practices of the dialogue community. Advantages of using in‐group facilitators include: ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

●● ●●

Elders or community leaders carry significance and power. In‐group facilitators understand cultural dynamics and nuances. Knowledge of historical issues and relationships is deep. Community ownership, empowerment, and capacity building are increased. Safety and comfort can be enhanced with familiar group facilitators. Balanced facilitation teams (i.e., facilitators who represent all the identity groups in dialogue) can model cooperation, constructive dialogue, and potential for healing. Dialogue can occur in participants’ native languages. Skilled in‐group facilitators can inspire dialogue participants to develop dialogic skills and abilities of their own. Challenges of using in‐group facilitators include:

●● ●● ●●

●●

In‐group relationships may be too close with some dialogue participants. Dialogue material may be too triggering and difficult. Mistrust and suspicion by certain group members because of facilitator identity affiliation. Bias may interfere with balanced facilitation.

Out‐group facilitators are people who are not members of the participants’ culture, but who have the necessary level of cultural competency, community credibility, and facilitation skill to help lead a group in this process. Advantages of using out‐group facilitators include: ●●

●●

●●

●●

Outsiders are sometimes perceived as bringing authority or credibility to the process (e.g., if they come from a well‐respected organization). Outsiders are less likely to have personal issues that are easily triggered by the dialogue, or overt biases that can interfere with dialogue. Outsiders can collaborate with and teach participants new knowledge, skills, or information, thereby empowering local actors and knowledge. Outsiders can bring a different experience base that can be useful in facilitating dialogue and conflict resolution.

82

Barbara Tint et al.

Challenges of using out‐group facilitators include: ●●

●● ●●

●●

●●

If outside facilitators don’t speak the group’s native language, participants must either be fluent enough in the adopted language to communicate successfully or translators will be required, which can be challenging in dialogue. Outsiders are likely to miss many cultural cues. Participants may be less likely to share as openly with someone they see as a stranger. Outsiders may either appear to be or be perceived as “experts,” which can inter­ fere with participants taking greater ownership of the process. Lack of historical knowledge may impede deeper exploration and process.

In our work, we had a variety of configurations that were rooted in both s­ trategic choice and team capacity. Having insiders paired with outsiders was an effective approach, but we had to be careful that the in‐group facilitator not be aligned solely with any of the sub‐groups in dialogue. One solution to this was to have teams of African and U.S. facilitators, with the African facilitator coming from a different identity group than that of the participants (e.g., a facilitator from Liberia with the Somali group and a facilitator from Chad with the Great Lakes group). In our second round of groups, after we had trained former dialogue group members as facilitators, we had all in‐group facilitation teams running the groups. This worked very well especially when the newly trained facilitators demonstrated the skill to manage the challenging group dynamics. This was also able to work because we balanced identity affiliation in the facilitator teams. For example, in the second round of groups in the Great Lakes community, we had three facilitators, one each from Rwanda, Burundi, and the DRC, therefore representing all community members in the group. This might not always be possible – the Somali group had six different tribes represented. We would suggest that, when possible, if you have trained in‐group facilitators who can provide a balanced facilitation team, this is an ideal worth working toward. If you cannot have a perfectly balanced team, the next best thing is to address this openly at some point in the recruitment and dialogue itself. People may not always share their reservations initially, but hope­ fully with the development of safe space, these issues can emerge and be a useful topic in the dialogue.

Scheduling Scheduling logistics are challenging, and you should allow more time than you think you will need for recruitment, planning, and dialogue. The model we are proposing includes one orientation session and ten dialogue sessions of approxi­ mately four hours each. We met weekly when possible, with intervals when necessary. The more time you are able to give to the process, the deeper you will

Dialogue

83

be able to go, but it can also be difficult for participants to commit to ten weeks. Dialogue sessions can also be held in more intense formats (e.g., extended weekend workshops); ultimately, you must find a schedule that works for your community. It can be helpful to provide a small stipend, if possible, to cover items like trans­ portation costs or childcare in order to help participants make the full ten‐week commitment, and to show that you value their contribution. As people have different conceptions of time, one issue that should be discussed is whether participants can agree to arrive at a particular time in order to begin dialogue together. You will likely have some participants who arrive at the scheduled time and others whose arrival is more fluid. This might be seen as culturally acceptable or disruptive to the process, depending on the group.

Group Composition In order to keep a manageable group and provide a space where everyone will have an opportunity to share, we advise that dialogue groups have between 12 and 18 participants. Fewer than that could become too small for meaningful engagement, while more than that could become too large to allow for a feeling of safety, inti­ macy, and constructive group management. People will drop out for one reason or another (though we had much less attrition in our groups than we expected), so you should account for this when you are planning your groups. It is also important to be intentional about participant selection and to have a balanced representation between different group members – genders, ages, identity affiliations, and so on. It will likely be very difficult to plan for perfect balance of all these factors, but the degree to which this is considered with intention in planning will greatly enhance your processes. For more information on participant selection, please see Chapter 4 on Recruitment.

Tips for Asking Dialogic Questions Asking Dialogic Questions Crafting questions for dialogue is one of the most important skills a facilitator can develop. A well‐crafted question can set the course for a constructive dialogue process, while a poorly crafted question can create confusion or defensiveness. This is true for questions posed by both the facilitators and the participants. Learning to ask dialogic questions is a skill that develops with practice. This skill is useful for both the facilitator and the participants as they learn to engage with each other. ●● ●● ●●

Ask questions that show interest or curiosity. Avoid questions that contain judgment. Make sure your questions are understood; repeat them if necessary.

84 ●● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Barbara Tint et al. Reframe questions if they seem to miss your goal. Ask open‐ended questions such as: ◦◦ What has been your experience with ______? ◦◦ Can you share what you believe about ______? ◦◦ What does ______mean to you? ◦◦ How has your life been impacted by ______? Ask clarifying or probing questions such as: ◦◦ I’m not sure I understand; can you explain further? ◦◦ Can you say more about that? ◦◦ Can you share more about your experience? ◦◦ Can you share what has contributed to your belief/feeling/perception/idea about ______? Ask group process questions such as: ◦◦ Can you share what you are feeling about ______? ◦◦ What was it like for you to hear ______? ◦◦ Can you take a moment to reflect on ______? ◦◦ What are you noticing about the group right now? Ask yourself: ◦◦ What is the goal of my question? ◦◦ Is there a hidden meaning? ◦◦ Am I trying to persuade or convince with my question? ◦◦ How is this question likely to be received? ◦◦ What is the tone or feeling associated with my question? Be aware of: ◦◦ Built‐in assumptions ◦◦ Personal biases ◦◦ Drawing conclusions about what participants say without probing more deeply ◦◦ Hidden or shared judgments ◦◦ Leading or persuading ◦◦ Too much focus on “facts” rather than experience ◦◦ Too much focus on either past or future ◦◦ Re‐circulating arguments ◦◦ Questions that begin with “Don’t you think…”

Dialogue Methods There are a variety of methods and strategies to use in dialogue. While they might seem fluid and spontaneous to an outside observer, a skilled dialogue facilitator is always making intentional choices about what intervention to make and when and why they are most appropriate. The following is a chart of various dialogue methods, the goals behind them, and when to use them.

Dialogue

85

Method

Goal

When to Use

Go‐Around

• Get

to know one another Facilitators ask all participants to go around in a • Build cohesion circle and answer a question; • Build safety and trust • Get the flow of share some thoughts, dialogue going feelings, or ideas; or reflect • Ground the group on the content or process of • Strengthen the dialogue container of the group

• During

Turn‐Taking

• Give

• When

Facilitators ask a question and participants respond in whatever order they choose, but only speak once before everyone has had an opportunity to share

participants a sense of participation and ownership • Survey the room • Allow space for those who want to be silent to do so

Questioning and Probing

• Dig

• At

Facilitators ask a question or series of questions with a purpose

deeper into an issue that has been raised • Bring an underlying issue to the surface

Open Dialogue

• Get

• When

Facilitators encourage a free flow of responses; this may start with framing questions and then shift to issues and topics emerging spontaneously, with guiding questions and prompts along the way

deeper into a topic for emotions and relational dynamics to emerge • Increase participant ownership • Identify directions and topics for dialogue • Get participants talking to each other and not the facilitator • Allow

opening or closing dialogue sessions • When emotions get high, in order to ground the room • When there is a need for everyone’s inclusion, buy‐ in, or input in the dialogue session • To check in about important content or process that has emerged an important question or topic is being introduced • When you want participants to go deeper into a topic than a quicker go‐around • As a precursor to more open dialogue times of heightened emotion • When community members are struggling to articulate a need, story, or emotion • When there seems to be misunderstanding in the group • When the topic being discussed is significant in the dialogue there is enough time to probe deeply • When there is enough safety in the group for deeper issues to emerge • When dialogue is addressing crucial topics • When there is a natural flow of conversation emerging that you don’t want to interrupt

86

Barbara Tint et al.

Method

Goal

When to Use

Presentation

• Give

information important for dialogue • Help clarify key elements or concepts • Normalize or generalize issues by relating them to other contexts or scenarios • Frame a model for discussion • Teach skills useful for dialogue

• During

• Impart

information and make logistical decisions • Talk about content‐ related issues that are secondary to the deeper dialogue

• When

• Educate

or build capacity of the dialogue participants • Have the participants get to know each other better • Build trust and safe space in the group • Focus on a particular topic area

• When

• Allow

• At

Facilitators present content or information about a topic to frame the dialogue process

Discussion Facilitators ask questions and get the group to discuss and make decisions

Structured Activity Facilitators lead an activity that has a specific purpose

Writing Facilitators ask participants to respond to a question/ statement or reflect on the dialogue through writing

participants to gather their thoughts or ideas before engaging in dialogue • Allow for reflection immediately following dialogue or when issues are heated • Lower tensions and begin to process emotion when dialoguing about difficult issues

orientation or the beginning of a dialogue process • At the beginning of a new topic area or when new concepts arise • When there is information needed for participants to consider • When there is confusion about content areas crucial for constructive dialogue logistical decisions need to be made • When information about the dialogue session or process needs to be shared • When there is follow‐up discussion to a presentation or teaching modules you want to provide structured content or safety • When a new idea or concept of dialogue is introduced • To break up long or intense sessions of dialogue • To lead into topics for deeper dialogue the end of a dialogue session • When emotions are heated • When the dialogue topic is contentious or difficult for the group to begin discussing • When dialogue slows • Before small group or dyad activities • When you are certain all participants are comfortable writing

Dialogue

87

Method

Goal

When to Use

Silence

• Generate reflective

• At

Facilitators ask everyone for a period of silence or allow a spontaneous moment of silence to linger

thoughts on deep issues • Allow tensions to abate • Center the room and refocus • Note important moments • Connect to spiritual goals of the group

Breaks

• Allow

for rest and refueling • Allow time and space for parties to cool off when dialogue gets heated • Increase informal social interactions among participants and facilitators • Allow time to individually check in with participants • Allow participants to take care of personal needs

• Scheduled

• Conclude

• When

15 minutes to hour‐long lunches

Summary or Reflection

a session or

Facilitators offer summary, reflection, or observation about the dialogue process

topic • Clarify an issue or topic • Remind participants of previous dialogues • Make observations for participants to consider • Highlight points for deeper exploration

Small Groups

• Allow

Facilitators break up the dialogue to work in groups of three or more

quieter voices the space to speak • Allow for discussion among different identity groups • Accomplish specific tasks to discuss in dialogue

times of high emotions or deep reflection • During ritual • When you want to anchor something that has happened in the process • To give space to something you want participants to absorb deeply regularly so participants know what to expect • When tensions are high • When you need to check in with your co‐facilitator privately • When participants need to take care of personal issues

there seems to be confusion in the room • At the beginning or end of dialogue sessions • When an outside voice is helpful to the process • At any point the facilitators deem helpful or necessary

• When

the facilitators see the need to draw out quieter voices • When participants have discussion topics for sharing or comparison • As part of structured activities

Barbara Tint et al.

88 Method

Goal

When to Use

Dyads

• Allow

everyone time to share their stories/thoughts in a way that can be more safe and inviting than a larger group setting • Allow time to formulate thoughts and perspectives before sharing with the larger group

• When

• Build

• When

Facilitators and participants decide on a shared ritual such as prayer or songs to begin, end, or mark an important point in the dialogue

safe space and group cohesion • Incorporate culturally appropriate dialogue practices • Increase spiritual meaning for participants

Modeling

• Change

• The

Facilitators break the larger group into groups of 2 for one‐on‐one conversation and dialogue

Ritual

Facilitators act in ways that they would like the group to reflect

group dynamics or behavior without certain group members losing face • Provide an example of what is expected in the dialogue

certain participants have not spoken in a length of time • When you want to allow quieter members time to gather their thoughts on an issue or topic • When everyone needs to have time to be heard

ritual will add to the sense of cohesion in the room • When the group needs shared symbolism to build cohesion

beginning of an activity • When group members are beginning to speak or act in ways that are not productive to the dialogue process

Tips for Using Dialogue Session Templates While we offer these templates to give you a structured framework for dialogue, they are intended to be adapted as necessary. Rigid formulas for group engage­ ment will not allow the organic and particular needs of your own community processes to emerge. We hope and trust that you will develop and implement processes that are congruent with your own capacity, community needs, and realities of the context you are in. These templates should only be implemented by people who have knowledge, training, and experience in facilitating group processes.

Dialogue ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●● ●●

●●

89

The questions and prompts in the modules are suggestions. We encourage you to adapt them as needed. Questions in italics can be used exactly if helpful. Each template lists the necessary handouts or worksheets, which are included at the end of the chapter. An orientation session should be held with smaller identity groups before dialogue begins, if possible (for example, in our Great Lakes group we held three separate orientation sessions with participants from Rwanda, Burundi, and Congo). This allows for participants to become familiar with the process and to develop some dialogic skills before encountering those with whom they have been in conflict. It is understood and should be stated that people can always pass if they do not want to respond to a question or prompt. We typically recommend a circle, without tables, for the large group dialogue process. Sub‐groups or work periods might be arranged differently. The time estimates we provide in the modules are based on 14 participants and 2 facilitators. We expect that you will adjust as needed. Times are fluid and will need to be adjusted accordingly. Encourage and invite participants to design their own rituals for opening and closing sessions, accomplishing certain tasks, commemorating special events, or marking other meaningful moments. Culturally appropriate food is important for all meetings, whenever possible. We recommend offering participants a certificate recognizing their efforts and accomplishments. This concrete representation of their participation is a powerful symbol. Some of the content areas for dialogue parallel the content in this chapter (reconciliation, identity, history); therefore it is important that facilitators be familiar with this material.

Additional Resources for Dialogue There are many other resources and models of dialogue for those interested in learning more. For further information, please see: The Compassionate Listening Project http://www.compassionatelistening.org/ Hope in the Cities http://us.iofc.org/hope‐in‐cities‐iofc National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation http://ncdd.org/ Public Conversations Project http://www.publicconversations.org/ Public Dialogue Consortium http://publicdialogue.org/ Search for Common Ground https://www.sfcg.org/ Sustained Dialogue Institute http://sustaineddialogue.org/

Barbara Tint et al.

90

Dialogue Orientation Session Materials Needed: 1  Pens and Flipchart 2  Facilitator Guide for Listening Activity 3  Facilitator Guide for Questioning Activity 4  Participant Packets including: ●● Consent Form ●● Schedule for Dialogue Sessions ●● Dialogue vs. Debate Handout ●● Guidelines for Useful Questions ●● Pad of Paper NOTES

Facilitators Model

TIME

ACTIVITY

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

10 minutes

WELCOME

Facilitator Statement • Brief welcoming statement bringing participants into the room together, sharing general purpose of meeting and sharing thanks for participants’ attendance

• Make

30 minutes

INTRODUCTION Go‐Around • Can you say your name and some­thing you would like to share about your family?

• Get

30 minutes

PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT

• Clarify

Presentation of the project • Share Schedule of Sessions • Go over Consent Form • Attend to logistics Discussion and Questions • Purpose

sure everyone is comfortable and settled • Create atmosphere of safety and inclusion • Affirm and acknowledge participants’ presence and commitment

acquainted one another in a more personal way

• See

project specifics • Clarify expectations and commitment • Address possible challenges for participation (work, transportation, childcare, timeliness) • Address questions and concerns

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

Dialogue NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

Refreshments 20 minutes

BREAK

Handout on Dialogue vs. Debate

45 minutes

INTRO TO DIALOGUE

45 minutes

INTRO TO LISTENING AND ASKING DIALOGIC QUESTIONS

METHOD/ CONTENT

91 GOALS • Attend

to personal needs • Opportunity for informal participant interaction Presentation

• Goals of

Dialogue • Principles of Dialogue • Dialogue vs. Debate • Importance of Dialogue • Questions Discussion • Have you ever been in a debate? • What was that like? • Have you ever been in dialogue? • What was that like? Presentation kinds of listening • Listening through challenging content • Listening for understanding and empathy • Listening with suspension Structured Activity • Listening Activity • Questioning Activity • Different

• Build

understanding of dialogue processes • Convey necessity of dialogic processes for engaging groups such as theirs • Engage participants in discussion

• Practice

listening in different ways • Develop dialogic skills • Practice suspension • Hear multiple perspectives • Start building cohesion

Barbara Tint et al.

92 NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

Discussion • What was that like? • How did it feel to be listened to? • How did it feel to listen? • What was it like to only ask dialogic questions? • What was challenging? • What was different about this?

Facilitators Model

15 minutes

INTRO TO SAFETY

5 minutes

FINAL QUESTIONS

15 minutes

CLOSING

Presentation

• Addressing

importance of safety in dialogue work • Describe process of building safety • Confidentiality to be discussed in the first meeting Discussion and Questions

• Begin

to build safety • Introduce importance of group container • Acknowledge and normalize challenges • Create assurance that facilitators will attend to group safety

Discussion and Questions Solicit questions from the group

• Clarify

Go‐Around you take one minute to share something that you learned today that was meaningful for you?

• Close

• Can

details shared understanding of process • Remind participants to bring folders to group sessions • Create

group to build cohesion • Invite reflection • Continue

Dialogue

93

Dialogue Session #1 Opening, Group Guidelines, and Participant Goals Materials Needed: Board or Flipchart and Markers ●● Participant Packets ●● Handout of Common Group Guidelines ●●

NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

Facilitators Model

15 minutes OPENING

Go‐Around you share your name and what it means?

• Get

Refer to Handouts

15 minutes ORIENTATION Presentation • Review Dialogue REVIEW Schedule • Address Logistics (transportation, childcare, etc.) Discussion and Questions

• Clarify

Handout of Common Guidelines

50 minutes GROUP GUIDELINES

• Deepen

• Can

Presentation the Concept of Group Guidelines • Share Common Guidelines Turn‐Taking • What do you need to speak openly and honestly? • What does confidentiality mean to you? • Introduce

acquainted each other in more personal ways • Learn things about one another • Begin to build cohesion and group unity • See

program structure • Clarify expectations for participation • Address potential challenges to participation understanding of safety • Build trust and confidence • Learn about each other through thoughts and feelings presented • Create group safety

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

Barbara Tint et al.

94 NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

Open Dialogue • Explore issues relevant to safety and confidentiality among the participants. Summary • Check for agreement on all guidelines Record • Record and keep final list of guidelines • If possible, write on flip chart and post in room for each session

• Experience

unity in the form of agreement on guidelines • Provide examples from other contexts

Refreshments 30 minutes BREAK 20 minutes EXPLORATION Turn‐Taking • What does the term OF COMMUNITY “community” mean to you?

• Inspire thinking

60 minutes EXPLORATION Turn‐Taking • What are you OF GOALS hoping to get from this dialogue series and what are your hopes for your communities?

• Gather

about community needs • Generate participant ownership of group process • Increase transparency of participants with each other • Reveal common perspectives information on participant perceptions, goals, and interests • Begin to explore community vision

Dialogue NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

30 minutes DIALOGUE DEBRIEF

Facilitators contribute last

20 minutes CLOSING

95

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

Open Dialogue – Prompts • What would (your stated goals) look like if achieved? • What would it take to get there? • Has anything ever been tried to accomplish this?

• Explore

Discussion

• Explore

Go‐Around you share one thing that was positive for you today?

• Ground

• Experience

of Dialogue • Listening and Suspension • Challenge of Contrasting Perspectives • Inquiry and Reflection • Safety • Can

process more deeply • Provide space for participants to address their experience • Build group safety and cohesion • Develop group understanding around multiple perspectives participants’ experience of dialogue • Reinforce principles and practice of dialogue

the group • Reveal participant experiences

Barbara Tint et al.

96

Dialogue Session #2 Diaspora Stories Materials Needed: ●● Board or Flip Chart and Markers ●● Participant Packets NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

15 minutes OPENING

90 minutes DIASPORA Facilitators STORIES frame this gently and however feels appropriate to open this topic

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

Go‐Around been happening in your life since our meeting last week?

• Bring

Turn‐Taking • Can you share your story of leaving your home country and coming to (city, country)?

• Learn

• What’s

everyone back together • Provide an opportunity to share • Reconnect around personal experiences about each other’s experiences • Open process to deeper material • Reveal common ground • Develop mutual empathy for shared challenges • Continue to build group cohesion

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

Dialogue NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

METHOD/ CONTENT

90 minutes REFLECTION Open Facilitators AND DEBRIEF Dialogue – Prompts implicitly • What was it like to note shared experiences hear each other’s and examples stories? • What did you notice? of Transition • What surprised you? • What have you learned about your group? • Are there questions you would like to ask each other about your stories? Facilitator Summary • Facilitators make observations about what they have observed and heard in the group stories 15 minutes CLOSING

Go‐Around did it feel to sit in this circle today?

• How

97 GOALS • Identify

shared experiences • Build on common ground • Develop mutual empathy • Continue to build group cohesion

• Explore

participants’ experience of dialogue • Build group ownership of process • Provide closure of dialogue

Barbara Tint et al.

98

Dialogue Session #3 Transitions: Individual and Collective Experience Materials Needed: Board or Flip Chart and Markers ●● Participant Packets ●● Handouts and Worksheets on Transition Framework ◦◦ Change vs. Transition (Figure 3.1) ◦◦ Three Phases of Transition (see Chapter 3) ◦◦ Transition Framework Expanding Circle Model (Figure 3.2) ◦◦ Common Reactions to Change (Figure 6.2) ◦◦ Changes in Your World (Figure 6.3) ●●

NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

15 minutes OPENING

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

Go‐Around was most memorable for you from our last meeting?

• Allow

• What

60 minutes INTRODUCTION Presentation Handouts: TO TRANSITION • Share difference Change vs. Transition between Change Wave Model and Transition • Outline Expanding Circle Model Transition Common Framework • Define Endings, Reactions to Change Neutral Zone, New Beginnings • Explain that everyone goes through Transitions Discussion and Questions

participants to hear every voice • Reconnect people to previous session • Open reflective dimension of participants’ experience • Familiarize

participants with Transition Framework • Continue to build common ground around experiences of transition • Normalize painful and difficult experiences • Ensure concepts are clear to participants

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

Dialogue NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

METHOD/ CONTENT

Changes in Your World Worksheet

30 minutes EXPLORATION Individual Written Activity OF PARTICIPANTS’ • Explain EXPERIENCE OF worksheet TRANSITION process • Participants fill out areas of change and transition in different areas of their lives

99 GOALS • Apply

Transition Framework to personal experience • Begin to explore Transition around multiple life contexts • Build on common ground

Refreshments 30 minutes BREAK 30 minutes SHARING Small Groups • Break EXPERIENCES OF TRANSITION participants into small groups – this can be done either randomly or by age, ethnicity, gender. Be intentional about your choice. • Each participant shares their responses on the worksheet

• Practice

understanding and applying the Transition Framework • Build on common ground • Increase opportunity for connection and empathy among participants

Barbara Tint et al.

100 NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

60 minutes DIALOGUE ON TRANSITION

15 minutes CLOSING Draw a continuum of Transition on board: Ending – Neutral Zone – New Beginning

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

Open Dialogue – Prompts • What does the concept of transition mean to you? • What does it feel like to go through a transition? • What did you learn or discover about yourself in this process? • What did you learn or discover about others? • What part of this model fits for you? • What part of this model does not fit for you?

• Solidify/integrate

Go‐Around are you now in your Transition process in relocating to a new country?

• Have

• Where

understanding of Transition • Use diaspora experience as way to make meaning of Transition • Build group cohesion and common ground • Identify shared and individual experiences • Empower participants to critique model as appropriate

participants reflect on and reveal where they are now • Provide opportunity for participants to share commonalities and connections

Dialogue

101

Dialogue Session #4 Community Strengths and Challenges Materials Needed: White Board or Flip Chart and Markers ●● Participant Packets ●●

NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

METHOD/CONTENT GOALS

Facilitators Model

OPENING 10 minutes

Go‐Around • Please share something interesting you’ve experienced since last week.

• Connect

10 REFLECTION minutes ON GOALS

Facilitator Summary • Facilitator offers summary, reflection, and review of what participants shared previously about goals for dialogue, specifically around what people thought it would take to achieve their community goals • Facilitator invites any reflections from participants

• Revisit

30 EXPLORATION Turn‐Taking • What are some of the minutes OF COMMUNITY challenges to your CHALLENGES community’s progress toward those goals?

the group in different ways unrelated to content • Reorient everyone back into the space work from previous sessions • Address important topic(s) identified by the group • Give participants and facilitators an opportunity to reflect on past content

• Uncover

challenges, issues, and/or divisions in the community • Identify common ground in participant perceptions • Articulate areas that will be focus of group efforts

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

Barbara Tint et al.

102 NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

60 DIALOGUE minutes AND REFLECTION ON COMMUNITY CHALLENGES

METHOD/CONTENT GOALS Open Dialogue – Prompts • How have these challenges personally impacted your lives? • When or how did you come to understand these issues? • What is most difficult for you about these issues?

• Explore community

issues and discord more deeply • Focus on personal experiences rather than stating “facts” or “objective descriptions” • Increase transparency of participant concerns

Refreshments 30 BREAK minutes Participants record discussions

60 EXPLORATION Small Groups minutes OF Break group into smaller COMMUNITY groups, either randomly STRENGTHS or by identity affiliation (ethnicity, age, gender, etc.) • What do you appreciate about your community? • What are some community strengths that will help address your stated challenges? • What will help mobilize some of these community strengths? Report Back to Large Group

• Continue

30 DIALOGUE ON Open Dialogue – minutes COMMUNITY Prompts • What came up for you STRENGTHS in exploring community strengths? • What thoughts or reflections do you have about the process?

• Focus participants

10 CLOSING minutes

• End

Go‐Around • Can you share what was most meaningful for you about our session today?

to build group cohesion through identification of strengths • Begin to match strengths to challenges • Empower participants by focusing on strengths rather than difficulties

on strengths to build on toward community building • Allow for more free flow of sharing after small group activity session on positive note • Explore participant values and connections

Dialogue

103

Dialogue Session #5 Individual and Group Identities Materials Needed: White Board or Flip Chart and Markers ●● Participant Packets ●●

NOTES

TIME ACTIVITY 20 OPENING minutes

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

Go‐Around are you doing this week?

• Connect

• How

30 INTRODUCTION Turn‐Taking Facilitator Give participants models example minutes TO IDENTITY time to reflect before of sharing about answering identity • If someone were to Make clear that there is no right ask “Who are you,” or wrong way to what would you say? answer this 60 DIALOGUE minutes ABOUT IDENTITY ISSUES

Open Dialogue – Prompts • What did you notice or hear that was interesting, surprising, challenging to you? • Did your own sense of identity change after you heard other people’s responses? • Were there similarities in the way people responded? • What seemed to be strong parts of people’s identity? • How important is identity?

the group in different ways unrelated to content • Reorient everyone back into the space • Explore

people’s self‐ identification • Have group members share more about themselves with each other • Explore patterns

around identity identity issues related to family, community, ethnicity, tribe, home, status, etc. • Build upon similarities and common ground • Create space for accepting difference around self‐ identification • Uncover

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

104

Barbara Tint et al.

NOTES

TIME ACTIVITY

Refreshments

30 BREAK minutes

METHOD/ CONTENT

30 CONNECTION Presentation • Facilitator shares minutes BETWEEN IDENTITY AND knowledge of other CONFLICT conflicts where identity plays a big part. These can be political, community, or small group conflicts. • Facilitator talks about issues of conflict as being prevalent in groups with human differences (e.g., age, gender, race, tribal affiliation, political views) and stimulated through political issues and/ or outside intervention. • Facilitator shares an example of a case of identity‐based community conflict that is different from the communities in the dialogue (e.g., Sri Lanka, Israel/ Palestine, race relations in the U.S.) and the kinds of efforts people have made to address those challenges.

GOALS

• Normalize

experience of differing identities • Normalize reality of community conflict • Provide examples as a reference point for issues that can be examined more safely • Begin to address group challenges as being related to external forces as much as (or more than) inherent group differences

Dialogue NOTES

105

TIME ACTIVITY

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

60 DIALOGUE ON minutes IDENTITY AND CONFLICT

Open Dialogue – Prompts • How does what you heard connect to what you are experiencing in your own communities? • What are your thoughts about the connection between identity and conflict? • Why do you think groups get into so much conflict about identity?

• Begin

Go‐Around our discussions today, do you have any new thoughts about identity?

• Explore

15 CLOSING minutes

• After

to make connections between identity and their community conflict • Bring the dialogue to a deeper level • Create awareness of the power and importance of identity • Clarify importance of group and collective identity possible shifts as a result of dialogue • Increase reflection on identity and self‐perception

Barbara Tint et al.

106

Dialogue Session #6 Perspectives on History Materials Needed: White Board or Flip Chart and Markers ●● Participant Packets ●● Roll of Large Paper ●●

NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

15 minutes OPENING

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

Go‐Around • What reflections have you had this week about our session last week?

• Reconnect

30 minutes INTRODUCTION Turn‐Taking • In thinking about TO HISTORY the issues in your regions, how important is history? How important is the past? (And why?)

session to last week’s work • Give participants an opportunity to share new insights related to identity • Orient

participants to thinking about the past • Reveal differing perspectives on the importance and persistence of history

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

Dialogue NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

30 minutes CONNECTING HISTORY AND CONFLICT

45 minutes CREATE TIME LINES

107

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

Presentation

• Emphasize

• Facilitator

shares information about the role of differing historical narratives in ongoing intergroup conflict • Draw from case examples previously presented to the group Questions and Discussion

and normalizes the existence of differing (and sometimes opposing) perspectives on history and events of the past • Connect differing historical narratives to the dynamics of intergroup conflict

Small Groups participants break into small groups. (How groups are determined will have a lot to do with the identities of the group members and the needs of the particular group – e.g., either by country, tribal affiliation, religion, ethnic identity, gender, age) • Have each group draw a time line of its perspective of significant events in their group’s history • It’s OK if group members disagree, all ideas can be included

• Stimulate

• Have

thinking about past events • Create representations and open discussion of various views of the same events • Move group into deeper content related to their conflict

Barbara Tint et al.

108 NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

Report Back/ Presentation This portion of exploring history will be more informational regarding people’s perspectives. Dialogue on these issues will take place next week. • Have groups reconvene and take turns presenting their time lines • Groups members can share areas where there was agreement or disagreement • Questions and Answer from group members to one another

• Begin

Go‐Around was it like for you to hear each other’s perspectives on history?

• Create

Refreshments 30 minutes BREAK Facilitate the 60 minutes SHARE TIME LINES practice of listening, suspension, inquiry, and holding multiple perspectives Facilitators watch for strong emotions and support participants in these

30 minutes CLOSING

• What

discussion on multiple perspectives of historical events • Highlight significant cultural and historical markers for each group • Create opportunity for group members to interact related to the historical content

opportunity for reflection • Build common ground around listening and being challenged • Offer insights into where differences may exist

Dialogue

109

Dialogue Session #7 History and Transition Materials Needed: White Board or Flip Chart and Markers ●● Participant Packets ●● Time Lines From Last Week ●●

NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

15 minutes OPENING Give participants time to reflect before answering

Post time lines 15 minutes REVISITING TIME LINES on the walls Give markers to all participants

Careful not to 75 minutes DIALOGUE ON HISTORY get stuck into scenario where participants are arguing facts of history. This will likely happen and will not be resolved in this way

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

Go‐Around one thing you remember enjoying as a child?

• Create

Large Group Activity walk around and look at time lines on the walls • Participants check‐mark on items/events that generate questions or reactions for them

• Reorient

Open Dialogue – Prompts • What are your reactions to what you saw? • What came up for you in exploring your own history? • What came up for you in hearing about others’ perspectives on history? • What did you see that challenged your understanding of history?

• Create

• What’s

• Participants

connection between participants • Begin with positive, more light‐hearted content participants to work on history • Generate material for dialogue

space for multiple perspectives • Encourage increased understanding around differences • Explore deep‐ rooted issues and feelings around the past • Move participants from debate to dialogue

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

Barbara Tint et al.

110 NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

Refreshments

30 minutes BREAK 15 minutes TRANSITION REVIEW

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

Presentation Transitions Framework

• Reorient

• Review

45 minutes HISTORY Open Dialogue Facilitators • Have participants AND look for TRANSITIONS explore what they connections between the think the connection past, present, is between history future, and and the experience their of Transition relationship to Endings, Neutral Zone, and New Beginnings

15 minutes CLOSING

Go‐Around there were one thing from history you could take forward into the future, what would it be?

• If

participants to Transitions Framework in preparation for applying it to history

• Draw

on participants’ understanding of Transition • Explore authentic connections between participants’ experience of history and the Transition Framework • Allow for more informal group process • Set

hopeful tone • Begin to connect the past and the future • Provide reflection and summary to exploration of history

Dialogue

111

Dialogue Session #8 Community Reconciliation and Transitions Materials Needed: White Board or Flip Chart and Markers ●● Participant Packets ●● Transitions and Community Reconciliation Worksheet ●●

NOTES

TIME ACTIVITY

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

15 OPENING minutes

Go‐Around • What has stayed with you from last week?

• Reconnect

45 COMMUNITY Turn‐Taking minutes RECONCILIATION • What does the term reconciliation mean to you? Facilitator Summary • Facilitator reflects back what they heard from the group • Facilitator shares some key principles related to reconciliation 45 TRANSITIONS Small Groups Transitions minutes AND COMMUNITY • Divide participants and RECONCILIATION into three mixed Community Reconciliation groups (mixed Worksheet with different ethnicities, tribes, nationalities, etc.) • Have one group explore questions on worksheet related to Endings, one on Neutral Zone, one on New Beginnings Report Back to Large Group

participants to previous dialogue content • Open material for dialogue • Introduce

the concept of reconciliation • Explore differing meanings • Provide a framework for the process of reconciliation

• Forge

relationships across differences in the mixed groups • Deepen connection between concept of reconciliation and the experience of transition • Focus on specific dimensions of the reconciliation process

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

Barbara Tint et al.

112 NOTES

TIME ACTIVITY

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

Refreshments 30 BREAK minutes 90 DIALOGUE ON Open minutes COMMUNITY Dialogue – Prompts RECONCILIATION • Do you think reconciliation is possible in your wider communities? • Do you think people want to reconcile? • What would it look like? • What have been traditional approaches to reconciliation in your communities? • What would it take to get there? • What might be some potential barriers?

15 CLOSING minutes

Go‐Around • What’s the most important take‐ away for you today?

• Explore

possibilities for reconciliation • Begin thinking about necessary steps • Generate thinking and movement in the direction of reconciliation • Open conversation about desires, possibilities, and challenges • Explore traditional practices to anchor community thinking • Encourage

participants to reflect on most meaningful aspect of today’s dialogue • Ground reconciliation discussion

Dialogue

113

Dialogue Session #9 Visioning the Future Materials Needed: ●● White Board or Flip Chart and Markers ●● Participant Packets NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

Go‐Around been happening in your life this week?

• Connect

30 MOVING minutes AWAY FROM THE PAST

Facilitator Summary review key concepts of reconciliation and summarize groups’ thoughts on reconciliation from last session Turn‐Taking • Can you name one thing from the past that you want to let go of? • What do you need in order to do that?

• Remind

60 VISIONING minutes THE FUTURE

Open Dialogue – Prompts • Think about two generations forward and the lives of your grandchildren in their adulthood • What do you want their lives/ communities/worlds to look like? • What are you willing to do to help create that?

• Personalize

15 OPENING minutes

• What’s

• Facilitators

around everyday lives • Increase personal sharing participants of ideals of reconciliation • Invite participants to consider what letting go means to them • Increase transparency among participants • Consider what is important and necessary for these processes to occur • Encourage

issues

thinking for the future generations • Draw strong connection between present choices and future outcomes

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

Barbara Tint et al.

114 NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

Refreshments 30 BREAK minutes 90 PARTICIPANT‐ Open Dialogue – minutes DRIVEN Prompts • Are there things DIALOGUE that we haven’t talked about in dialogue that you’d like to? • What’s come up in dialogue that you’d like to spend more time on? • Are there things that feel unfinished? • Are there things you haven’t said that you would like to?

• Open

15 CLOSING minutes

• Continue

Go‐Around you share one hope for the future?

• Can

dialogue to any unfinished business • Continue to build ownership of the process • Identify topics that might be part of an action plan

to focus on the future • End session on hopeful note

Dialogue

115

Dialogue Session #10 Action Plans: New Beginnings Materials Needed: White Board or Flip Chart and Markers ●● Participant Packets ●● Handout on Community Follow‐Up ●●

NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

20 OPENING minutes

Go‐Around

• Invite

• Try

participants to consider the changes and transitions they have experienced • Remind participants of how far they have come in this process • Expose reality of shifted perceptions and relationships

20 BRINGING minutes BACK

Turn‐Taking

• Identify and

to remember yourself and what you felt like when you first met with your group 10 weeks ago. As you think of yourself now, name just one thing that feels different to you

• What’s

one thing you want to take back to your communities from this experience?

make note of important accomplishments in the process • Clarify the connection to the wider community • Increase sense of responsibility for bringing learning and shifting to others

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

Barbara Tint et al.

116 NOTES

TIME

ACTIVITY

METHOD/ CONTENT

Handout on Community Follow‐Up

70 PLAN Small Groups minutes DEVELOPMENT • Participants work as groups for planning in ways that make sense to them (e.g., by country, gender, age, tribal affiliation, or stay as one large group) • Have groups draw up ideas for activities they would like to conduct in the wider community related to this project • Provide examples and possibilities through handout • Have participants get specific about who, how, what, why, and when of their plan • Make sure that a reunion of sorts is planned for the dialogue group as part of the plan (in however long participants choose) Report Back • Have groups share their plan with each other • Have groups work with each other on their plan and coordinate efforts as necessary and appropriate

Refreshments 30 BREAK minutes

GOALS • Empower

participants to choose the best way forward that fits for them • Create plans that are specific and doable • Ensure that group progress does not disappear at the end of dialogue series • Plan for future celebration for participants

Dialogue NOTES

Facilitators Model

TIME

ACTIVITY

117

METHOD/ CONTENT

GOALS

60 REFLECTIVE minutes DIALOGUE

Open Dialogue – Prompts • What has this experience been like for you? • What has come from this for you? • For your communities? • What would you say to others who were reluctant to participate in a process such as this?

• Encourage

30 CLOSING minutes

Go‐Around one thing you would like to say in closing? Closing Ritual

• Close

• What’s

deep reflection • Allow for mutual sharing among participants • Prepare for ending the group

• Share

the group

appreciations

• Anchor

experience in community symbolism

118

Barbara Tint et al.

Diaspora Dialogue Project Document of consent You are invited to participate in the Diaspora Dialogue Project. Objective: This project will provide an opportunity for people who have experi­ enced relocation or historical conflict to come together in dialogue. The goal of the dialogue is increased understanding and the possibility of a more unified community. The dialogue groups will provide a safe and structured environment where community members will be able to explore issues important to them. Procedure: If you decide to participate, you will be asked to share stories and ­experiences, your view of issues in your community, and sit with others who may have different perceptions from your own. You will be asked to listen to the stories of others in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Dialogue will focus on relevant issues from the past and the present in order to move toward a better future. Difficult issues and emotions may emerge during the dialogues and facilitators are trained to support participants in a safe and constructive process. Confidentiality: Confidentiality is a critical part of the dialogue project. It encour­ ages frank and open discussion and full exploration of the issues that will arise. Groups will determine what confidentiality means to them. While participating in this project you may be interviewed and audiotaped for the sole purpose of improving the dialogue process. Information collected will be confidential and will not be released for any purpose other than described above. Participation: Your participation is voluntary and we appreciate your willingness to be a part of this project. You may withdraw from the project at any time without penalty. However, we ask that you make your best effort at commitment to the entire process. Staying with the process might sometimes be challenging, but doing so will benefit you and your communities. If you have concerns or questions about your participation in this project, please ­contact___________________________. Your signature below indicates that you have read and understand the above information and agree to take part in this dialogue process. The facilitator will ­provide you with a copy of this form for your own records. __________________________________________________________________ Your Signature       Date __________________________________________________________________ Witness          Date Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

Dialogue

119

Facilitator Guide for Listening Activity This activity is used to demonstrate and practice active listening skills.

First Round ●● ●●

●●

●●

Break group into dyads/pairs. Have participants choose who will go first. (Or facilitators can assign participants the letters A and B and then decide if the A’s or the B’s go first.) Tell the participants that they are going to practice listening in different ways. Each person will get a chance to talk about a particular topic. The first person to talk will have two minutes to talk about: “Something interesting that has happened to you in the past year”

●● ●● ●●

●●

●●

Their partner will be responsible for listening. The speaker will speak on the topic for the whole two minutes. The listener will listen for the whole two minutes without speaking or giving any type of verbal communication. Their job is to convey to the person that they are listening through non‐verbal communication. At the end of the two minutes the partners will thank each other for listening and speaking respectively and the other partner will have a chance to speak. Remind the next person that when they speak for their two minutes they can start their story about “Something interesting that has happened to you in the past year” from wherever they would like. They do not have to address the same themes that their partner did or start their story where their partner left off.

Debrief After both partners have had a turn, ask the group for observations. ●● ●● ●● ●●

●●

●●

What was that like for you to have someone listen in that way? Was that easy? What that difficult? Why? Was that comfortable? Was that uncomfortable? Why? What did you notice about the story you told when you knew that the other person was just going to listen to you, was not going to interrupt? Did you catch yourselves wanting to ask questions or thinking about what you were going to say in response? What are the lessons from this that we can take into the dialogue process about how people tell their stories and how we show others that we are listening?

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

120

Barbara Tint et al.

Second Round Note: Have the Facilitators model this for the group first. ●●

●●

Ask participants to continue their stories from where they left off. This time when the person is done with their two minutes of sharing it will be the listener’s job to paraphrase back what key points they heard before they comment on anything or say anything in response. Have the participants swap roles so that each gets a turn sharing/listening.

Debrief ●● ●● ●●

What was your experience as both a teller and a listener? What is it like to hear your partner paraphrase your story for you? Why would this be important for a dialogue process?

Dialogue

121

Facilitator Guide for Questioning Activity This activity is used to introduce and practice the skill of asking dialogic questions.

Overview ●●

●●

●● ●●

●●

●●

●●

Go over Guidelines for Useful Questions. Provide examples as you describe ­different questions. Hand out slips of paper with assumption filled and controversial statements to all participants. Focus on content that is not likely to be seriously provocative. Examples include: All politicians are dishonest. People who don’t exercise are lazy. People who work in technology aren’t good with other people. (You can also have participants make up their own statements but this might be difficult for them so early in the process.) Break group into dyads. Have the groups choose who will make the statement and who will ask the questions. (Facilitators can also assign them the letters A and B and pick roles for the different letters.) One person will read their statement. The other person’s job is to ask dialogic questions rather than react or argue. Facilitators model first. After everyone has had a chance to read a statement and ask questions, come back together as a larger group to debrief. Ask participants what they were trying to be aware of when they were asking their questions. Discuss with participants how it felt to ask and be asked these kinds of questions.

Guidelines for Useful Questions ●● ●● ●●

Ask questions that show you are interested or curious. Avoid questions that are full of judgment. Ask open‐ended, clarifying questions such as: ◦◦ Can you say more about that? ◦◦ Can you share more about your experience? ◦◦ I’m not sure I understand, can you explain further? ◦◦ Can you share what has contributed to your belief/feeling/perception/idea, etc.? ◦◦ That’s challenging for me to hear, but I’d like to understand more. Can you talk about…?

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

Barbara Tint et al.

122

Issues to Consider ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

What is the goal of my question? Do I want to learn more or to challenge? Is there a hidden meaning? Do I really want to know the answer or do I think I already have the answer? Am I trying to persuade or convince with my question? How is this question likely to be received? What is the tone or feeling associated with my question? Am I prepared to receive answers that are different from what I believe or expect?

Watch for/Be aware of ●● ●● ●● ●●

Built‐in assumptions Hidden or shared judgments Leading or persuading Re‐circulating arguments

Dialogue

123

Dialogue vs. Debate Dialogue

Debate

Seeks to find common ground and increase understanding.

Seeks to argue positions for the purpose of convincing.

Is a collaborative process where people work together to find shared views and new perspectives.

Is an adversarial process and attempts to prove the other side wrong.

Assumes that there are many possibilities and multiple perceptions.

Is about winning and assumes that there is only one right answer.

Encourages open‐mindedness and a willingness to listen.

Reinforces a positional attitude that is closed to others.

Develops awareness and suspension of assumptions and judgments.

Defends assumptions and judgments as truth.

Aims to be a safe and supportive process.

Is combative and often feels unsafe.

I am in dialogue when

I am in debate when

I listen with a view toward understanding.

I listen with a view to counter what I hear.

I listen for strengths so as to affirm and learn.

I listen for weaknesses so as to discount and devalue.

I speak for myself from my own understanding and experience.

I speak based on assumptions about others’ beliefs and motivations.

I ask questions to increase understanding.

I ask questions to challenge or confuse.

I allow others to complete their communications.

I interrupt or change the subject.

I concentrate on others’ words and feelings.

I focus on my own next point.

I accept others’ experiences as real and valid for them.

I critique others’ experiences as distorted or invalid.

I allow the expression of real feelings (in myself and others) for sharing and understanding.

I express my feelings as truth; I deny the legitimacy of others’ feelings.

I honor silence.

I use silence to gain advantage.

I am willing to be vulnerable.

I stay defended.

I can tolerate ambiguity.

I need things to be either/or.

I seek the good and legitimacy of others.

I maintain myself and my views as superior.

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

124

Barbara Tint et al.

Common Group Guidelines These are examples of some guidelines that other groups in dialogue have used. Use these examples to come up with the guidelines that work best for your dialogue group. ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

Listen in a way that the group identifies as respectful. Do not speak over each other; take turns when speaking. Speak for oneself, not for others. Assume the best intentions of other participants. Disagree respectfully. Practice acknowledging other people’s feelings and thoughts before stating your own. Accept responsibility for your thoughts and feelings. Do not generalize your thoughts and behaviors to other people. Work to talk to one another, not about one another. Keep confidentiality of others’ stories. Avoid criticism or attempts at persuasion. Listen with commitment to hear what others have to say. Stay present through difficult moments. Respect silence.

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

Dialogue

125

Common Reactions to Change These are common areas of our lives that are impacted by change. What are some reactions you have had in these areas?

PHYSICAL

EMOTIONAL

INTELLECTUAL

SPIRITUAL

Figure 6.2  Common Reactions to Change. Source: Author.

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

Barbara Tint et al.

126

Changes in Your World These are areas of our lives that are typically impacted by change. What change have you experienced in these areas of your life?

Work

Community

Family

Other

Figure 6.3  Changes in Your World. Source: Author.

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

Dialogue

127

Transitions and Community Reconciliation Managing Endings What are the possible impacts this project will have on the community? Who is likely to lose what if we shift the conflicted relationship? What might the communities likely try to hold onto? Have community members had their losses acknowledged? What do community members need around their losses? Are there ways to mark an “ending” of the past? Are there ways for people to take a piece of the past with them? What are supportive resources to help people through endings and loss?

Navigating the Neutral Zone What are ways to help the community understand the different ways that chaos and confusion are normal parts of this process? What are opportunities to help the community deal success­ fully with the chaos of the Neutral Zone? What are opportunities for the community as a whole to address the issues underlying the group conflict in real and meaningful ways? Who tends to struggle the most in the Neutral Zone? Which parts of community need the most support? How can people become more open to one another in the midst of their chaos and confusion? Have people been given enough space and time to be in the Neutral Zone or are they feeling rushed to move on?

Supporting New Beginnings Are people ready to think about new beginnings? Are people able to see some of the possibilities and opportunities in a new relationship? What are some ways to support people in considering new ways of engaging with one another? What are some ways to mark or honor a new beginning and the experience of transition? Are there ways to symbolize new relationships and community identity? Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

128

Barbara Tint et al.

What are ways for people to engage and feel empowered in implementing the project in the wider community? What are symbolic events that can serve as a reminder of the difficult and rewarding journey of successful transition?

Dialogue

129

Creating Community Follow‐Up Questions to Consider When Planning Your Action Steps: ●●

●●

●● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

What are the ways that will be most useful to bring the dialogue work back to the wider community? What are some of the barriers or challenges we might encounter? What will be useful ways to deal with these? Who will be the most effective representatives for the dialogue work? What are the best ways to work with specific groups (e.g., elders, youth, women, men, region specific)? Do I feel comfortable being the spokesperson about the dialogues in my community? What are the attitudes of community members who have not participated in dia­ logue? Are there other community members who would be interested in dialogue around this subject? Are any of them community leaders? Do I have enough community support to take this conversation back to my community? What are some community gatherings that would be appropriate places to start a conversation about the dialogue? Do I have allies in the community that can help coordinate efforts or plan events? What is the most appropriate way to bring this back to my community that will encourage listening and interest in participation? What help and support will we need to carry this in the direction that we want?

Key Points for Organizers of Community Conversations ●●

●●

●●

Please think about the different roles that people can take in going back to your community (e.g., organizing, recruiting, planning, leading conversa­ tions, cooking). Think about all of these roles when choosing the members of the group who will contribute to taking the dialogue work to the next level. Organizers and facilitators will be most successful if they have respect or influence within their communities. Strive for an intentional balance of ethnicity, age, and gender when forming teams for community conversations.

Source: Barbara Tint, Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities.

130 ●●

●●

Barbara Tint et al.

Know what you have learned and believe before going out into the wider community. It is easier to pass something along when you have experienced and integrated it yourself. Be clear about your ability to make a commitment to the time and energy it will take to follow up in your wider community.

07 Evaluation The eyes of the wise person see through you — Tanzanian Proverb

Mary Lind Barbara Tint

Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities, First Edition. Barbara Tint. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

132

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

The DDP team included research and evaluation activities as an integral part of our process; from start to finish, evaluation and planning went hand in hand. When designing project activities, our team also planned how and when to assess whether those activities were achieving the intended impact. We were interested in deepening our understanding of these populations and processes and contributing to emerging knowledge about reconciliation between diaspora populations from regions of conflict. Everything that we learned through evaluation was then used to inform the planning of future dialogue sessions, training activities, and other community processes. Thus, our evaluation activities allowed us to learn as we moved forward, contributing to positive impacts based on feedback from participants. At the end of this chapter we have outlined the key evaluation tasks and tools that have emerged as our best practice recommendations for other groups setting out to do similar work.

Key Issues in Evaluation Why Evaluate? There are two primary reasons for evaluating a community reconciliation project: (1) to determine whether the project is achieving its purpose, and (2) to capture strengths and weaknesses in the project so that improvements can be made along the way and can inform future endeavors.

Evaluating Project Outcomes ●● ●●

●●

Known as: Summative Evaluation or Outcome Evaluation Key questions: Has our project achieved what we set out to achieve? Are we having the impact we intended to have? When it takes place: At the end of the project and at the end of key intervals designed to accomplish specific outcomes. Sometimes it takes place at the beginning of the project as well, in order to establish a baseline, if c­ omparing data from before and after the intervention is a goal.

Evaluating Project Activities and Process ●● ●●

●●

Known as: Formative Evaluation or Process Evaluation Key questions: How can we improve the project? What is going well? What is not working as planned? What changes need to be made? When it takes place: Throughout the project, providing practitioners with feedback and opportunities to make changes along the way.

Evaluation

133

Evaluating Around Key Questions: What Do We Want to Learn? In the early stages of project design, it is vital to develop guiding questions in order to identify intended outcomes. From there, outcomes can be evaluated along the way and at the end of the project. Key questions include: ●● ●● ●●

What do you want to learn, achieve, test, and explore? What impact do you want to create? What are you hoping will happen as a result of the dialogue project?

Our Ethical Duty to Evaluate: Do No Harm When we introduce new activities, which are designed to create opportunities for change and/or transitions in people’s lives and communities, we have an ethical duty to acknowledge, record, and reflect on the actual experiences of our participants. It is not enough to set out with good intentions and create an informed project design; we must also recognize that people might be impacted in ways that were not anticipated. Evaluation provides an opportunity to expose any adverse impacts, in order to address them responsibly and make any necessary changes to avoid them in the future. In this way, we honor the trust and participation of those who have taken the risk to engage in our project. In this way, we practice a commitment to Do No Harm, as a minimum standard, while aspiring to higher goals such as personal transformation and community reconciliation. For more detail on the concept of Do No Harm and its connection to peacebuilding and reconciliation processes, please see: ●●

The Do No Harm Handbook: http://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/_assets/files/ aors/protection_mainstreaming/CLP_Do_No_Harm_Handbook_2004_EN.pdf

and ●●

The Do No Harm Project Workbook: http://cdacollaborative.org/sdm_downloads/ do-no-harm-project-trainers-manual-workbook-and-exercises/

Reflective Practice Beyond the minimum standard of doing no harm, we believe that, as dialogue ­practitioners, it is our responsibility to observe and reflect on the experiences of ­participants and ourselves in order to revise, refine, or enhance the project. As reflective practitioners, we make our assumptions and intentions behind decisions

134

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

explicit so that they can be tested or questioned for accuracy. Essentially, we want to be conscious and transparent about our goals and the reasons for our intervention choices and design decisions, so that our experience can contribute to improvements in our project and in the larger field of practice. The reflective practitioner takes actions while seeking opportunities to learn from the actions as they play out. Evaluation activities provide the opportunity to document and thus capture lessons along the way, so that they can inform planning at the next opportunity.

Quality Assurance The credibility of evaluation is tied to the accuracy of data gathered, which is associated with the objectivity of the person(s) and methods used to gather data. Thus, the use of professional evaluators who are not part of the project team is often recommended. For many community‐level projects, contracting an outside evaluator is not possible due to capacity, time, and costs, leaving the task to be completed by project staff. If a team is conducting evaluation activities without the use of an outside evaluator, it is critical that internal evaluators adopt an independent stance – that they are not seeking to prove assumptions but are interested only in capturing the true experiences of participants. For more on quality assurance, see the work of the American Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, available online at http://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=51.

Evaluation Methodologies: How Can We Learn What We Want to Know? There are two general areas of methodology that will inform project design and evaluation: quantitative and qualitative methodologies. ●●

●●

Quantitative Methods: These methods produce numerical data  –  numbers. Typically, quantitative methods are used to gather data from sample groups large enough to make generalizations or hypotheses about findings. Examples of quantitative techniques include: surveys, questionnaires, and pre‐ and post‐tests. Qualitative Methods: These methods typically generate narrative data – words. While findings cannot be generalized to a larger population, qualitative evaluation methods can produce more descriptive findings related to individuals or groups. Examples of qualitative techniques include: observations, interviews, and focus groups.

The choice of methodologies will be informed by project goals, guiding questions, capacity, and practitioner philosophy around research and evaluation. Many p ­ rojects will use a mixed methodology as an evaluation strategy.

Evaluation

135

Challenges of Evaluation Evaluating change, transition, and community reconciliation is not a simple matter, and comes with inevitable challenges that are best anticipated whenever possible. It is helpful to be aware of these challenges so that when we experience them, we can recognize them as inherent in the work and an indication of the complexities we encounter, rather than as insurmountable obstacles, deterrents from the work, or failings of the project. In addition, it can be helpful to keep strategies in mind for addressing each challenge that emerges. Some examples include: Challenges*

Evaluation Strategies

The historical roots of conflict and intergroup dynamics in the home country and the larger diaspora will remain unchanged.

Focus on participant attitudes, narratives, and perspectives on history, rather than the history itself, as a point of impact.

Present‐day structural inequities among populations and participants will remain.

Manage expectations for change and transition in relationships. Set realistic goals and use realistic indicators for evaluation. Monitor how power relations impact participation in dialogue.

We may have far‐reaching goals, but a time‐limited project will have limited impacts.

Accept limits of time and resources, and adjust project objectives and evaluation accordingly. Keep a long‐term vision and far‐reaching goals, but keep activities within the scope of time and resources.

It is difficult to measure things like trust building, acceptance, perspective shifts, openness, understanding, and empathy.

Use self‐reports and open‐ended questions. Seek out participants’ stories. Develop indicators as you learn more about how people demonstrate these and other attitudes.

With so many influences at play, it is difficult to know that changes we are seeing are a result of the dialogue project.

Record other influences as you become aware of them, and include them in your evaluation report in a discussion of your findings (or limitations of the research).

* Challenges in the table above were modified from Lederach, Neufeldt, and Culbertson (2007).

The DDP Evaluation Experience Because our work in DDP stemmed from a partnership between an academic institution and a community organization, our use of research and evaluation activities was more extensive than it might have been otherwise. DDP used both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, relying more heavily on qualitative strategies. Conducting

136

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

intermittent, in‐depth interviews provided extensive narrative data that provided invaluable insight into emerging knowledge, strengthened the project and its ­implementation, and revealed more detail about participant experiences. We used surveys and questionnaires that mixed quantitative and qualitative methods, asking questions with a fixed set of responses (yes/no or multiple choice) as well as open‐ ended questions. Additionally, we employed qualitative, open‐ended survey ­questions, observations, and interviews, which produced findings that reflected complex and sensitive human experiences, something numbers cannot do. In no way did we attempt to generalize from our evaluation findings, as the sample size was too small and our primary goal was to inform and expand the scope of our interventions. In our evaluation process, we were motivated not only by the goal of creating optimal impact, but also by the desire to contribute to emerging knowledge in this area. Therefore, in the research and evaluation process for DDP we had two o ­ verarching goals: 1. Strengthen the diaspora community through dialogue and capacity‐building training with community members resettling from conflict zones. Objectives within this goal included: ●● Increase intergroup tolerance demonstrated by participants acknowledging and accepting ethnic differences in mixed groups. ●● Increase understanding of others’ (multiple) perspectives. ●● Increase sense of safety and trust among participants. ●● Successfully incorporate cultural content and values into process design. ●● Integrate the Transition Framework into the dialogue process and monitor participants’ comprehension and receptivity. ●● Identify a shared set of goals or collective vision for community’s future. 2. Develop knowledge and understanding of transition and community reconciliation processes within diaspora communities. Research questions within that goal included: ●● At what stage in a change and transition process are people more amenable to peacebuilding or reconciliation? ●● What are some conditions of ripeness among diaspora populations that inform people’s receptivity to dialogue and reconciliation processes? ●● How do the intensity, immediacy, and subjective experience of change and loss impact readiness for healing or reconciliation? ●● What can be done to sustain effective transition processes for those going through dramatic change and loss? ●● What are culturally congruent dialogue and reconciliation processes for differing diaspora populations?

Additional Evaluation Questions DDP evaluation activities and instruments were designed to address questions about the experiences of participants. When planning dialogue sessions, we identified

Evaluation

137

questions that could only be answered by observing or asking questions of dialogue participants. Here are some examples of questions that shaped evaluation activities: ●●

●●

●● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

How will facilitator pairing (all in‐group vs. in‐group and out‐group) impact the interactions of participants in dialogue? How will participants from differing tribes or clans respond to one another’s ­perceptions of the conflict at home? What ideas or beliefs are common to all participants? What dialogue methods will help support more “quiet” or minority voices being heard by the group? What dialogue methods will create more understanding and connection among participants? What are some traditions or practices from the community context that can enhance and strengthen the dialogue process? What kinds of issues are appropriate to explore with participants? What kinds of issues should we stay away from? How do factors such as age, gender, and community status impact participation in and composition of dialogue groups?

Evaluation Challenges In addition to some of the inherent evaluation challenges already noted, we encountered some additional challenges particular to our project. In integrating and learning from these challenges, our evaluation instruments and implementation techniques were refined and improved. Some of these challenges and our interventions included: 1. The use of written instruments with participants where language and literacy issues presented barriers. ●● Having surveys facilitated orally by others when this was an issue. ●● Taking a multi‐method approach so as not to rely exclusively on written responses. 2. Participants sometimes said what they thought interviewers wanted to hear or what they felt was culturally safe. ●● Accepting this as a culturally congruent reality, especially early on in the p ­ rocess. ●● Looking at larger amounts of data, which reveal this phenomenon more clearly. ●● Using deeper prompts in interviews, allowing for more sharing by ­participants. ●● Introducing the interview with an explicit statement that honest feedback will help us to know what might be changed or improved. 3. A concern that participants not feel over‐analyzed or like guinea pigs. ●● Continuing discussion with participants about the importance of their voice and their contribution to the development of the process. ●● Pulling back from evaluation activities that are felt to be intrusive.

138

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

4. Managing relationships between interviewer and interviewee when in‐group community members were conducting the interviews. ●● Being aware of identity‐based dynamics when evaluating who might or might not be effective as interviewers in each community. ●● Utilizing bicultural interview teams. 5. Establishing trust, comfort, and familiarity with dialogue observers while maintaining the observer’s non‐participatory role. ●● Allowing time to increase comfort with this role. ●● Using breaks and meals to allow participants and observers to informally interact, so that observers would not feel like an unknown, intrusive presence. 6. Scheduling evaluation activities was difficult when they did not take place in connection with scheduled dialogue meetings. ●● Accepting logistical challenges as inevitable to the project. ●● Allowing more time than might seem necessary to organize evaluation activities. 7. Incorporating and responding to informal and indirect feedback. ●● Keeping anecdotal notes of informal interactions. ●● Utilizing and recording team meetings as a place to share informal information and feedback. 8. Observers and interviewers who were cultural outsiders and not always able to read non‐verbal communication and cues accurately. ●● Using community members to conduct evaluation activities when possible and appropriate. ●● Conducting ongoing exploration, in multicultural team meetings, of issues that outsiders might be missing.

Planning for Evaluation Ideally, evaluation planning will take place alongside planning for dialogue and other project activities. This allows for the drafting of a comprehensive project schedule that includes the implementation of surveys and interviews at key intervals – when it is appropriate to assess outcomes and during gaps that would allow for process feedback to inform upcoming activities. Planning should always be built around the question, “What do we want to learn at this point in the process?” Previously defined objectives determine the content of evaluation instruments. Below are some guidelines and tips to assist with the design of evaluation plans.

Do Baseline Research If possible, conduct interviews with or administer questionnaires to dialogue participants before dialogues begin. This will provide you with evidence of ­ community conditions before the intervention. Do not make assumptions about the state of the community.

Evaluation

139

Link Objectives with Indicators After you have articulated the ultimate goals of your dialogue intervention, you can identify more specific objectives, and the evidence or indicators that you will look for to determine the degree to which objectives were met. It will be helpful to include the method of verification for indicators, and a timeframe for each. Below is an example of our DDP Evaluation Planning Table, which can be used as a model. A blank copy of this form is included in the resources section at the end of this chapter. Evaluation Planning Table Objective

Indicator

Means of Verification

Timeframe

Participants demonstrate intergroup tolerance by acknowledging ethnic differences in mixed group

1.  Verbal references to differing ethnic identities in mixed group 2.  Number of statements referring to ethnic differences in group

1.  Observation notes

Participants increase understanding of others’ (multiple) perspectives

1.  Willingness/ability to listen to stories/ experiences from multiple sides of conflict 2.  Self‐reported change statements

1. Observation notes 2a. Post‐dialogue series interview notes 2b. Post‐dialogue series written survey

1. Saturday dialogues (submit notes at Monday meetings) 2a. Complete by 7/20 2b. Complete by 7/20

Increase sense of safety and trust among participants

1.  Self‐reported change 2.  Comments that express willingness/ ability to experience risk or discomfort as speaker or listener 3.  Changes in comments related to safety or fear from beginning to end of dialogue series

1a. Post‐dialogue series interview notes 1b. Post‐dialogue series written surveys 2. Observation notes 3. Observation notes

1a. Complete by 7/20 1b. Complete by 7/20 2. Saturday dialogues (submit notes at Monday meetings) 3. Saturday dialogues (submit notes at Monday meetings)

1.  Saturday dialogues (submit notes at Monday meetings)

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

140 Objective

Indicator

Means of Verification

Timeframe

Successfully incorporate cultural content/value into process design

1.  Participants’ verbal approval of process and cultural content 2.  Participants’ contributions to process adaptation

1a. Post‐dialogue series interview notes 1b. Post‐dialogue series written surveys 2. Observation and note‐taking

1a. Complete by 7/20 1b. Complete by 7/20 2. Saturday dialogues (submit notes at Monday meetings)

Integrate the Transition Framework into the dialogue process and monitor participants’ comprehension and receptivity

1.  Appropriate and effective references to Transition phases by facilitators 2.  Verbal references to Transition phases by participants 3.  Participants articulate meaning or value from Transition perspective

1. Observation notes 2. Observation notes 3a. Post‐dialogue series interview notes 3b. Post‐dialogue series written surveys

1. Saturday dialogues (submit notes at Monday meetings) 2. Saturday dialogues (submit notes at Monday meetings) 3a. Complete by 7/20 3b. Complete by 7/20

Identify shared set of goals or collective vision for community’s future

1.  Articulation and expression of consensus on goals and vision

1a. Observation and note‐taking 1b. Post‐dialogue series interview notes

1a. Saturday dialogues (submit notes at Monday meetings) 1b. Complete by 7/20

Design a Feedback Loop to Link Evaluation with Planning Be sure to structure ways of incorporating information gleaned from evaluation into the planning process. DDP Portland created a feedback loop between evaluation and planning by: ●● ●●

●●

Having observers and facilitator debrief after each dialogue session. Having observers attend planning meetings, and beginning each planning session by discussing experiences from the most recent dialogue meeting. Having observers submit feedback forms to project director.

Evaluation ●● ●●

141

Having facilitators record perceptions and experiences after each dialogue session. Submitting written reports of interview and survey findings to the planning session members.

Don’t Forget ●● Be curious! ●● Make your assumptions and expectations about project outcomes explicit and open to change. ●● Keep evaluation and planning activities closely connected. ●● You do not need to evaluate everything. Evaluations can be focused, limited to 1–3 important questions, or comprehensive, depending on your level of interest in and capacity for evaluation activities. Your essential task is to evaluate impact in some form. ●● Maintain the confidentiality of participants by recording verbal or written comments anonymously (unless you have received written permission to use names). ●● Consider cultural issues related to your participants and adapt your evaluation methods accordingly. For example, evaluation data may be affected by who is doing the interviewing, participants’ comfort with written or verbal self‐expression, desire for face‐saving in interviews, confidentiality concerns, or insider/ outsider dynamics. There has been a great deal written on evaluation in peacebuilding and reconciliation activities. For additional resources on this subject, see Church and Rogers (2006); King, Morris, and Fitz‐Gibbon (1987); Lederach et al. (2007); Nan (2003); and Neufeldt et al. (2002).

Recommendations and Resources for Evaluation Activities The following outline provides a description of various evaluation tools, which can be used during the course of your project. All evaluation tools are provided at the end of this chapter. Rather than a detailed plan to be applied as a cookie‐cutter recipe, this outline is a description of our work and serves as a model to be adapted in new community projects focused on dialogue for reconciliation. This list is comprehensive, and we understand that the interest in and ability to carry out extensive research or evaluation activities will depend on each program’s particular agenda and capacity. We offer these resources knowing they will be selected and modified as necessary. Some of the tools will appear redundant in nature (e.g., surveys and interviews which ask similar questions). Employing multiple methods to explore similar content is a useful strategy for deepening and validating information gleaned in evaluation. Furthermore, oral and written tools access different levels of information, explore more adequately across language capacities, and will be appropriate at different times in the process. For your own projects, you can determine whether you want to use surveys, interviews, or both.

142

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

Before Dialogue Begins 1. Community Fact Sheet The Community Fact Sheet (Rinker Lass, 2009) was designed as the first phase of information gathering about the participating communities. Selected team members were given the task of completing this fact sheet, interviewing key community leaders who were supportive of the project and who could provide valuable information for the next level of assessment. 2. Community Needs Assessment The Community Needs Assessment (Rinker Lass, 2009) is a questionnaire comprised of yes/no, multiple choice, and open‐ended questions. The survey is intended to provide an overview description of participating communities and, more specifically, to illuminate both strengths and needs of community members. This is a way of testing assumptions and refining understanding of the needs that the dialogue project is designed to address. The Assessment can be cumbersome in its length and level of inquiry; you can pare it down and use elements of it selectively. Community Needs Assessment Questionnaires were distributed at various community venues, including places of worship and community centers, and at regularly attended community meetings. The venues were intentionally selected to provide input from a broad cross‐section of the communities. In other words, we were careful not to simply draw input from members of one group, one church, or one mosque. DDP team members who introduced the questionnaire were careful to explain the purpose of the survey, give an overview of DDP, and emphasize that responses would be anonymous and confidential. Often these questionnaires were administered by others, in cases where language or literacy issues required assistance. 3. Stakeholder Meetings Completed survey data was presented to the participating communities at stakeholder meetings, where key members of the participating communities were invited to hear the results of the needs assessment. A summative report of the questionnaires was prepared and shared, along with verbal discussion of the findings. This allowed for both concrete and interactive means of delivering the community feedback. This was a crucial step in the process, as key stakeholders had the power to either support or resist dialogue processes in their communities. The stakeholder meetings were vital in getting buy‐ins from multiple parties. It was also an opportunity for people to hear what the community at large was saying and to discuss it. In some ways, these meetings became a precursor to dialogue, as issues began to emerge from discussion of the needs assessments themselves. 4. Pre‐Dialogue Interviews Pre‐Dialogue Interviews were conducted before the dialogue series began, as a way of collecting baseline data: information from participants that could later be  compared with data gathered after community members participated in

Evaluation

143

the dialogue activities. Pre‐dialogue interviews prompted participants to describe their reasons for participating, their experiences with the local diaspora community from their home region, and their hopes for the project and the future of their community. Interviews provided important information for the development and planning of dialogue sessions, including identification of key issues for community members. Both pre‐ and post‐dialogue interviews were tape‐recorded and transcribed. 5. Pre‐Dialogue Surveys Pre‐Dialogue Surveys were distributed to participants during their DDP orientation. Questions invited participants to reflect on their communities’ strengths, challenges, and important issues, as well as any feelings or concerns related to participating in dialogue. Survey responses informed topics selected for dialogue as well as facilitators’ approach to the group. Written surveys allowed participants to anonymously share their thoughts and feelings about participation in the project.

During Dialogue Series 1. Mid‐Dialogue Surveys Mid‐Dialogue Surveys were distributed halfway through the dialogue series, in order to assess whether participants were experiencing the intended benefits of dialogue and whether there were adjustments that needed to be made in the design of future activities. 2. Observation/Feedback All dialogue sessions were attended by two or three observers who stayed with the same group throughout the duration of the dialogue series. Observers were selected based on their understanding of and experience with dialogue processes, as well as their professional standards and reliability. The ability to maintain confidentiality was a key attribute of DDP observers. Some observers were community members who had participated in the dialogue series in previous sessions. All observers recorded their observations in the Observer Protocol. Each observer was tasked with looking for specific things, so that they were monitoring distinct elements of the content and process. Observers provided feedback in multiple ways: ●●

●●

●●

Observers met with dialogue facilitators immediately following each dialogue meeting to share their observations in a 45‐minute debrief session. Notes taken during dialogue sessions were transferred to a brief written summary of observations. Both the summary and original notes were submitted to the DDP director, providing important input in planning meetings. Observers participated in weekly planning meetings to ensure that their observations were integrated into plans for future dialogue sessions.

144

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

3. Facilitator Reflection Forms All facilitators filled out a Facilitator Reflection Form after each dialogue session. This allowed for comparison of differing facilitator perceptions and experiences when there were multiple groups being held concurrently. It also provided a written record of dialogue interventions and processes to be used for future planning.

After Dialogues Are Completed 1. Post‐Dialogue Interviews Interviews were conducted with all participants after the completion of the dialogue series. Post‐Dialogue Interviews included some questions from the initial interviews so that responses before and after experiencing dialogue could be compared. Questions were designed to elicit information on themes of interest that had emerged, including: change and transition, motivation for participating, process information for project design, community concerns, successes to build upon, and shifts in perception. 2. Post‐Dialogue Surveys Written Post‐Dialogue Surveys were filled out by all participants at the completion of the dialogue series. These were done during the last dialogue session, so the information was fresh and we were sure to get all of the responses back. Survey questions focused on exploring and measuring intended outcomes evident in participant experiences. They correlated with Pre‐Dialogue Survey questions so that changes would be clearly identifiable.

Final Thoughts on Evaluation The Diaspora Dialogue Project benefited from project evaluation in a number of ways. First, design and implementation were shaped by the perspectives of the community members we engaged with, empowering participants with a role in shaping their own experiences in order to meet their needs and move toward their own individual and community goals. In addition, the project was continually reshaped as we learned more from participants through surveys and interviews – logistics, dialogue topics, sensitivities, choice of facilitators, unmet needs, and the inclusion of new activities were all informed by evaluation data. Observers were able to capture extraordinary moments of challenge, confrontation, openness, vulnerability, trust, kindness, insight, and forgiveness. And finally, we were able to assess the degree to which our goals and objectives were being met, as well as the overall impact of the dialogue project, through the words and experiences of those who participated. Exploration and analysis of the data continue to inform the initial research questions. Further writing and scholarship around these questions is forthcoming. In closing, here are some of those words, recorded in surveys, interviews, and observation notes. We hope they will inspire your dialogue and evaluation work.

Evaluation

145

“This project is like opening a door, and inviting others to go in.” – Mohammed

“

We have the same problem(s). We don’t come here by business; it’s because of the political problem, the conflict. Now if we meet here we have to be united. We have a chance to talk, to listen…. Before the war, we were brothers and sisters; now we’re enemies…. Dialogue can help us understand the base of the problem. We can help our children, and people at home in our countries.  – Marie

”

“

We must focus on ourselves – what can we do, learn, in this circle … what we can bring to the Portland community, to home.… How can we break barriers? You don’t have to like what I say, but you have to like me, when we disagree.  – Vincent

”

We start to trust each other, as we understand each other and our beliefs… ” “– Generose

“

We used to think we knew each other. We are here to remove that fear.… We are learning again to be what we used to be.… Don’t ask people for much in the beginning – to feel comfortable [right away]. That is what we are doing here.… I represent Congo … Tutsi and Hutu, we are one; we can eat together.… We have to stop somewhere. We have to start somewhere.  – Theresa

”

“

The more people discuss together, the more people open their hearts.… More, increased meetings will help the community.  – Francis

”

You guys are here to get me out of my fear … so I can eat with you and not be “afraid of poison. We are here to build that trust between people who used to have a common life.  – Theresa ”

146

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

Evaluation Planning Table Linking Objectives With Indicators Objective

Indicator

Means of Verification

Timeframe

Evaluation

147

Community Fact Sheet The purpose of this fact sheet is to gather information about local diaspora communities in order to help design effective community‐building processes. This process will help inform the project and future community activities. Community:______________________________________________________

Compiled by:_________________________________  Date:_______________

Approximate population in local community:

 verage range of years in adopted country (including years this group began A arriving, when large numbers arrived, if there are many recent arrivals, etc.):

Age distribution: ­

Primary religion(s):

Language(s) spoken:

Range of English ability:

Brief history of community in local context:

 ho are the primary groups that make up this community (may be regional, tribal, W ethnic, etc.)?

148

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

Community organizations/agencies that serve this community:

Community leaders, influential community members (include names/­ organizational affiliation/contact info, attach on separate page if necessary):

What are the places where the community frequently comes together (e.g., churches, community centers)?

Are there areas of the city where the community is primarily located?

What are the community strengths/resources?

What cultural information may be helpful to know prior to working with this community?

What is your understanding of the challenges within this community and how these challenges manifest?

What do you think would be of help in addressing these community challenges?

Do you believe that there is willingness and/or interest to participate in a Dialogue Project? Why or why not?

Do you believe that this community would feel comfortable sharing opinions/ stories with members of the project team? Why or why not?

Is there any other information that may be helpful to know prior to working with this community?

Evaluation

149

Community Needs Assessment PART ONE: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 1.  Gender (circle one): Male

Female

2.  Age (circle one): 18–25

25–35

35–50

50–65

65+

3.  Where are you from originally? ____________________________________ 4.  How long have you lived in your adopted country? 1–2 yrs

3–5 yrs

5–10 yrs

10+

5.  Is this the first city that you have lived in within your adopted country? Yes/No 6.  If not, what other cities have you lived in? ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ 7.  How long have you lived here (circle one)? 1–2 yrs

3–5 yrs

5–10 yrs

10+

8.  What is your employment status (check one)? ◽◽ Employed full‐time or more ◽◽ Employed part‐time ◽◽ Unemployed and looking for employment ◽◽ Unemployed, not looking for employment ◽◽ Student ◽◽ Other (please explain) __________________ 9.  What is your education level (check one)? ◽◽ 1–6 yrs (Primary school) ◽◽ 6–12 yrs (Secondary school) ◽◽ Some college and/or trade school ◽◽ College degree (e.g., BA, BS) ◽◽ Master’s/Doctoral work PART TWO: CLOSED QUESTIONNAIRE How would you define your homeland? 1.  ◽◽ My homeland is the region that I come from ◽◽ My homeland is the country that I come from ◽◽ My homeland is the continent I come from ◽◽ I am not sure how I define my homeland ◽◽ Other (please explain) __________________

150

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

 2. How do you primarily identify yourself? (You may choose more than one if necessary) ◽◽ I identify myself by my village ◽◽ I identify myself by my geographic region ◽◽ I identify myself based on the language group that I belong to ◽◽ I identify myself based on my nationality/country of origin ◽◽ I identify myself based on my continent of origin ◽◽ I identify myself based on the new country I have moved to ◽◽ I identify myself as an immigrant/refugee ◽◽ Other (please explain) ___________________  3.  W  hen you think of the local diaspora community that you belong to here, which statement is most accurate? ◽◽ My community is made up of members of my religious community ◽◽ My community is made up of members of my language group ◽◽ My community is made up of people from my nation of origin ◽◽ My community is made up of people from my geographic region of origin ◽◽ Other (please explain) __________________  4.  Are there others from your community here locally? Yes/No  5.  Do you have interactions/meetings with them? Yes/No  6.  Does your community live in the same area/neighborhood? Yes/No  7.  Are there central meeting places for members of your community? Yes/No  8.  If yes, what type of places are these? (check all that apply) ◽◽ Religious centers/places of worship ◽◽ Community centers ◽◽ Homes of community members ◽◽ Local parks and other public places ◽◽ Other (please explain) __________________  9.  Are there formal organizations that represent your community? Yes/No 10.  If yes, what kind of organizations are these? ◽◽ Religious ◽◽ Community organizations serving your community in particular ◽◽ Other community organizations ◽◽ Neighborhood organizations ◽◽ Other (please explain) __________________

Evaluation

151

11.  How often do you attend community events? ◽◽ 3 or more times a week ◽◽ 3–5 times a year ◽◽ At least once a week ◽◽ Only on holidays/special occasions ◽◽ A couple times a month ◽◽ Seldom/never ◽◽ Once a month 12.  Are there community events where you do not feel welcome? Yes/No 13.  What are the occasions for community gatherings? (check all that apply) ◽◽ Community meetings ◽◽ Religious services ◽◽ Funeral services ◽◽ Religious holidays ◽◽ Recreation (sporting events, ◽◽ Political holidays ◽◽ Celebrations of picnics, etc.) ◽◽ Other (please explain) marriage, birth, and ________________ other family events Do you feel like the community events that you attend strengthen your 14.  community? Yes/No 15.  Do you feel welcome and included in the community events that you attend? Yes/No 16.  Have you ever felt excluded from community events? Yes/No 17.  Do you ever feel that community events divide your community? Yes/No 18.  Are there identifiable leaders in your local community? Yes/No 19.  Are there multiple people who identify as leaders of your community? Yes/No 20.  If so do they all have the same vision for the future of your community here? Yes/No 21.  Are you satisfied with the leadership within your community? Yes/No 22.  What are the qualities that define leadership within your community? (check all that apply) ◽◽ History of respect in the ◽◽ History of leadership and service community to the community ◽◽ Conflict resolution skills ◽◽ Position of religious leadership ◽◽ Other (please explain) ◽◽ Personal qualities and ___________________ characteristics (such as public speaking skills, charisma, etc.)

152

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

23.  How do YOU define leadership? ◽◽ History of leadership and service to the community ◽◽ Position of religious leadership ◽◽ Personal qualities and ­characteristics (such as public speaking skills, charisma, etc.)

◽◽ History of respect in the community ◽◽ Conflict resolution skills ◽◽ Other (please explain) ___________________

24.  Do you feel that the leadership in your community represents your opinions and beliefs? Yes/No 25. Do you feel like the leadership that exists in your community strengthens your community? Y.es/No 26.  Do you ever feel like the leadership divides or harms your community? Yes/No 27.  Who are the typical leaders within your community? ◽◽ Religious leaders ◽◽ Political leaders ◽◽ Elders and other respected community members ◽◽ Professionals ◽◽ Other (please explain) __________________ 28.  Is there a space in your community that youth meet? Yes/No 29.  If yes, do the youth in your community gather at places that are different from where the larger community comes together? Yes/No 30.  Are there youth who are considered leaders in your community? Yes/No 31.  D  o you feel like it is important for youth in your community to be involved in leadership? Yes/No 32.  Are there connections between members of your community here and other places of the world? Yes/No 33.  Do members of your community maintain connections with (check all that apply) ◽◽ People from your homeland who live in other areas of this country? ◽◽ People from your homeland who live in other parts of the world? ◽◽ People who still live in your homeland region?

Evaluation

153

34.  Do you maintain connections with (check all that apply) ◽◽ People from your homeland who live in other areas of this country? ◽◽ People from your homeland who live in other parts of the world? ◽◽ People who still live in your homeland region? 35.  How do you maintain connections with other people from your homeland who do not live here? (check all that apply) ◽◽ Phone ◽◽ Mail ◽◽ Internet: email, chat, and social networks ◽◽ Travel ◽◽ Other (please explain) __________________ 36.  How do you get information from your homeland? (check all that apply) ◽◽ From other members of your ◽◽ Through communication local community with relatives/friends who ◽◽ From relatives/friends who live there ◽◽ From the media live in other parts of the world ◽◽ I do not get information from ◽◽ From people in your local my homeland community who have ◽◽ Other (please explain) recently come from your ___________________ home region 37.  Do you feel that maintaining connections to your homeland strengthens your community? Yes/No 38.  Do you ever feel that connections between your local community and your homeland create conflict within your community? Yes/No 39.  When there are conflicts within your community, who do people turn to for support? (check all that apply) ◽◽ Agencies who provide ◽◽ Community leaders ◽◽ Family members services to your community ◽◽ Community organizations ◽◽ Religious leaders ◽◽ Law enforcement ◽◽ Religious organizations ◽◽ Other (please explain) ◽◽ Elders ___________________ 40.  When you experience conflict within your community, who do you turn to for support? (check all that apply) ◽◽ Elders ◽◽ Community leaders ◽◽ Agencies who provide ◽◽ Family members ◽◽ Friends/peers in your community services to your community ◽◽ Community organizations ◽◽ Friends/peers outside your ◽◽ Law enforcement community ◽◽ Other (please explain) ◽◽ Religious leaders ◽◽ Religious organizations ___________________

154

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

41.  W  hen you and/or your family mark an important event, like marriage or birth, who do you turn to for support? (check all that apply) ◽◽ Elders ◽◽ Community leaders ◽◽ Agencies who provide ◽◽ Family members ◽◽ Friends/peers in your community services to your community ◽◽ Community organizations ◽◽ Friends/peers outside your ◽◽ Law enforcement community ◽◽ Other (please explain) ◽◽ Religious leaders ◽◽ Religious organizations ___________________ 42.  When you and/or your family experience sickness or death of a family member, who do you turn to for support? (check all that apply) ◽◽ Elders ◽◽ Community leaders ◽◽ Agencies who provide ◽◽ Family members ◽◽ Friends/peers in your community services to your community ◽◽ Community organizations ◽◽ Friends/peers outside your ◽◽ Law enforcement community ◽◽ Other (please explain) ◽◽ Religious leaders ◽◽ Religious organizations ___________________ When you and/or your family experience other problems involving 43.   employment, debt, or housing, who do you turn to for support? ◽◽ Elders ◽◽ Community leaders ◽◽ Agencies who provide ◽◽ Family members ◽◽ Friends/peers in your community services to your community ◽◽ Community organizations ◽◽ Friends/peers outside your ◽◽ Law enforcement community ◽◽ Other (please explain) ◽◽ Religious leaders ◽◽ Religious organizations ___________________ 44.  What are the most important challenges that your community experiences? (check all that apply) ◽◽ Conflict among community ◽◽ Access to services ◽◽ Housing members ◽◽ Problems with law enforcement ◽◽ Language ◽◽ Education ◽◽ Employment ◽◽ Other (please explain) ◽◽ Childcare ___________________ 45.  Does your community experience conflict related to past and/or ongoing conflict in your home region? Yes/No 46.  Does this affect the way that your community interacts with one another? Yes/No

Evaluation

155

47.  If so, would you like to see this change? Yes/No 48.  Are there ways that your community traditionally resolves conflict? Yes/No 49.  D  oes the way that your community resolves conflict look different here in the new context than it did in your home region? Yes/No 50.  Would you like to see changes within your community? Yes/No 51.  Do you think that there are other members of your community who would like to see change? Yes/No 52.  Would you feel comfortable coming together with a diverse group from your community to discuss problems/challenges? Yes/No 53.  Would you be interested in participating in discussion groups about your community led by educators and facilitators? Yes/No PART THREE: OPEN QUESTIONNAIRE 1.  What are the strengths of your community?

2.  What are the biggest challenges within your community?

3.  What would motivate your community to come together to address the challenges that you have identified?

4.  What would you like to see changed in your community?

156

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

Pre‐Dialogue Interview Note to interviewers Below you will find a set of interview questions. Please do a close reading of the questions prior to your first interview. It is important that you have a solid understanding of each and all questions. Before each interview ●● ●●

●●

Arrive early and make sure the space is sufficiently comfortable and private. Keep in mind that you may get off to a late start, and therefore you should allow for time following the interview in case it runs later than planned. However, you should still arrive early and be ready at the allotted time. Bring or retrieve recording equipment, tape recorder, microphone, and blank tapes, and test before beginning each interview.

At the start of each interview ●●

●●

Welcome the participant by name and introduce yourself. You might briefly explain your connection to the project. Introduce the interview process so that the participant has a full understanding of what he or she can expect, what the purpose of the interview is, and that the interview is confidential. For example you might say: ◦◦ I will ask a series of questions that will invite you to reflect and share about your thoughts and experiences. I will be keeping time so that we talk about all of the questions within one hour’s time. ◦◦ The Project Planning Team is hoping to learn about your thinking so that we can make sure that the dialogue groups address as many of your needs and ­concerns as possible. ◦◦ This interview will be recorded so that the responses can be heard and understood fully. Your interview will be kept confidential. No names will be made public in conjunction with any statements made without your explicit permission.

During each interview ●●

●● ●●

●●

●●

Feel free to check for understanding of the questions and to restate or reword them as appropriate, keeping with the intention behind the question. Use prompts if you get short or shallow answers. A very direct question might not invite a direct response. Feel free to add some context on the front‐end of a question. If a question feels redundant due to a prior response, try to revisit the subject and invite a further or deeper response. For example, “You already said you think there are issues in your community that you think would be good to address in dialogue. Can you say more about why, what you hope it would achieve, or what you think it should look like?” Keep time and manage the process!

Evaluation

157

After each interview ●●

Thank the participant for their time and for sharing their thoughts and experiences. Remind them that what they said will be helpful to the planning and evaluation of the project, and that it is important for the planners to know what this has been like for him/her.

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS   1.  Can you share where you are from?  2.  How long have you been here?   3.  Can you share the story of your journey from (home country) to here?   4. What have been some of the biggest challenges you have experienced since you came to this country?   5.  Have there been any positive things about this experience? If so, what?   6. As a refugee or immigrant here, do you experience difficulties with other groups from your region or country? If yes, can you share what they are?   7.  Have there been any attempts to address these difficulties? If so, what?   8. What would a strong community of yours look like to you here? Is it possible? Is it desirable?   9.  What do you think will help make that happen? 10. Would you like to see relationships among the communities change? If so, how? 11.  What would you like to see addressed in a dialogue process such as this? 12. What ideas do you have that would make this process useful or helpful to you? 13.  What might make this process difficult? 14.  What might be the benefits and rewards? 15. What are some traditional peacemaking or reconciliation processes from your home context that would be valuable to use in a local process here? 16. Is there anything else that would be helpful for us to know before we begin the dialogue groups?

158

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

Pre‐Dialogue Survey Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. This information will help us create a more meaningful dialogue experience for all. You do not need to include your name and all answers will be kept confidential. Where are you from? How long have you been here in this country? How would you describe your local community here? What are some strengths in your community right now? What are some challenges in your community right now? Why did you decide to participate in this dialogue project? What do you hope will happen as a result of this dialogue group? What are some of the issues that you would like to see addressed in the group? What do you think the group needs to talk about the most? Are there any concerns or fears you have about participating in the process? What might make this process difficult? What ideas do you have that would make this process useful or helpful to you? What would a strong community look like to you? Do you believe it is possible to create that? What would be helpful for your facilitators to know or do in order to work ­effectively with you and your group? Are there any questions that you have? Is there anything else you would like us to know?

Evaluation

159

Observer Protocol OBSERVER ROLE Your role is to observe each dialogue session. You will sit outside of the dialogue circle and take notes on your observations, which will only be shared within the project team. Participants will need to understand your role: that you will be observing the way the meeting is facilitated and noticing any important dynamics or issues that come up in the group. All of this is to give feedback to the facilitators and to the project organizers about the work they are doing: what appears to work well for the group, and what can be improved in future dialogues. You should be t­ ransparent with participants about your role and tasks. Before the session ●●

●●

●● ●●

Be sure that the facilitators introduce you at the start of the meeting and explain your role, or invite you to introduce yourself and explain your role. Invite all participants to ask any questions about your role and do your best to respond to them at this time. Find a place to sit at some distance, where you can hear and see as much as possible. After you’ve read and understood your guidelines (below), shift your attention away from papers and computers to the group, the room, the individuals, the details, the process that unfolds.

During the session ●●

●●

After your introduction, you should remain a non‐participating (silent) observer. Ideally, you become inconspicuous during the session. Take notes as you wish. (You may take few notes in order to follow details more closely, you might “capture” significant quotes or moments, or you might take meticulous notes.) Prepare yourself to debrief with facilitators following the session.

After the session ●●

●●

Debrief with facilitators. You might start by asking them first about their experience and then giving feedback on what you noticed. Focus on process and content of the meeting. Guidelines for debriefing are below. Later, write up a summary of your observations. See description of observation summary below.

OBSERVATION AND NOTE‐TAKING GUIDELINES With two observers, each observer will have a specific role and purpose in the observation task. 1.  Dialogue Process Observer. Your focus is primarily on the dialogue process: the structure and facilitation of the session. ●● Note names and seating arrangement(s) of participants in the session. (Note any changes during session.) Diagram or list form, with names in sequence.

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

160 ●● ●●

●● ●● ●●

How does the dialogue session open, progress, and close? Notice methods and interventions of the facilitators and their impacts on the group. (What does the facilitator do/say and what does it bring out from participants?) How do facilitators respond to dynamics of the group? What seemed to move the process forward? What seemed to bog things down? Be present and attentive, noticing patterns, changes, dynamics, and anything unexpected.

2.  Participant/Group Observer. Your focus is primarily on participants, individuals, and the group as a whole. ●● Note names and seating arrangement(s) of participants in the session. (Note any changes during session.) Diagram or list form, with names in sequence. ●● Notice body language and non‐verbal signals/communication among ­participants. ●● Look for patterns of interaction. ●● Try to recognize expressions of changes or deepening of relationship among participants. How formal/careful/familiar/comfortable are they in communicating and what indicates that interpretation to you? ●● Be aware of statements of change, transition, shifts in perception or ­relationships. Keep in mind that we are looking at any shifts or changes ­taking place, in the group and/or in individuals – in a session or over time. ●● Be present and attentive, noticing patterns, changes, dynamics, and anything unexpected. SUGGESTED NOTE‐TAKING TECHNIQUE Draw a line down the middle of your paper. On one side write down exactly what you see, hear, or take in with your senses. On the other side write down your interpretations, speculations, questions about the data you have taken in. See the example below. Save all observation notes to be turned in at the end of the dialogue series. Observations

Interpretations

Repeat eye contact between M, Q, and P

M, Q, and P are in agreement

J paused while looking at three possible seat options, then sat beside R

J may be uncomfortable/unwilling to sit beside A, B, and C … because they are Hutu?

Group responses are brief and they reveal little

Are questions inappropriate? Low trust?

B often keeps her head down

?

Group continues to respond to facilitator, not to each other

Low trust? Showing cooperation?

Evaluation

161

Observations

Interpretations

Lots of excitement and increased volume after G spoke about past ethnic violence

Important issue

Constant “neutral” expression from T and R. Almost no eye contact

Cultural? Sense of isolation?

Explosive emotions after L’s comment about the expletive “cockroaches”

Trigger for ethnic divides, resistance to ethnic divides, or memories of past conflict?

GUIDELINES FOR DEBRIEFING ●●

●●

●●

●●

This is a time for reflection and feedback on the dialogue process, the facilitators’ interventions, and the observable experience of participants. Do not use this time to “psychoanalyze” participants or “critique” facilitators. Focus on what you noticed. Try to start with positive feedback – what seemed to go well. Then move into constructive feedback about what might be done differently. Topics for debriefing might include: ◦◦ Logistical or facility problems ◦◦ Sharing of co‐facilitator roles ◦◦ Perceived impartiality or bias of facilitators ◦◦ Opening/tone‐setting ◦◦ Transitions within the structure of the dialogue session ◦◦ Closing: sense of tone and direction at the end of the session ◦◦ Balance of participation among dialogue participants ◦◦ Discovery of issues ◦◦ Discovery of participants’ goals/interests ◦◦ Statements or indications of change or transition ◦◦ Common ground among participants ◦◦ Differences or dissonance among participants ◦◦ Process techniques that were useful ◦◦ Changes or shifts that appeared to take place ◦◦ Patterns of interaction ◦◦ Receptivity to interventions

OBSERVATION SUMMARY 1.  Write up a short (1 page) narrative or bullet‐point summary of your observation. Your summary should reflect the focus of your observation as described above. (See Observation and Notetaking Guidelines section above.) While you may express your interpretation of behaviors, etc., try to be clear about what you specifically observed, which led to any interpretation (of change, dynamics, etc.). Your “cold” observation summary is most important. 2.  Include your seating chart or list with your narrative summary. 3.  Submit your complete summary within 6 days of the session you observed.

162

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

Facilitator Reflection Form Session #: What do you feel went well in today’s session?

What was challenging?

Did you follow the format from the protocol? If so, how did the flow of interventions work? If not, why and what did you do instead?

What are critical issues that emerged in today’s session?

What are your goals for next session and issues you want to make sure to follow up on?

Any other reflections of note?

Evaluation

163

Mid‐Dialogue Survey Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. This information will help us create a more meaningful dialogue experience for all. You do not need to include your name and all answers will be kept confidential. 1.  What has it been like for you to participate in the dialogue project so far?

2.  What do you appreciate most about your experience with the project?

3.  What has been challenging for you about the project?

4.  Have your interactions or relationships with other group members changed in any way since the start of the project? If so, please describe the most significant change.

5.  Have you noticed any changes in the way you perceive, feel, or think about some of the issues that have been discussed? If so, please explain what thoughts, ideas, or feelings have changed.

6.  What do you think is not being said or talked about in your dialogue group?

7.  What would make this dialogue project experience better for you?

8.  Any other thoughts or recommendations?

164

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

Post‐Dialogue Survey Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. This information will help us create a more meaningful dialogue experience for all. You do not need to include your name and all answers will be kept confidential.   1.  What has it been like for you to participate in the dialogue project?   2.  What do you appreciate most about your experience with the project?   3.  What has been challenging for you about the project?   4.  Have your interactions or relationships with other group members changed in any way since the start of the project? If so, please describe the most significant change.   5.  Have you noticed any changes in the way you perceive, feel, or think about some of the issues that have been discussed? If so, please explain what thoughts, ideas, or feelings have changed.   6.  What kinds of topics/activities were useful for you in the dialogues?   7.  What kinds of topics/activities were not useful for you in the dialogues?   8.  What would you have liked to see happen in the dialogues that didn’t?   9.  What do you think or hope will happen in your community as a result of these dialogues? 10.  What do you think important next steps will be to maintain the benefit from the dialogues? 11.  Any other thoughts or recommendations?

Evaluation

165

Post‐Dialogue Interview Questions Note to interviewers Below you will find a set of interview questions. Please do a close reading of the questions prior to your first interview. It is important that you have a solid ­understanding of each and all questions. Before each interview ●● ●●

●●

Arrive early and make sure the space is sufficiently comfortable and private. Keep in mind that you may get off to a late start, and therefore you should allow for time following the interview in case it runs later than planned. However, you should still arrive early and be ready at the allotted time. Bring or retrieve recording equipment, tape recorder, microphone, and blank tapes, and test before beginning each interview.

At the start of each interview ●●

●●

Welcome the participant by name and introduce yourself. You might briefly explain your connection to the project. Introduce the interview process so that the participant has a full understanding of what he or she can expect, what the purpose of the interview is, and that the interview is confidential. For example you might say: ◦◦ I will ask a series of questions that will invite you to reflect and share about your experience with the Dialogue Project. I will be keeping time so that we talk about all of the questions within one hour’s time. ◦◦ The Project Planning Team is hoping to learn about what this has been like for you. They/we want to make any necessary adjustments to the project if it is continued, and we will be listening closely to your responses for ways to improve the experience for others. ◦◦ Also, the Planning Team really wants to understand how your participation in the project affected you and other participants. ◦◦ This interview will be recorded so that the responses can be heard and understood fully. Your interview will be kept confidential. No names will be made public in conjunction with any statements made without your explicit permission.

During each interview ●●

●●

●●

Feel free to check for understanding of the questions and to restate or reword them as appropriate, keeping with the intention behind the question. Use prompts if you get short or shallow answers. Some prompts are provided in the questions list. They are italicized and are for optional use. A very direct question might not invite a direct response. Feel free to add some context on the front‐end of a question. For example, “I know there was no Dialogue Project happening before that might have given you an idea of what this experience would be like…

166

●●

●●

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

You must have been approached and invited by someone to take part in this project… (1) What motivated you to participate in the Dialogue Project? (prompt): What made you say yes when you were asked to join?” If a question feels redundant due to a prior response, try to revisit the subject and invite a further or deeper response. For example, “You already said you think there should be more dialogue work in your community. Can you say more about why, what you hope it would achieve, or what you think it should look like?” Keep time and manage the process!

After each interview ●●

Thank the participant for their time and for sharing their thoughts and experiences. Remind them that what they said will be helpful to the planning and evaluation of the project, and that it is important for the planners to know what this has been like for him/her.

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Interviewers, please note: ●● ●●

Questions are blocked in themes, for your information only, not to say out loud. Some questions are followed by prompts, in italics. These are optional ways of ­getting fuller or deeper responses. Feel free to improvise your own prompts as well. (Motivation)

1.  What initially motivated you to participate in the Dialogue Project? What inspired you? What brought you here? Why did you join the project? 2.  What motivated you to stay in the Dialogue Project? What reasons continued to bring you back to the dialogue and training sessions? 3.  Did you ever consider ending your participation? If so, what was the reason? 4.  What stopped you from leaving the project? (Community Needs) 5.  Can you think of any problems you are aware of in your local community that stem from the conflict(s) that took place back at home? 6.  Are there needs or issues in your community that you feel this project is ­addressing? If so, what are they? 7.  Are there needs or issues in your community that you feel this project is not addressing, but should? If so, please explain.

Evaluation

167

 8.  Would you like to see any changes in the local diaspora communities? If so, what changes would you hope for? (Process)  9.  What did it feel like for you to sit and participate in a dialogue circle with people from different groups that come from your home region? Can you talk a bit about how comfortable you were or were not in talking openly with the group? Were there challenges in it for you? If so, please describe the challenging parts for you. 10.  What are your thoughts about the process of dialogue, now that you have experienced it? What did it feel like? Did it work for you? To what degree do you think dialogue is a valuable process? Would you recommend the use of more dialogue work in your community? 11.  Why or why not? How does the dialogue process you experienced fit with your culture? How 12.  compatible is dialogue with your culture? Would some changes or some other way of talking together be more appropriate? If so, please describe. If there were to be continued dialogue work in your community, what sub13.  jects or issues should be addressed or discussed in the sessions? Who might the ideal participants be? Should people be grouped in any 14.  particular way (e.g., related to age, gender, nationality, tribe, ethnicity)? Who would make ideal facilitators? People from inside or outside of your 15.  community? Some combination of both? (Change) 16.  Try to recall your first meeting with your dialogue group. What do you recall thinking or feeling then, as you looked around at the people you would be sitting and talking with? Do you remember any concerns, hopes, or fears that you had at the start? (If so, please describe.) And now, take a moment to reflect on recent meetings with your dialogue 17.  group. What do you think or feel about the people you have been sitting and talking with for the past two and a half months? Have there been any significant changes? (If so, please describe them and give specific examples.) 18.  How has your experience with the Dialogue Project thus far affected you ­personally? Are there ways in which you feel you are different than you would have been had you not been involved at all? (If so, please describe them and give specific examples.)

168

Mary Lind and Barbara Tint

19.  Have you shared your experience in the Dialogue Project with others? Why or why not? What is it like to talk about it with others? How do others react to what you have been doing and to what you are saying 20.  about it? 21.  What was it like for you to learn about the Transition Framework? What was helpful about it? What was challenging? Are there ways that this model can be of use to you or others in your community? (Closing/General) Is there anything you would like to add about your experience with the 22.  Dialogue Project? Is there anything you think would be helpful for the project planners to 23.  know about your experience?

08 Implications for Policy Wisdom is like fire; people take it from others — Congolese Proverb

Roland Clarke Djimet Dogo

Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities, First Edition. Barbara Tint. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

170

Roland Clarke and Djimet Dogo

We offer several recommendations for policy that we believe will allow for greater success in the resettlement of diaspora communities. These recommendations center around a core belief that more attention needs to be given to the impor­ tance of historical and unresolved community issues. Providing space, resources, and context for the reconciliation and community‐building processes in diaspora communities is essential, both for their successful reintegration and for the ability of the hosting community to engage with them more effectively. It is for the sake of both the people in these communities and those in the local contexts that we hope these recommendations can be adopted at local, regional, and national levels. By doing so, we can help inform and strengthen capacity‐building programs in immigrant and refugee communities and create a new generation of community leaders and peacebuilders among the diaspora. What has become increasingly clear through the work of this project is that historical and communal conflicts are not addressed in current policy and community inter­ vention efforts attempting to integrate immigrants and refugees into host societies. Since these conflicts are typically what led these populations to migrate in the first place, they can greatly impede successful resettlement. Immigrants and refugees from war‐torn countries enter the diaspora with no preparation for unanticipated issues upon their arrival, including the struggles inherent in intergroup conflicts. In addition to struggling with unresolved historical conflicts, these populations have reported a limited ability to organize, participate, socialize, and engage effectively as groups in local civic activity. We strongly believe that addressing the communal issues between diaspora populations will not only allow for the healing of historical wounds, but will also create greater chances of resettlement success. 1. Conflict Resolution, Dialogue, and Reconciliation Programs: We strongly recommend that conflict resolution efforts be integrated into refugee resettle­ ment programs. Through efforts at reconciliation, communities can work in a more unified manner to address the challenges of living as refuges and immi­ grants in a new land. Community meetings or dialogue opportunities would ideally be made available to community members after they have had time to settle and adjust to their new contexts. From our research and practice, we have found that community members are best served by these processes after they have lived in the diaspora for a minimum of six months. 2. Funding: We recommend that funding be made available to institutions that can work in collaboration with immigrant and refugee organizations in order to ­provide conflict resolution, dialogue, and reconciliation services to diaspora communities. If funding for these processes were made an integral part of ­refugee services, then community organizations serving these populations could build capacity and expertise within their own organizations as a core dimension to service provision. Optimally, funding would support capacity‐building efforts for community members who could be trained in these areas and then work within their own communities.



Implications for Policy

171

3. Empowering Community Leaders: We recommend that, as a part of refugee resettlement services, elders and community leaders be brought into reconcilia­ tion and community‐building efforts. In this way their roles in their c­ ommunities are preserved and they can be instrumental in the capacity‐building dimensions of these activities. A national (or even international) network of community leaders serving in these roles can strengthen the power of these efforts and ensure their longevity and impact. 4. Committee for Reconciliation of Immigrants and Refugees: We recommend that there be a permanent body of experts on dialogue and reconciliation to initiate and implement policy directives in these areas. Professionals on the committee will provide consultation for, regulate, and evaluate dialogue and reconciliation programs implemented by service providers at both local and national levels. 5. Transition and Social Change Program: We recommend incorporating a deeper understanding of the transition experience as a key element in effectively bringing lasting social change to individuals and groups integrating into a new community. For diaspora communities, this includes the transition from one place to another as well as the transition from historic enemies to future allies. Utilizing the Transition Framework in culturally congruent ways can provide great assistance in helping refugees make sense of their experience, and can ­provide them with a model for sustained community reconciliation. 6. The Role of Diaspora Populations in Public and Community Affairs: We ­recommend that members of diaspora populations play a more significant role in community and public affairs. Their role in this capacity is vital as they are key stakeholders in these realms. By first participating in programs like this, they will be able to bring more awareness, unity, collaboration, and cooperation into these efforts. 7. Engagement of the Host Communities: Now, more than ever, we see the need for constructively engaging host communities in the successful resettlement of diaspora populations. Both to aid in the resettlement process and to address the xenophobia and fear that are on the rise in host contexts, intentional processes engaging community members from the host community are ­critical. Educational programs, person to person mentoring, dialogue groups, advocacy projects, and shared endeavors will all be an extremely important dimension of this. The formulation of these recommendations into public policy at local and national levels is key to greater success among the vast number of diaspora communities around the world. Public policy validates and accredits these practices with key stakeholders who then implement and evaluate the programs. Funding and support for these services will allow communities to build momentum toward community collaboration, to navigate social and civic services together, and to create a different future for the next generation.

09 Diaspora Stories New Beginnings

Rukia Mohammed Marie Abijuru

Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities, First Edition. Barbara Tint. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.



Diaspora Stories: New Beginnings

“

173

Marie’s Story

When I was in Ivory Coast and hear that the Congolese don’t like the Rwandese people I just didn’t even pay attention about that but when I have a chance to participate in the ADDP program, is when I start now exploring and understanding how the people are feeling about that. And it was a good experience for me to see how the people start the conversation. I remember when we start there were no trust, the people didn’t want to talk to each other. Even myself, I cannot say I didn’t want to talk to Congolese but it was hard to approach them because if someone said these people are from Rwanda, the enemy, I cannot go and stay in their house and do something and just be interested to be with them. If someone said you are my enemy I have just to walk away. You don’t know what’s gonna happen if you force to go to that person. I never try to approach them or to discuss anything related to that before the ADDP. Because I was hearing that Congolese people say that Rwandese are enemy they went in the Congo and kill the people.

When the ADDP project came, I was recruited to be one of the participants. But I didn’t know even, what they gonna do. And then I remember the people from my country even some from Congo they quit the first part of the program. They didn’t want to hear what we were talking about. Because they still had that in their heart. Having their family in refugee camp, having their family member died. Having lost everything because of the Rwandese or Ugandese coming to fight in their country. We were talking about reconciliation … sometimes we talk reconciliation between the country. Even the government they can say we have reconciliation – we have opened the embassy – that is what they call reconciliation between the governments. But the population, they didn’t have a chance to talk to each other, they didn’t have a chance to listen to each other. It doesn’t change anything that is between two countries but the people themselves they have to have a chance to listen to each other. At first, I think that the people were not ready to listen about that. I think was too soon to hear about the reconciliation, and they still have that in their heart, sitting with someone who make you leaving your country or stay in a refugee camp or losing the member of your family. But I was surprised at the people who stayed. It was amazing to see how the ADDP transformed the people. We spend a couple weeks asking how is the confidentiality, we don’t trust each other, if we talk something big they gonna tell back home, if we say something they gonna kill the member of our family who stay back home, and we could not share even the food, because we were not trust at all. No trust at all, and it takes time, it takes time to move from that state in and go now to the state we start talking to each other. Now the people there who we had never talked before – we are friends. We visit each other. We call each other. We share many things right now. But I don’t know if that program didn’t exist myself, I don’t know if I should be able to step into the Congolese house and feel free or say what I am able to say right now. I feel like we are the same family even though we are from the country we called

174

Rukia Mohammed and Marie Abijuru

enemy, and that is grace of ADDP project. And I never felt something about “That is a Congolese.” I just kept them as human beings. This is a person like me. I know the transition we all go through when we came here. The part I like about ADDP the listening part, and the storytelling. It’s because I think those parts give us the power to feel, if I was thinking someone from Congo is my enemy and they killed my people, and I listen to other person telling how the person suffered, the person did this, the person done that. It’s hard. We become friends, because after that we discover that, ah ha! I accuse this person … this person is innocent … even I was mad, I was upset about the Rwandese but I not supposed to be upset to this person. That person suffered like me. Why keep calling this person enemy? It’s how we become friends, it’s how we became we understand, we start building the trust. It’s because we have a chance to listen to each other and those storytelling and it was everything between the story we hear and then you go home and you think about that and you go ohhhh that person went through that too … I was thinking it was only me, but we find out that we call enemy each other we are not supposed to do that. Each person has his own story and if we have chance to listen to each other that can resolve many issues we have between us. ADDP was the opening for me to reach out to my community. Because since I came here before ADDP I didn’t have a chance to meet with my community, the people from my country. And when they send us out to go to our community to talk about the ADDP, that was my first time. And when I went there, my community didn’t have – they met sometimes, but they were not organized. And after that we started working on constitution and because of that we have organization and now we meet, we have regular meeting. And I am glad now since that time I am active in my community and feel like I want to do something just working together with other people and teach the peace. Because of some people they close mind themselves, they don’t come out, that is a good thing we can share, instead of just thinking about the bad thing. I think, as a parent we can focus on good thing and teach our children to go over what we are thinking. Just starting now, building peace and after renew what we are thinking about. If we teach our children, yea don’t talk with this person he’s enemy. The person never did something to you. Your child, they gonna say this is my enemy. I don’t want to hear that. And I don’t want to teach my children this is my enemy. It doesn’t make any sense. But I be happy to see the new generation just living in peace, be open to each other, have something together. If you are able to sit down and listen, after that you go out with a seed you can just plant to other people’s heart too.

”



Diaspora Stories: New Beginnings

“

175

Rukia’s Story

When I went to ADDP, the first session, like the first phase, when they were recruiting and putting things together, I was kinda, like, not upfront. I was still like in the middle, I don’t trust them, I don’t wanna share my info with them, I don’t wanna do this. I was backing off but after when we get into the policy and all the information was shared, something changed in me – like ok, they sharing their part of their story and I’m sharing my part of my story. They claiming they have been harassed and they have went through a lot I am claiming that I went through a lot. So we have similar cases – then why don’t I feel comfortable interacting with them if they have the same case that I have. But before that I have that mentality that I was the only one, having these issues, and the rest were the enemies.

Our relationships changed after ADDP. When I give an example of coworkers, I worked at IRCO, five years. I don’t used to interact with any of the Somalis. I used to come in work, go and never talk to anyone. But since the ADDP started we go to lunch, we do group things, we do things over the weekend, we go to Seattle, we go to so many places with each other. It’s really fun and I realize that I was wrong, and they were wrong too. Because both of us, both sides have a story of their own. And we didn’t know that each one went through a lot. And that help us put and bring together and share knowledge and try to teach to others who are behind us. Our community is already impacted. I always, when I go back to the community, there is a meeting or there is something. When someone is on the negative side I tell them listen, I had the same idea, I was in your place. But after going through these sessions, after looking, after sharing ideas after exchanging information with the other side, everyone went through a lot. So there is not only one person that went through a lot. Everyone was a victim, so that doesn’t mean that we were the only one. So try to change your mind. It change a lot, we had conflict between the communities and there are some communities that united. Sharing some information, inviting each other like holiday party and all those stuff. It’s really good. It is helping toward forgiveness and reconciliation. Although it is not 100 percent already resolved though it’s going toward that. I really like being part of the ADDP program; it was really great. And it helped a lot of us who are on the negative side about it. And it really helped us, change our mind and change our community too. We had that negative mentality. When we went through that training and everything we realize that when there is a conflict there is always a solution.

”

10 Closing Reflections When two elephants fight, it’s the grass that suffers — Swahili Proverb

Djimet Dogo Barbara Tint

Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities, First Edition. Barbara Tint. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.



Closing Reflections

177

The following are excerpts from a conversation between Djimet and Barbara, held after the project was completed. Having worked together for four years on DDP, they sat down and reflected on what had transpired. Djimet: When you called me about the dialogue project, for me it was something that was way overdue, because all refugees, even immigrants, who are coming here, are coming from war‐torn countries and most of the refugees living here are communities or tribes or ethnic clans that are warring each other – either inside the country between different groups or between different countries. Barbara: Well, I haven’t always been glad you said yes (laughing), but I am mostly glad you said yes to this project. Why did you want to do this? Djimet: Barbara: We’ve always been involved with doing dialogue with different groups of people. And we had a significant number of African students in our program. Running into John that day who told me there were new refugees coming from Rwanda and Burundi and that there were potential concerns in those communities just struck me. We began to think about doing some dialogue and reconciliation work with some of the populations here in Portland. A lot of my work is international and it occurred to me that we have international work right here. There is such a great need in these populations when these issues are not addressed as they move into resettlement. How do you think it went? Djimet: The project was such a success. The main success of the project is that for the first time we were able to bring different warring or opposing groups together. As you know, the first week of the project was really tense. People were not trusting each other. People were afraid to even eat or drink water there. I remember one participant told me this was the first time she was able to talk to a Tutsi woman because she was so afraid that they were not going to talk to her. She talked to them, but this was the first time, through the project, that she sat down and talked directly with them. Another thing is between the Congolese and Rwandese. One of the successes, while we are having this project, the Congolese were having their party. And they invited a Rwandese Tutsi. That was amazing, because since the war started in Eastern Congo, there was no Rwandese participating in Congolese events or Congolese participating in Rwandese events. Even the Congolese leader who I tried to bring into the project, she told me that she was a member of parliament in Congo and she end up being a refugee, losing everything because of the Tutsi. So there is no way she was going to come and sit in a room with a Tutsi. And this same lady, a few weeks later, told me, “You know what? I think this is the only way we can solve our problems.” And since that project, we see people – different Somali groups that were not talking to each other – talking together, having meetings in different apartments. It’s just amazing what the project has done. Even though we cannot forget what happened, we have to forgive and move forward. For me I think the project did an extreme job, and I wish it can be replicated in other parts of the U.S. where people are facing the same problem.

178 Barbara:

Djimet:

Barbara:

Djimet: Barbara:

Djimet Dogo and Barbara Tint As one of the facilitators of the groups, I was struck by the power of what participants shared and learned with each other. I remember the Great Lakes group gave themselves a name. They named themselves “Umoja,” which is Swahili for unity. And that is not what they were feeling when they first started. For me, I guess the biggest satisfaction would be to know that it’s having a lasting impact. That it wasn’t just people coming together for a group and then it’s over. Yeah, exactly. I met with a couple of Somali participants, who started the Somali Youth Coalition. I met with them at their first meeting and they told me, “Djimet, you know what? We took this skill that we learned through this project to apply to our community. This is one of the reasons we are successful, to come together and sit down and create a Somali Youth Coalition of Oregon.” And I was stunned when they told me this. Same thing with people who participated in the project from the Rwandese group who were able, through this project, to put together the Rwandese Association. Because we didn’t have a Rwandese association before this project and one Tutsi man and one Hutu woman came together to think about how they can organize their people and bring them together. So that is how they were able for the first time to bring all Rwandese together in the Rwandese Community Association. So those are the lasting signs that I see. Also, before this project, when people had a little problem, you know, they just make it big. But through this project, now they learn skill in how to be calm and try to reason instead of – because you oppose this person’s idea, then you oppose this person, you oppose his family, his clan, his tribe. So those are the lasting benefits that I see. I’m still learning that it keeps going – that there are unbelievable ripple effects from this project. And something I’ve always known but I think I learned in a deeper way the incredible power of telling your story. When people came together and all told their stories of what happened in their lives, I saw a transformation in front of my eyes. I’ve seen it before and know it, but I’m always incredibly struck by how powerful that is. They listened to others they had seen as an enemy who also suffered, had to leave their home, had to give things up, had loss. And it also reminds me how much people need to have that opportunity. That being able to share their experiences is one of the dimensions of healing them, even though the pain does not go away through the telling. I also learned about the incredible resilience of the human spirit. Some of the things that people have endured. I remember sitting with the group and just crying, because everybody’s story was so incredibly traumatic. It was incredible to see how people had persevered and carried through to today and rebuilt their lives. And that is something we can all learn from. Yes, yes. For me, one of the things that was most challenging as an outsider to the communities was knowing where to step in and where to back off, how to be most effective and most respectful of the internal community



Closing Reflections

Djimet:

Barbara:

Djimet:

179

dynamics. It was difficult for me to always know the best place for my role as an outsider. I know you always told me that the reason the project had credibility was because it was affiliated with the university, but I always felt a little confused and uncomfortable with that. I always believed that internal actors were more powerful change agents. The participants had so much more to offer and the learning was certainly mine as well. The other thing that was really challenging was when we were also trying to work with the other communities, the Ethiopian and Liberian communities. It wasn’t always clear why they chose not to do dialogue. Because we spent a lot of time with them and they seemed interested and then fairly much at the last minute they decided not to participate. So I always wondered about that and what we could learn from that. You know, which groups will be interested and available to this kind of work and which ones won’t and why. Yeah, most of the groups think they can solve the problems on their own, that they’ve been here long enough – they don’t need an outsider to come and tell them what to do in order to bring the community together. But in reality, the reality is that they have problems, and until now they still have problem. The communities are falling apart, but still people don’t want to recognize that there is a weakness in the leadership and come forward and sit down and try to bring the community together. We saw also this in the other communities too. Luckily for us the other communities are newly arriving. They still have new people arriving with a fresh memory of what is happening back home. So there was a greater need to try to tackle this issue as soon as possible. But with the Liberians and Ethiopians, they have been here for so long and they think that they have enough skill to do this job on their own. They tried. One of the things we always tried to do in this project was to blend things we know from the field of dialogue, conflict resolution, or peacebuilding with traditional, internal practices from the communities and the regions themselves. Are there things you can think of that worked especially well with these populations related to the dialogue? Are there things they brought from their own traditions that made this work? One of the things, especially within the Great Lakes group, where people opened up with prayer. Those rituals help a lot. You see when inside the clan or ethnic group, when people have a problem, elders participate in trying to solve the problem and bring people together. But it was rare to see a mediator or elder from one clan going across the boundary trying to mediate peaceful conflict resolution with the other group or with the other clan. It exists. Traditionally it exists, but lately with the politics, with the warlord issues, with each group wanting to control their scarce resources, all those people no longer go back to those traditional methods of conflict resolution. The only way of conflict resolution is if your clan or your ethnic group is well armed, then take over the other group. So once they’re here there is no warlord, there is no arms keeper. They have to use those rituals. Use those teachings, the religious teaching. So ritual helps a lot.

180

Djimet Dogo and Barbara Tint

  It’s also about relationship and it’s about an outsider of the community. In my experience for the last 12 years working with different African groups, when you use an outsider to bring people together, as a third party to bring people together, it works. But when you use someone from their community to start something, mostly they ask, “Why him?” You know. Or, “We don’t want to listen to you because you’re from this and that clan or from this tribe.” Most of the time, even at Africa House, our strategy is to use an outsider that is not related to the politics and the problems that are going into the community. Barbara: How did that fit? Because in the first round of groups we used outsiders, and in the second round of groups we used some combination of insiders and outsiders and we also had only insider groups. So how would you compare what happened with the combination of insider/outsider or only insiders? What happened is that we did not start just using insiders, because we Djimet: provided enough skill to the insider to be able to resist some of the – I may say – temptation that may trigger something. Because those insiders we used are equipped with training, with tools, how to approach people, how to talk with people. Coming there, not as an insider trying to bring people together, but they are coming there as people from the project. So those people are going into the community with a badge. It’s not just that they work out in the community – now they are going with a name tag as somebody that got skill, got training and who wants other people to benefit too. So we prepared them. We prepared the ground for them. Also, combining them with outsider, it helps a lot too. So at the same time, they have a kind of credibility. So it helps a lot. Had we started the project directly using an insider, I don’t think it would have worked. Barbara: We knew when we started this that our hope was that what we did here could be replicated in some ways elsewhere, and that’s why we’re writing this manual. We also saw in the groups that the way the participants talked about their involvement, they felt so strongly that what they were doing in that room had a very significant impact and connection to what was happening in the Portland diaspora, in the regional diaspora, the national diaspora, the international diaspora, as well as the connection back home. So I guess the question is, how do we most think this can benefit other communities and what would you like to see happen from here? Djimet: Definitely this project can benefit other communities, not only African. Now Africa House also serves Iraqis, Nepali, Burmese, and others. And I see the same trend, people having the same problems between different groups, clans that are coming from Iraq or Burma. For each refugee group that are coming here, they bring their problem with them. And they need help. We need to come up with the idea of looking for funding to continue with this project, because more and more Africans are coming. And those people who we train, it is not guaranteed they are going to live for the rest of their lives in Portland. So we want to spread this skill, spread this knowledge that will help build an African community.



Closing Reflections Barbara:

181

I hope that people will use it and my worry is that people might try to use it without enough knowledge or training. We know how important ­dialogue is, and it’s not as easy as it looks. And so I really hope whoever uses this manual takes the opportunity to make sure that whoever is facilitating groups is skilled and trained enough to do so. My other hope is really that greater attention can be paid to these issues and that policy can be influenced by some of this. I remember when we went to an African peacebuilding conference in Sacramento, everybody was talking about policy and a different level of work with the issues and the populations. We were the only ones who presented a project that was about people – that was about bringing people together and sitting down with them and addressing these issues. People at that conference were so blown away by what we were doing; they couldn’t believe it. They couldn’t believe it. Not just because of the reasons that you’ve talked about that we could actually get people together, but for some it just never occurred to them that this was necessary, that it needed to happen. I guess because of my work, it seems so obvious – that it’s one of the most important things. That people are coming with these historical issues that are getting in their way every day. So I hope it will influence policy, not just for African populations, but as you’re saying, populations from all over the world. I guess my real fantasy is that we wouldn’t need this project, that people don’t have to be forced away from their homes. But until that is a reality, we want to help them heal and settle as well as possible. Djimet: T  hey should look at the Transition Framework for people that are ­coming here to help them, if they are wanting people to be self‐sufficient, to integrate in new communities smoothly and all those, they have to start looking at the transition of people. Because it is going to help a lot. Not only helping those people, but it will also help the state or the country where those people are coming to. It is amazing for even people like myself working with refugees for the last 12 years. I never thought about the Transition Framework, never, ever. Because we’ve just been trying to help people to change, that’s it. They are in refugee camps, now they are here. You need to change, you need to, you know, be nice to your wife, don’t hit them, don’t hit your children, you need to get a job. No more work in the farm, you need to work doing this. And then we still see problems. Problems keep coming. And I say wow. So when I started reading about the Transition Framework I said, “Oh, this is the problem.” Because we just think because they are here things are going to go away. Somebody who witnessed his family being slaughtered, who witnessed his mother being raped in front of them, that it is just going to go away like this while they know that the clan or the group that did this to them is here? We thought that, “Oh, time will help.” No, time will not help. We have to have a third‐party person with skill to help them with this transition. It is amazing; this is the only thing that settles the ending.   Every time I got to the Federal Office of Refugee Resettlement workshop, I talked about the Transition Framework. And people were just stunned. It is very important and this is the only way that we can help people to integrate successfully. People need the Transition Framework, not only

182

Djimet Dogo and Barbara Tint

to start a dialogue but to give up what they used to be and restart a new beginning, because this is a new country. If you want to be successful, if you want to successfully integrate, you need to forget about what you were back there and start a new thing. You need to forget about that. You need to let go in order to be able to access services and be more successful. If you don’t let go, you are going nowhere. The only way moving forward is to say, “You know what, I let go.” Barbara: Can people really let go, do you think, when there’s been so much loss and trauma? Should they? What do you think helps people let go? Djimet: People don’t let go, like forget. But they have to let go of holding on the way they have. One of the things that helps people let go is, people are not used to those kinds of frameworks or those kinds of ideas, so they need somebody to help them, you know. You need to explain to them clearly, in a simple language. You are here, and your children, especially people with children, there is nothing you can do to stop your children from going to the same school with the other people, from going to the same apartment playground with the other children. You are forced to live together. There is no other way out. So the only option is to give up what you know. You are not losing your identity, but you come together to build your community, to have one voice in order to advocate for yourself. So those are the things that will help people to let go. And in order to let go they are not going to let go on their own. You have to have a third party that is helping guide them to let go, and reassure them. So those are the things we need to help people as a third party, as an outsider, help them let go. But on their own it is going to be really hard, because it is an identity issue. This is the thing that I know, that my dad knows, and my great, great grandfather knows, that this is us, and this is our identity, we are not going to let go. But they have to see they are in a completely different environment; that those things don’t work. Barbara: I think one of the most powerful things for me in this work was seeing how people felt about the future of their children and grandchildren. That even though they had hardness in their own hearts, they wanted a different life for the future generations. And it was for them that they were willing to do this hard work. That it was hard work. That being in the room together was sometimes painful and sometimes scary. They didn’t want to do it and we had people walk out. And yet they stayed with it because they really wanted a different life for their children  –  they didn’t want their children and grandchildren to suffer. I think that is hope about the future and about the possibility for new beginnings. Djimet: Especially for newly arriving people, because more and more people are coming. And something needs to be done in order for people to come together. Because they are bringing people from warring countries, ­warring groups. And those people, when they come here, they are still emotionally and politically tied to what is happening back there. So it disturbs their healthy integration into the new country because people are spending too much time raising their kids to be against the other groups while those kids are going to be American, they are not going back there. I think we should help those people to see the greatest ­picture,



Closing Reflections

183

while they are here in the United States; they need to work on their transition and help their family, help their children. At the same time they will be able to help people back there, rather than sticking with the same issues that happened there and the reason that they are here. Barbara: One of the things I hope comes from this is more engagement and discussion about these issues. I don’t want people to just have the manual; I want communities and policy to go deeper with it. Djimet: Yes, absolutely. This is my personal opinion and idea. I was thinking, also, you know, for refugees who are coming with all these problems, I think every country should create a position of minister of mediation or dialogue. Barbara: I’m for that idea! I vote for you! We need to find ways to create safe space for people to deal with these struggles. Exactly. That is the word, safe space. Djimet:

Bibliography Abu‐Nimer, M. (1999). Dialogue, Conflict Resolution, and Change. Albany: State University of New York Press. Achankeng, A. (2013). Gender Roles and Conflict among Lebialem Immigrant Families in the USA. Diaspora Studies, 6(1), 40–49. Agbaria, F., and Cohen, C. (2000). Working With Groups in Conflict: The Impact of Power Relations on the Dynamics of the Group. Brandeis Initiative in Intercommunal Coexistence, Brandeis, MA. Agblorti, S. K. M. (2011). Humanitarian Assistance to Refugees in Rural Ghana: Implications for Refugee–Host Relations. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift  –  Norwegian Journal of Geography, 65, 75–82. Ager, A. (1999). Refugees: Perspectives on the Experience of Forced Migration. In A. Ager (Ed.), Refugees: Perspectives on the Experience of Forced Migration (pp. 1–23). London: Cassell. Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison‐Wesley. American Evaluation Association (n.d.). The Program Evaluation Standards. Retrieved June 19, 2016, from http://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=51. Andrus Family Fund (n.d.). Applying a Transition Framework. Retrieved November 4, 2010, from http://www.affund.org/Applying_A_Transition_Framework.html. Arai, T. (2015). Engaging Conflict History: Toward an Integrated Method of Conflict Resolution Dialogue and Capacity Building. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 32(3), 277–298. Arthur, J. (2000). Invisible Sojourners: African Immigrant Diaspora in the United States. Westport, CT: Praeger. Avruch, K. (1998). Culture and Conflict Resolution. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press. Avruch, K., and Black, P. W. (1991). The Culture Question and Intercultural Conflict Resolution. Peace and Change, 16(1), 22–45. Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities, First Edition. Barbara Tint. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bibliography

185

Baker Miller, J. (1995). Domination and Subordination. In P. Rothenberg (Ed.), Race, Class and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study (pp. 57–64). New York: St. Martin’s Press. Bar‐On, D. (1999). Children of Victims and Perpetrators of the Holocaust in Dialogue and Post‐Genocide Reconciliation Between Perpetrators and Victims as Seen by a Holocaust Researcher. In I. W. Charny (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Genocide (Vol. 1, pp. 142–147). Oxford: BC‐CLIO. Bar‐On, D. (2006). Tell Your Life Story: Creating Dialogue Among Jews and Germans, Israelis and Palestinians. Budapest, Hungary: Central European University Press. Barry, B. (2001). Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Cambridge: Polity. Bar‐Siman‐Tov, Y. (Ed.). (2004). From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation. New York: Oxford University Press. Bar‐Tal, D., and Bennink, G. (2004). The Nature of Reconciliation as an Outcome and as a Process. In Y. Bar‐Siman‐Tov (Ed.), From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation (pp. 11–38). New York: Oxford University Press. Baser, B., and Swain, A. (2008). Diasporas as Peacemakers: Third Party Mediation in Homeland Conflicts. International Journal on World Peace, 7(7), 7–28. Baskerville, R. F. (2003). Hofstede Never Studied Culture. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 28, 1–14. Benson, J. (1994). Reinterpreting Gender: Southeast Asian Refugees and American Society. In L. A. Camino and R. M. Krulfeld (Eds.), Reconstructing Lives, Recapturing Meaning: Refugee Identity, Gender, and Culture Change (pp. 75–96). Basel: Gordon and Breach. Bercovitch, J. (2007). A Neglected Relationship: Diasporas and Conflict Resolution. In H. Smith and P. B. Stares (Eds.), Diasporas in Conflict: Peace‐Makers or Peace‐Wreckers? (pp. 17–38). Tokyo and New York: United Nations University Press. Berry, J., and Sam, D. (1997). Acculturation and Adaptation. In J. Berry, M. Segal, and C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, Vol. 3: Social Behavior and Applications (pp. 291–326). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bloomfield, D., Barnes, T., and Huyse, L. (Eds.). (2003). Reconciliation After Violent Conflict. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Bohm, D. (1996). On Dialogue. New York: Routledge. Bohm, D., Nichol, L., and Senge, P. (2004). On Dialogue. London: Routledge Classics. Botcharova, O. (2001). Implementation of Track Two Diplomacy: Developing a Model of  Forgiveness. In R. Helmick and R. Peterson (Eds.), Forgiveness and Reconciliation (pp. 269–294). Radnor, PA: Templeton Foundation Press. Bouta, T., Kadayifci‐Orellana, S., and Abu‐Nimer, M. (2005). Faith‐Based Peace‐Building: Mapping and Analysis of Christian, Muslim and Multi‐Faith Actors. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations. Bradatan, C., Popan, A., and Melton, R. (2010). Transnationality as Fluid Social Identity. Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture, 16(2), 169–178. Brenner, Y. (2015, August 28). Refugees Struggle to Assimilate in Germany. Al Jazeera America. Retrieved November 28, 2015, from http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/ 2015/8/28/berlin‐germany‐europe‐refugees.html. Bridges, W. (1980). Transitions: Strategies for Coping with the Difficult, Painful, and Confusing Times in Your Life. Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley. Bryce‐Laporte, R. S. (1973). Black Immigrants. In P. I. Rose, S. Rothman, and W. J. Wilson (Eds.), Through Different Eyes: Black and White Perspectives on American Race Relations. London and New York: Oxford University Press.

186 Bibliography Busbridge, R., and Winarnita, M. (2015). Dialogue and Other “Men’s Business”: Gender, Conflict and Multicultural Politics in the Diaspora. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 36(2), 202–220. Busse, W., Emme, M., Gerut, R., and Lapidus, J. (1999). Descendants of the Holocaust Meet Descendants of the Third Reich: The One By One Dialogue Concept. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 39(2), 106–133. Cairns, E., and Roe, M. (Eds.). (2003). The Role of Memory in Ethnic Conflict. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Chaichian, M. (1997). First Generation Iranian Immigrants and the Question of Cultural Identity: The Case of Iowa. International Migration Review, 31(3), 612–627. Charny, J. (2009, June 22). World Refugee Day: Putting Host Communities Center Stage. Retrieved from http://reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/world‐refugee‐day‐putting‐host‐ communities‐center‐stage. Chinwe Nwoye, M. A. (n.d.). Role of Women in Peace Building and Conflict Resolution in African Traditional Societies: A Selective Review. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http:// www.afrikaworld.net/afrel/chinwenwoye.htm. Church, C., and Rogers, M. (2006). Designing for Results: Integrating Monitoring and Evaluation in Conflict Transformation Programs. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http:// www.sfcg.org/programmes/ilt/ilt_manualpage.html. Collier, P., and Hoeffler, A. (2004). Greed and Grievance in Civil War. Oxford Economic Papers, 56(4), 563–595. Compassionate Listening Project (n.d.). Retrieved June 19, 2016, from http://www.compas sionatelistening.org/. Corry, G. (2012). Political Dialogue Workshops: Deepening the Peace in Northern Ireland. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 30(1), 53–80. Davidheiser, M. (2006). Harmony, Peacemaking, and Power: Controlling Processes and African Mediation. (T. S. Jones, Ed.) Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 23(3), 281–299. Day, W. J., Bernard, J., and Smith, F. J. (1999). Baton Rouge: Dialogue on Race Relations. In H. Saunders, A Public Peace Process. New York: Palgrave. Dembinska, M., and Montambeault, F. (2015). Deliberation for Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Journal of Public Deliberation, 11(1), art. 12. De Vries, J., and Van Heck, G. L. (1994). Quality of Life and Refugees. International Journal of Mental Health, 23(3), 57–75. Díaz‐Rico, L. T., and Weed, K. Z. (2006). The Crosscultural, Language, and Academic Development Handbook (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Dimandja, A. L. (2004). The Role and Place of Women in Sub‐Saharan African Societies. Retrieved August 2, 2011, from http://www.globalaging.org/elderrights/world/2004/subsaharan.htm. The Do No Harm Project (2004). Do No Harm Handbook. Cambridge, MA: CDA Collaborative Learning Projects. Retrieved July 20, 2016, from http://www.globalprotectioncluster. org/_assets/files/aors/protection_mainstreaming/CLP_Do_No_Harm_Handbook_ 2004_EN.pdf. The Do No Harm Project (2007). Do No Harm Project Workbook. Cambridge, MA: CDA Collaborative Learning Projects. Retrieved June 18, 2016, from http://cdacollaborative. org/sdm_downloads/do-no-harm-project-trainers-manual-workbook-and-exercises/. Doe, S. G. (2009). Indigenizing Postconflict State Reconstruction in Africa: A Conceptual Framework. Africa Peace and Conflict Journal, 2(1), 1–16. Ellinor, L., and Gerard, G. (1998). Dialogue: Rediscovering the Transforming Power of Conversation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bibliography

187

Feller, A., and Ryan, K. (2012). Definition, Necessity, and Nansen: Efficacy of Dialogue in Peacebuilding. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 29(4), 351–380. Fisher, R. (2001). Social‐Psychological Processes in Interactive Conflict Analysis and Reconciliation. In M. Abu‐Nimer (Ed.), Reconciliation, Justice, and Coexistence: Theory and Practice (pp. 25–46). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Fitzduff, M. (2002). Beyond Violence: Conflict Resolution Process in Northern Ireland. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. Fomina, J. (2006). The Failure of British Multiculturalism: Lessons for Europe. Polish Sociological Review, 156, 409–424. Gopin, M. (1997). Religion, Violence and Conflict Resolution. Peace and Change, 22(1), 1–31. Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press. Grillo, R. (2010). British and Others: From “Race” to “Faith.” In S. Vertovec and S. Wessendorf (Eds.), The Multiculturalism Backlash: European Discourses, Policies and Practices (pp. 50–71). New York: Routledge. Gross Stein, J. (1996). Image, Identity and Conflict Resolution. In C. Crocker (Ed.), Managing Global Chaos. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press. Gustafson, D. T., and Iluebbey, V. (2013). “Traditional Discipline” or Domestic Violence: Participatory Action Research with a Sudanese Refugee Community. Journal of Cultural Diversity 20(2), 51–56. Gutmann, A. (1994). Multiculturalism and “The Politics of Recognition.” Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hajdukowski‐Ahmed, M., Khanlou, N., and Moussa, H. (2008). Not Born a Refugee Woman: Contesting Identities, Rethinking Practices. New York: Berghahn Books. Halabi, R. (2004). Reconstructing Identity Through the Encounter with the Other: The Facilitator Training Course. In D. Reich and R. Halabi (Eds.), Israeli and Palestinian Identities in Dialogue: The School for Peace Approach (pp. 79–96). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Helmick, R., and Peterson, R. (Eds.). (2001). Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Religion, Public Policy and Conflict Transformation. Radnor, PA: Templeton Foundation Press. Hicks, D. (2001). The Role of Identity Reconstruction in Promoting Reconciliation. In R. Helmick and R. Peterson (Eds.), Forgiveness and Reconciliation (pp. 129–149). Radnor, PA: Templeton Foundation Press. Hoffman, D. M. (1990). Beyond Conflict: Culture, Self, and Intercultural Learning in the U.S. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 275–299. Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1998). Masculinity and Femininity: The Taboo Dimensions of National Cultures. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2002). Dimensions Do Not Exist: A Reply to Brendan McSweeney. Human Relations, 55(11), 1–7. Home Office (2001). Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team. Chaired by Ted Cantle. London: Home Office. Retrieved June 18, 2016, from http:// image.guardian.co.uk/sys‐files/Guardian/documents/2001/12/11/communitycohe sionreport.pdf.

188 Bibliography Hopkins, N. (2008). Identity, Practice and Dialogue. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 363–368. Horst, C., Ezzati, R., Gugliemo, M., Mezzeti, P., Pirkkalainen, P., Saggiomo, V., Sinatti, G., and Warnecke, A. (2010). Participation of Diasporas in Peacebuilding and Development: A Handbook for Practitioners and Policymakers (pp. 1–63). Oslo: Peace Research Institute Oslo. Hubbard, A. (2001). Understanding Majority and Minority Participation in Interracial and Interethnic Dialogue. In M. Abu‐Nimer (Ed.), Reconciliation, Justice, and Coexistence: Theory and Practice (pp. 275–290). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Hume, S. (2008). Ethnic and National Identities of Africans in the United States. Geographical Review, 98(4), 496–512. Hume, S., and Hardwick, S. (2005). African, Russian and Ukrainian Refugee Resettlement in Portland, Oregon. Geographical Review, 95(2), 189–209. Hundt, D., and Bleiker, R. (2007). Reconciling Colonial Memories in Korea and Japan. Asian Perspective, 31(1), 61–91. Initiatives of Change. (n.d.). Building Trust Across the World’s Divides. Retrieved June 19, 2016, from http://us.iofc.org/hope‐in‐cities‐iofc. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (2007). Internal Displacement: Global Overview of Trends and Developments in 2006. Retrieved June 19, 2016, from http://www.internal‐ displacement.org/publications/2007/internal‐displacement‐global‐overview‐of‐ trends‐and‐developments‐in‐2006. Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together. New York: Crown Business. Jacobsen, K. (2001). The Forgotten Solution: Local Integration for Refugees in Developing Countries. New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 45. UNHCR Evaluation and Policy Unit. Retrieved June 18, 2016, from http://www.unhcr.org/research/ RESEARCH/3b7d24059.pdf. Johnson, F. (2013). Why Your Taxi Driver Is Smarter Than You Are. National Journal, 6. Joppke, C. (2004). The Retreat of Multiculturalism in the Liberal State: Theory and Policy. British Journal of Sociology, 55(2), 237–257. Joppke, C. (2009). Limits of Integration Policy: Britain and Her Muslims. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(1), 453–472. Kelman, H. (2001). The Role of National Identity in Conflict Resolution: Experiences from Israeli–Palestinian Problem‐Solving Workshops. In R. Ashmore, L. Jussim, and D. Wilder (Eds.), Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and Conflict Reduction (pp. 187–212). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kelman, H. (2004). Reconciliation as Identity Change: A Social Psychological Perspective. In Y. Bar‐Siman‐Tov (Ed.), Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation (pp. 111–124). Oxford: Oxford University Press. King, J. A., Morris, L., and Fitz‐Gibbon, C. (1987). How to Assess Program Implementation (CSE Program Evaluation Kit). London: Sage. Koser, K. (2003). New African Diasporas. New York: Routledge. Koyama, J. (2014). Constructing Gender: Refugee Women Working in the United States. Journal of Refugee Studies, first published online. doi: 10.1093/jrs/feu026. Kriesberg, L. (1998). Coexistence and the Reconciliation of Communal Conflicts. In E. Weiner (Ed.), The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence (pp. 182–198). New York: Continuum. Kroeber, A. L., and Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Harvard University Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology Papers, 47.

Bibliography

189

Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kymlicka, W. (1997). Do We Need a Liberal Theory of Minority Rights? Reply to Carens, Young, Parekh, and Forst. Constellations, 4(1), 72–87. Kymlicka, W. (1998). Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kymlicka, W. (2010). The Rise and Fall of Multiculturalism? In S. Vertovec and S. Wessendorf (Eds.), The Multiculturalism Backlash: European Discourses, Policies and Practices (pp. 32–49). New York: Routledge. Kymlicka, W., and Rubio Marin, R. (1999). Liberalism and Minority Rights, an Interview. Ratio Juris, 12(2), pp. 133–152. LeBaron, M. (2003). Bridging Cultural Conflicts: A New Approach for a Changing World. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass. LeBaron, M., and Pillay, V. (2006). Conflict Across Cultures. Boston: Intercultural Press. Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Lederach, J. (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace. Lederach, J. P., Neufeldt, R., and Culbertson, H. (2007). Reflective Peacebuilding: A Planning, Monitoring, and Learning Toolkit. Notre Dame, IN: Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. Liebkind, K. (2001). Acculturation. In R. Brown and S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Process (pp. 386–406). Oxford: Blackwell. Lin, K. M., Tazuma, L., and Masuda, M. (1979). Adaptation Problems of Vietnamese Refugees, Part I: Health and Mental Status. Archives of General Psychiatry, 36(9), 955–961. Lowenthal, D. (1972). West Indian Societies. New York: Oxford University Press. Lyons, T. (2004). Engaging Diasporas to Promote Conflict Resolution: Transforming Hawks into Doves. Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University. MacGinty, R. (2008). Indigenous Peace‐Making Versus the Liberal Peace. Cooperation and Conflict, 43(139), 139–163. Mahamoud, A. (2006). African Diaspora and Post‐Conflict Reconstruction in Africa. Strandgade, Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies. Martin, S. F. (2004). Refugee Women. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Masina, N. (2000). Xhosa Practices of Ubuntu for South Africa. In I. W. Zartman (Ed.), Traditional Cures for Modern Conflicts: African Conflict “Medicine” (pp. 169–182). Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Mayblin, L. (2008). Gender, Conflict and Migration. Journal of Refugee Studies, 2(1), 138–140. doi: 10.1093/jrs/fen005. McCabe, K. (2011, July). US in Focus: African Immigrants in the United States. Retrieved June  19, 2016, from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/african‐immigrants‐ united‐states/. McSpadden, L. A., and Moussa, H. (1993). I Have a Name: The Gender Dynamics in Asylum and in Resettlement of Ethiopian and Eritrean Refugees in North America. Journal of Refugee Studies, 6(3), 203–225. doi: 10.1093/jrs/6.3.203. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith  –  a Failure of Analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118.

190 Bibliography Modood, T. (1998). Anti‐Essentialism, Multiculturalism, and the “Recognition” of Religious Minorities. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6, 378–399. Montville, J. (1993). The Healing Function in Political Conflict Resolution. In D. Sandole and H. van der Merwe (Eds.), Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application (pp. 112–127). New York: Manchester University Press. Montville, J. (2001). Justice and the Burdens of History. In M. Abu‐Nimer (Ed.), Reconciliation, Justice, and Coexistence: Theory and Practice. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Mott, T. (2009). African Refugee Resettlement in the United States. El Paso: LFB Scholarly Publishing. Mugisha, B. (2010). Engendering Conflict Prevention and Peace Making in Africa: Putting Women and Women’s Rights First. Addis Ababa: Conference on Peace and Security in Africa, Institute for Security Studies. Murithi, T. (2006). African Approaches to Building Peace and Social Solidarity. African Journal on Conflict Resolution, 6(2), 9–34. Nagda, B. A., and Derr, A. S. (2004). Intergroup Dialogue: Embracing Difference and Conflict, Engendering Community. In W. Stephan and P. Vogt (Eds.), Education Programs for Improving Intergroup Relations: Theory, Practice, Research (pp. 133–151). New York: Teachers College Press. Nan, S. A. (2003). Formative Evaluation. In G. Burgess and H. Burgess (Eds.), The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project. Retrieved November 4, 2010, from http://www. beyondintractability.org/essay/formative‐evaluation. National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (n.d.). Retrieved June 19, 2016, from http://ncdd.org/. Neufeldt, R., Fast, L., Schreiter, R., Starken, B., MacLaren, D., and Cilliers, J. (2002). Peacebuilding: A Caritas Training Manual. Palazzo San Calisto: Caritas Internationalis. Ohanyan, A. (2012). Transfer Up or Down? Dialogue Groups Between Turkish and Armenian Communities in the United States. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 29(4), 433–460. Osland, J. S., and Bird, A. (2000). Beyond Sophisticated Stereotyping: Cultural Sensemaking in Context. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 65–79. Parekh, B. (1995). Cultural Pluralism and the Limits of Diversity. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 20(4), 431–457. Parekh, B. (1998). Cultural Diversity and Liberal Democracy. In G. Mahajan (Ed.), Democracy, Difference, and Social Justice (pp. 202–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parekh, B. (2000a). Rethinking Multiculturalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Parekh, B. (2000b). The Parekh Report: The Future of Multi‐Ethnic Britain. London: Profile Books. Park, C. (2005). Religion as a Meaning‐Making Framework in Coping with Life Stress. Journal of Social Issues, 61(4), 707–729. Park, C., and Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the Context of Stress and Coping. Review of General Psychology, 1(2), 115–144. Park, R. E., and Burgess, E. W. (1921). Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pennebaker, J., Paez, D., and Rime, B. (1997). Collective Memory of Political Events. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup Contact Theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. Phinney, J. S. (1998, December). Ethnic Identity and Acculturation. Paper presented at National Conference on Acculturation, University of San Francisco.

Bibliography

191

Phinney, J., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., and Vedder, P. H. (2001). Ethnic Identity, Immigration, and Well‐Being: An Interactional Perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 493–510. Pirkkalainen, P., and Mahdi, A. (2009). The Diaspora – Conflict – Peace – Nexus: A Literature Review. Diaspeace, Working Paper No. 1. Public Conversations Project. (n.d.). Retrieved June 19, 2016, from http://www.publiccon versations.org/. Public Dialogue Consortium (n.d.). Retrieved June 19, 2016, from http://publicdialogue.org/. Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG) (2009). Engaging Diaspora Communities in Peace Processes. Ohio: Public International Law and Policy Group. Rasmussen, J. (1997). Peacemaking in the Twenty‐First Century: New Rules, New Roles, New Actors. In W. Zartman and J. Rasmussen (Eds.), Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques (pp. 23–50). Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press. Reich, D., and Halabi, R. (Eds.). (2004). Israeli and Palestinian Identities in Dialogue: The School for Peace Approach. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Rinker Lass, C. (2009). Creating a Community Needs Assessment Process to Inform Dialogue Work Within African Diaspora Communities in Portland, OR. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Portland State University, Portland, OR. Rothman, J. (1997). Resolving Identity‐Based Conflict in Nations, Organizations and Communities. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass. Rouhana, N., and Korper, S. (1996). Dealing With Power Asymmetry: Dilemmas of Intervention in Asymmetrical Intergroup Conflict. Negotiation Journal, 12, 315–328. Said, A., Funk, N., and Kunkle, L. (2001). The Role of Faith in Cross‐Cultural Conflict Resolution. Retrieved July 1, 2011, from http://www.american.edu/sis/islamicpeace chair/upload/Role‐of‐Faith‐in‐Cross‐Cultural‐Conflict‐Resolution‐Said‐Funk‐ Kunkle‐Sept01.pdf. Saunders, H. (2001). A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to Transform Racial and Ethnic Conflicts. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Schoem, D., Hurtado, S., Sevig, T., Chesler, M., and Sumida, S. (2001). Intergroup Dialogue: Democracy at Work in Theory and Practice. In D. Schoem and S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace (pp. 1–22). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Scuzzarello, S. (2010). Migrants’ Integration in Western Europe: Bridging Social Psychology and Political Science. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 22(1), 1–19. Search for Common Ground (n.d.). Retrieved June 19, 2016, from https://www.sfcg.org/. Shuval, J. T. (2000). Diaspora Migration: Definitional Ambiguities and a Theoretical Paradigm. International Migration, 38(5), 41–57. Skrbiš, Z. (2007). The Mobilized Croatian Diaspora. In H. Smith and P. B. Stares (Eds.), Diasporas in Conflict: Peace‐Makers or Peace‐Wreckers? (pp. 218–238). Tokyo: United Nations University Press. Søndergaard, M. (1994). Hofstede’s Consequences: A Study of Reviews, Citations and Replications. Organisation Studies, 15, 447–456. Stains, R. (2012). Reflection for Connection: Deepening Dialogue Through Reflective Processes. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 30(1), 33–51. Stein, B. N. (1981). The Refugee Experience: Defining the Parameters of a Field Study. International Migration Review, 15(1/2), 320–330.

192 Bibliography Sustained Dialogue Institute (n.d.). Retrieved June 19, 2016, from http://sustaineddialogue.org/. Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. (1986). The Social Identity Theory of Inter‐Group Behavior. In S. Worchel and L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson Hall. Terrazas, A. (2009). US in Focus: African Immigrants in the United States. Retrieved July 1, 2011, from http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=719. Ting‐Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating Across Cultures. New York: Guilford Press. Ting‐Toomey, S., and Chung, L. (2005). What Are the Best Ways to Manage Intercultural Conflict? In S. Ting‐Toomey and L. Chung, Understanding Intercultural Communication. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing. Ting‐Toomey, S., and Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing Intercultural Conflicts Effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tint, B. (2009). Dialogue, Forgiveness and Reconciliation. In A. Kalayjian and R. Paloutzian (Eds.), Forgiveness, Reconciliation, and the Pathways to Peace (pp. 269–285). New York: Springer. Tint, B. (2010a). History, Memory and Intractable Conflict. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 27(3), 239–256. Tint, B. (2010b). History, Memory and Conflict Resolution: Research and Application. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 27(4), 369–399. Tipping, S. (2010). Meaningful Being: The Experience of Young Sudanese Australians. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Transitions Knowledge Bank (n.d.).Transitions: Sustaining Social Change. Retrieved July 24, 2011, from http://www.transitionandsocialchange.org/kb_home.shtml. Trujillo, M. A., Bowland, S. Y., Myers, L. J., Richards, P. M., and Roy, B. (2008). Recentering: Culture and Knowledge in Conflict Resolution. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Tutu, D. (1999). No Future Without Forgiveness. New York: Doubleday. Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive Culture. London: John Murray. UNHCR. (2002). Refugee Resettlement: An International Handbook to Guide Reception and  Integration. Retrieved June 19, 2016, from http://www.unhcr.org/uk/protection/ resettlement/4a2cfe336/refugee‐resettlement‐international‐handbook‐guide‐reception‐ integration.html. UNHCR. (2009). 2008 Global Trends: Refugees, Asylum‐Seekers, Returnees, Internally Displaced and Stateless Persons. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from http://www.unhcr. org/4a375c426.html. UNHCR (2010a). 2009 Global Trends: Refugees, Asylum‐Seekers, Returnees, Internally Displaced and Stateless Persons. Retrieved June 18, 2016, from http://www.unhcr.org/ uk/search?query=2009%20Global%20Trends. UNHCR. (2010b). Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Retrieved June 18, 2016, from http://www.unhcr.org/uk/protection/basic/3b66c2aa10/convention‐ protocol‐relating‐status‐refugees.html. UNHCR. (n.d.‐a). UNHCR Statistical Online Population Database: Sources, Methods and Data Considerations. Retrieved June 19, 2016, from http://www.unhcr.org/uk/statistics/ country/45c06c662/unhcr‐statistical‐online‐population‐database‐sources‐methods‐ data‐considerations.html. UNHCR. (n.d.‐b). UNHCR: About Us. Retrieved June 19, 2016, from http://www.unhcr.org/ uk/about‐us.html. Villa‐Vicencio, C., and Savage, T. (2001). Rwanda and South Africa in Dialogue: Addressing the Legacies of Genocide and a Crime Against Humanity. Rondebosch, South Africa: Institute for Justice and Reconciliation.

Bibliography

193

Volkan, V. D. (1997). Bloodlines: From Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Volkan, V., and Itzkowitz, N. (1994). Turks and Greeks: Neighbors in Conflict. Cambridgeshire, England: Eothen. Werner, K. (2010). Rediscovering Indigenous Peacebuilding Techniques: The Way to Lasting Peace? Africa Peace and Conflict Journal, 3(2), 60–73. White, I. (2003). Victim–Combatant Dialogue in Northern Ireland. In D. Bloomfield, T.  Barnes, and L. Huyse (Eds.), Reconciliation After Violent Conflict (pp. 89–96). Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Worchel, S. (2005). Culture’s Role in Conflict and Conflict Management: Some Suggestions, Many Questions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 739–757. World Bank (2011). Migration and Remittance Fact Book (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: World Bank. doi: 10.1596/978‐0‐8213‐8218‐9. Zartman, W. (2001). The Timing of Peace Initiatives: Hurting Stalemates and Ripe Moments. Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 1, 8–18. Zhou, M., and Bankston III, C. (1994). Social Capital of the Adaptation of the Second Generation: The Case of Vietnamese Youth in New Orleans. International Migration Review, 28(4), 821–845. Zuniga, X., and Nagda, B. (2001). Design Considerations in Intergroup Dialogue. In D. Schoem and S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace (pp. 306–327). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Index acculturation policy of segregation, 13 rejection, 14 supporting, xiv variation of degrees, 49 adaptation cultural, 49 patterns, 11–12 Africa House, xiii, xx–xxi, 44, 180 African collectivity, 56 cultural practices, integration with Western notions of dialogue and reconciliation, 59–60 diaspora in Portland, xiv, xxii diaspora in US, 14–15 elders, 56–7 ethnic communities in US, xiii face, honor and dignity, 59 facilitators, 82 faith, 57 gender, 58 peacemaking processes, 55–6 perspectives of transition and change, 37–9 ritual, 58 storytelling and song, 57

African Diaspora Dialogue Project (ADDP), see Diaspora Dialogue Project (DDP) age cultural issues, 80 evaluation questions, 137 make‐up of groups, 54, 99, 102, 107, 116, 167 role in adaptation patterns, 11–12 selection of participants, 43 teams for community conversations, 129 Transition Framework, 38 Andrus Family Fund (AFF), xii, xix–xx, 24 assimilation attitudes to, 10, 12–13, 54 British policies, 14 cultural, 11, 50 definition, 11 degrees of, 49, 61 processes, 49 social and cultural barriers, 11–16, 49 structural, 11 asylum seekers characteristics, 8 numbers, xix UNHCR role, 7–8

Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities, First Edition. Barbara Tint. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Index 195 Belgium, Burundian diaspora, 17–18 British society, 14 Burundi DDP participants, xxi, 89 diaspora dialogue, 17–18 facilitators from, 82 refugees from, xix, 177 change African perspectives, 37–9 Changes in Your World, 126 Common Reactions to Change, 125 community change processes, 32 dialogue, 64, 67, 73, 80 Endings, 26 evaluation, 133, 135, 136, 137, 141, 144 Neutral Zone, 27–9 New Beginnings, 29–31, 76 observer protocol, 159–61 peacebuilding processes, 54 process, xv social, 31, 171 term, 24 Transition Framework, 25–6, 36–7 Western concept, 37 Change vs. Transition, 25, 98 clans dialogue project, 177, 178 evaluation activities, 137 mediation, 179 Somali, 4, 20 Transition Framework, 181 collective communities, 44 cultures, 52–3 experiences, 65, 98 identity, 71, 105 inquiry, 64 memory, 69 mindset, 37 orientation, xv, 56 vision, 136, 140 collectivism, 52 community building, 64, 65 change processes, 31–2 conflict, 19

conversations, 129 elders, 59, 81 Fact‐Sheet, 142, 147–8 follow‐up, 129 host, 13, 15–16, 53, 170, 191 leaders, xiv, xv, 72, 76, 77, 81, 170, 171 needs assessment, xx–xxi, 42 Needs Assessment, 142, 149–55 reconciliation, 24, 26, 31–2, 70, 111, 127 strengths and challenges, 101 term, 94 conflict resolution African processes, 58 cultural impact on, 51–3 dialogue, 64 policy recommendations, 170 Congo DDP participants, xxi, 44, 89, 145, 173–74, 177 facilitators from, 82 problems, 20–2 refugees from conflict, xix, 2–3 cultural adaptation, 7, 49 African cultural practices and Western notions of dialogue, 59–60 barriers to assimilation, 11–16 identity, 9, 49 impact on conflict and conflict resolution, 51–3 issues in dialogue sessions, 80 understandings in dialogue and peacebuilding processes, 53–4 culture host, 8–9 impact, 60–1 perspectives on, 50–1 debriefing guidelines, 161 dialogue additional resources, 89 challenges to dialogue work, 76–7 Changes in Your World, 126 common group guidelines, 124 Common Reactions to Change, 125 creating community follow‐up, 129–30 cultural issues, 80

196 Index dialogue (cont’d) definition and principles, 63–5 diaspora communities, 77–8 document of consent, 118 facilitation, 78–80 facilitator(s), 81–2 facilitator guide for listening activity, 119–20 facilitator guide for questioning activity, 121–2 group composition, 83 history and, 71–2 identity and, 70–1 methods, 84–8 mid‐dialogue survey, 163 orientation session, 90–2 peacebuilding, 68–9 phases, 66–8, 66 planning considerations, 80–4 policy recommendations, 170 post‐dialogue interview questions, 165–8 post‐dialogue survey, 164 power and, 72–4 receptivity to, 45 reconciliation and, 74–6 refugee resettlement programs, 170 scheduling, 82–3 session #1 (group guidelines and participant goals), 93–4 session #2 (diaspora stories), 96–7 session #3 (transitions: individual and collective experience), 98–100 session #4 (community strengths and challenges), 101–2 session #5 (individual and group identities), 103–5 session #6 (perspectives on history), 106–8 session #7 (history and transition), 109–10 session #8 (community reconciliation and transitions), 111–12 session #9 (visioning the future), 113–14 session #10 (action plans: new beginnings), 115–17 tips for asking dialogic questions, 83–4

tips for using dialogue session templates, 88–9 transition and, 76 transitions and community reconciliation, 127–8 Dialogue vs. Debate, 123 diaspora conflicts within, 18–20 dialogue in diaspora communities, 77–8 dynamics, 8–11 Model of Diaspora Interconnectivity, 10 policy recommendations for role of diaspora populations, 171 relationship to home context, 16–18 term, 7 voices from within, 20–2 Diaspora Dialogue Project (DDP) achievements, xiv–xvi, xxii closing reflections, 177–83 document of consent, 118 origins, xix–xx stories, 173–75 Do No Harm Handbook, 133 education adaptation patterns, 11–12, 49 credentials, 12 critical‐dialogical, 64 levels, 12, 14, 17 opportunities, 10 women’s role, 58 elders communication with, xv, 42 facilitators, 81 gender, 58 policy recommendations, 171 power of, 52, 56–7, 74 selection of participants, 43, 59 employment, 12–13, 49 Endings, 26–7 indications that someone is at an Ending, 27 managing, 127 stage of transition in community stage processes, 32–3 supporting people through Endings, 27

Index 197 enemies, former, 18–19, 36–7, 46, 171, 173–74, 178 English as a Second Language (ESL), 13 ethnic affiliation, 44 identity, 8, 12 Europe, refugees, xix, 11, 15–16 evaluation challenges, 135, 137–8 community fact sheet, 147–8 community needs assessment, 149–55 DDP experience, 135–8 debriefing guidelines, 161 ethical duty to evaluate (do no harm), 133 facilitator reflection form, 162 final thoughts, 144–5 key issues, 132 key questions (what do we want to learn?), 133 methodologies, 134 mid‐dialogue survey, 163 note‐taking technique, 160–1 observation summary, 161 observer protocol, 159–61 planning for, 138–41 Planning Table, 139–40, 146 post‐dialogue interview questions, 165–8 post‐dialogue survey, 164 pre‐dialogue interview, 156–7 pre‐dialogue survey, 158 project activities and process, 132 project outcomes, 132 quality assurance, 134 recommendations and resources, 141–44 reflective practice, 133–34 strategies, 135 face, honor and dignity, 53, 59 facilitation, dialogue, xxi–xxii, 78–80 facilitators feedback loop, 140–41 in‐group, 45, 81 Guide for Listening Activity, 119–20 Guide for Questioning Activity, 121–2 observation/feedback, 143, 159–61 out‐group, 45, 61, 81–2

planning considerations, 80 reflection and evaluation, 67 Reflection Form, 144, 162 role, 53–4, 70, 73–4 selection, 77, 129, 137 tips for, 78–80, 83–4 training, xx, 77–8, 82, 89, 118, 181 faith, 57 Finland, Somali diaspora, 18 funding, policy recommendations, 170 gender dynamics, 8–11, 15, 58 selection of participants, 43, 83 shifting conceptualizations, 11, 13 Transition Framework, 38 Geneva Refugee Convention (1951), 7 genocide, xix, 2–3 ghettoization, 14 history dialogue and, 69, 71–2 perspectives on (dialogue session), 106–8 reconciliation, 75 rituals, 58 transition and (dialogue session), 109–10 homeland diaspora connections, 9, 13, 16–17 peacebuilding processes, 17–18, 19 host communities attitudes to, 13 culture, 8–9, 53 diaspora experiences, 49 engagement of, 171 refugee issues, 15–16 Hutu Diaspora Dialogue Project, 145, 160, 178 diaspora stories, 3, 21–2, 29 refugees, xix identity affiliations, 44, 61, 82 associations, 9 components, 80 cultural, 9, 49 dialogue and, 70–1 diaspora, 10, 18

198 Index identity (cont’d) ethnic, 8, 12 group, 34, 56, 72 individual and group (dialogue session), 103–5 letting go, 26 new, 27, 29 power and dialogue, 73 Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization (IRCO), xii–xiii, xix–xx immigrants assimilation issues, 9–10, 11–16, 49, 54 characteristics, 7 experiences, 25, 36–7 gender issues, 59 policy recommendations, 170 individualism, 51–3 integration of African cultural practices with Western notions, 59–60 attitudes to, 9, 13, 49 British policy, 14 challenges and obstacles, xv, 13, 16, 182 challenges in integrating Western and traditional practices, 60–1 cultural, 12, 50 of cultural understandings in dialogue and peacebuilding processes, 53–8 process for refugees, 49 supporting, xiv, xv, 18 theories, 11–12 internally displaced persons (IDPs), 7–8 language barrier, 12–13, 16, 38, 46 classes, 13, 49 selection of participants, 45 skills, 10–11 use of native languages, 81 Migration Policy Institute, 12 Model of Diaspora Interconnectivity, 9–10 multiculturalism, 14 nationality, 7, 44 Neutral Zone, 27–9 indications that someone is in the Neutral Zone, 28

navigating, 127 stage of transition in community stage processes, 33–4 supporting people through the Neutral Zone, 28–9 New Beginnings, 29–30 indications that someone is at a New Beginning, 29 stage of transition in community stage processes, 35 stories, 173–75 supporting, 127–8 supporting people in New Beginnings, 30 Northern Ireland, 17, 68 note‐taking technique, 160–1 observer protocol, 143, 159–61 role, 138, 140, 143–44, 159 peacebuilding dialogue, 63–4, 68–9 diaspora contribution, 17–18, 19 evaluation, 141 indigenous and traditional approaches, 54 integration of cultural understandings in peacebuilding processes, 53–4 reconciliation, 74–5 religion, spirituality and faith, 57 peacemaking within the African context, 55–9 Phases of Dialogue, 66 policy, recommendations for, 170–1 Portland State University Conflict Resolution Program (PSU CR), xiii, xix power community leaders, 171 dialogue and, 72–4 distance, 52–3 gender issues, 58 of elders, 56–7, 81 relationships, 44 race relations, 14–15, 68 reconciliation community reconciliation and transitions (dialogue session), 111–12 dialogue and, 74–6

Index 199 evaluation, 141 policy recommendations, 170, 171 role of diaspora communities, 17–18 transition and social change, 31 transitions and community reconciliation, 127–8 Western notions of, 59–60 within the African context, 55–8 recruitment of participants, 41 challenges, 45–6 consultation and research, 41–2 further recommendations, 46–7 outreach, 42–3 selection of participants, 43–5 refugees assimilation issues, 10–16, 49 camps, 3, 4, 7, 15–16, 39, 173 characteristics, 7–8 DDP model, xiv–xvi experiences, xvii–xviii, 25 numbers, xix, 8, 11 policy recommendations, 170 resentment towards, 16 resettlement issues, 7–8, 19, 170 social networks, 9 Transition Framework, 26–7 women, 15 ripeness, 44–5, 76, 136 ritual, 38, 54, 58, 88, 179 Rwanda DDP participants, xxi, 44, 89, 173–74, 177–8 diaspora stories, 20–2 facilitators from, 82 genocide, 2–3 peacebuilding dialogue, 68 refugees from, xix, 177 women’s roles, 58 segregation, 13–16, 49 social change policy recommendations, 171 transition and community reconciliation, 31–2 Transition Framework, 24 Somali Bantu, 21 clans, 4–5, 20

civil war, 4 conflict with Ethiopians, 20, 42 DDP participants, xxi, 42, 82, 175, 177–8 peacebuilding project, 18 refugees, 4, 9, 13 song, 57, 88 storytelling, 57, 60, 174 time, concept, 38, 51, 53, 83 transition African perspectives, 37–9 change vs., 24–5, 25 dialogue and, 76 movement, 30 order, 31 pace, 30–1 policy recommendations, 171 social change and community reconciliation, 31–2 stages in community change processes, 32–5 success, 31 term, 24 Western concept, 37 Transition Framework adapting, 60 adopted by AFF, xii, xx case study, 36–7 DDP use of, xv, xx, 24, 37–9 development, 25–6 Endings, 25, 26–7 Expanding Circle Model, 30, 98 importance of, 181–2 integration into dialogue process, 136 language issues, 61 Neutral Zone, 25, 27–9 New Beginnings, 25, 29–31 policy recommendations, 171 questions raised, 31 three stages, 25, 26 tribal affiliation, 44, 80, 83 leaders, 56–7 trust building, 52, 53, 135 Tutsi Diaspora Dialogue Project, 145, 177–8 diaspora stories, 2–3, 20–2 refugees, xix

200 Index Ubuntu, 55–6 UNHCR, 4, 7–8, 11 United States race relations, 14–15, 68 racial discrimination, 15 refugee numbers, 11, 13 refugee resettlement, 8, 13 Transition Framework, 38 voluntary resettlement agencies (VOLAGs), 11, 13

Western concepts of transition and change, 37 conflict resolution, 53, 54 integrating Western and traditional practices, 60 models of dialogue and reconciliation, 59–60