Gordon Allport formalized a theory about intergroup contact, positing that contact between dissimilar groups could be effective in reducing intergroup prejudice. Over half a century later, research suggests that engaging in race talk —conversations about race and racism— can offer benefits such as increased racial literacy and critical consciousness, less intimidation when it comes to addressing race, less fear of differences, and a greater appreciation for people of all cultures and communities. However, race can be a difficult topic to discuss. It typically incites strong emotions, often challenges an individual's lived reality, and triggers anxiety and discomfort for conversational participants. While these barriers to race talk have been well-studied with White participants, little empirical work has been conducted with people of color as a focus. The present study utilized a qualitative, focus-group based methodology with grounded theory analyses to gather information on people of color's barriers to race talk. Results suggest that varied interpersonal contexts — such as when talking to White individuals, other people of color from different racial groups, and their own race— elicit differing levels of comfort and subsequent changes to engagement in race talk. Furthermore, intersecting identities such as gender, sexual orientation, and skin tone further affect people of color's comfort in race talk engagement. Lastly, participants offer insight into race talk strategies that can be used to foster more helpful, respectful, and mutually beneficial race talk.

This study examines the dialogic approach of the Indian-born educational philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895 – 1986), who had developed his own unique approach to dialogue with small groups. The research considered two questions. First, whether Krishnamurti’s dialogic approach is one that could be described by specific strategies and techniques; and second, whether this approach and its strategies and techniques could be adapted, adopted, or emulated for use in higher education. In Chapter One of the paper, Krishnamurti’s general philosophy and his specific philosophy of education are reviewed, with the aim of placing his dialogic approach within the context of his educational philosophy. The second chapter addresses the study’s research questions by presenting a two-part analysis of a transcript of the one-hour dialogue that took place in California in 1981 between Krishnamurti and six American college students. First, even though he used no notes and no lesson plan, the thematic content analysis of this particular dialogue shows that relevant content had in fact been covered and learned, and that this content had emerged as a consequence of Krishnamurti’s direction as a facilitator of learning. Second, specific strategies and techniques employed by Krishnamurti in this dialogue were identified and described, with specific examples as presented from the transcript. The third chapter explores the context of Krishnamurti’s approach within a recent developing trend in educational philosophy; a trend described as holistic and transformative, focused as it is on encouraging change in learners’ thinking about concepts, rather than on transmitting knowledge from educators to learners. This exploration is done by describing several existing examples of holistic and transformative educational approaches. Some of these described existing approaches are expressly informed by Krishnamurti’s educational philosophy, while others, though not expressly informed by Krishnamurti, are nonetheless consistent with his approach. In the final chapter, it is proposed that the analysis of the dialogue in Chapter Two and the comparative context analysis in Chapter Three show that Krishnamurti’s dialogic approach both fits well within the general direction and nature of this existing and developing holistic and transformative trend in the philosophy of education, on the one hand, and is also uniquely distinguishable from existing approaches in meaningful ways, on the other. Chapter Four concludes, then, as a result, that Krishnamurti’s approach can be adapted, emulated, or adopted for beneficial results in higher education. / Graduate

How do people manage disagreements in conversation? Previous studies of dialogue have shown that the interactional consequences of disagreement are not straightforward. Although often interpreted as face-threatening when performed in an unmitigated manner, disagreement can also encourage novel contributions. This thesis explores how systematically altering the presentation of someone's stance influences the deliberative potential of a dialogue. A corpus analysis of ordinary conversations shows that exposed disagreement occurs rarely, but that speakers can signal a potentially adversarial position in a variety of other ways. One of the most interesting among these is the way people mark their rights to speak about something. Resources such as reported speech and prefacing incongruent content with discourse markers (e.g. 'well') can be important to the management of interpersonal factors. The idea that disagreement is problematic but also useful for deliberation is examined. Using a method that allows fine-grained manipulations of text based dialogues in real-time, agreement and disagreement fragments are inserted into a discussion dialogue. The findings show that inserting exposed disagreement violates the conventions of polite dialogue leading participants to put more effort into the production of their replies, and does not improve levels of deliberation. This raises the question of whether manipulating apparent degrees of speaker commitment might be more important for influencing the quality of deliberation. An experiment was devised which presented oppositional content with differing degrees of 'knowingness'. The findings indicate that marking stance as knowing leads to less guarded exchanges, but does not increase deliberation. Conversely, framing statements as less knowing increases the likelihood that participants consider more alternative viewpoints, thus increasing the deliberative quality of a dialogue. Potential applications include training guidelines for professionals developing tools to support considered debate. Implications for computational argumentation studies include the importance of interpersonal dynamics and stance construction for formulating polite arguments.

This thesis examines the double-voiced representations of disability and illness in several works by Montgomery, the <i>Emily</i> trilogy (1923, 1925, 1927), the novel <i>The Blue Castle </i>(1926), the novella <i>Kilmeny of the Orchard </i>(1910), and two short stories, <i>The Tryst of the White Lady</i> (1922) and <i>Some Fools and a Saint</i> (published in 1931 but written in 1924). Although most of Montgomerys fiction in some way discusses illness and disability, often through secondary characters with disabilities, these works in particular feature disability as a central issue and use their heroes and heroines disabilities to impel the plots. While with one voice these works comply with conventional uses of disability in the love story genre, with another they criticize those very conventions. Using disability theory to analyze the fictions double voice, my thesis reveals that the ambiguity created by the internal conflict in the texts evades reasserting the binary relationship which privileges ability and devalues disability. <p> This thesis uses disability theory to examine the double-voiced representation of disability in the fiction of L.M. Montgomery. Bakhtin describes the double voice as an utterance which has two speakers at the same time and expresses simultaneously two different intentions: the direct intention of the character who is speaking and the refracted intention of the author (324). In this thesis, however, I perceive the double voice not as the difference between the voices of the speaking character or narrator and of the authors intention. Instead, I will approach the double voice as simultaneous expressions of conflicting representations, whether or not the author intends them. These voices within the double voice internally dialogue with each other to reflect changing social attitudes toward disability. By applying disability theories, such as those by critics David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder, Susan Sontag, Martha Stoddard Holmes, and Rosemarie Garland Thomson, that assess how texts invoke disability as a literary technique, this thesis shows that the narrative structure of Montgomerys fiction promotes the use of disability as a literary and social construct, while its subtext challenges the investment of metaphoric meaning in disability.

This thesis examines the double-voiced representations of disability and illness in several works by Montgomery, the <i>Emily</i> trilogy (1923, 1925, 1927), the novel <i>The Blue Castle </i>(1926), the novella <i>Kilmeny of the Orchard </i>(1910), and two short stories, <i>The Tryst of the White Lady</i> (1922) and <i>Some Fools and a Saint</i> (published in 1931 but written in 1924). Although most of Montgomerys fiction in some way discusses illness and disability, often through secondary characters with disabilities, these works in particular feature disability as a central issue and use their heroes and heroines disabilities to impel the plots. While with one voice these works comply with conventional uses of disability in the love story genre, with another they criticize those very conventions. Using disability theory to analyze the fictions double voice, my thesis reveals that the ambiguity created by the internal conflict in the texts evades reasserting the binary relationship which privileges ability and devalues disability. <p> This thesis uses disability theory to examine the double-voiced representation of disability in the fiction of L.M. Montgomery. Bakhtin describes the double voice as an utterance which has two speakers at the same time and expresses simultaneously two different intentions: the direct intention of the character who is speaking and the refracted intention of the author (324). In this thesis, however, I perceive the double voice not as the difference between the voices of the speaking character or narrator and of the authors intention. Instead, I will approach the double voice as simultaneous expressions of conflicting representations, whether or not the author intends them. These voices within the double voice internally dialogue with each other to reflect changing social attitudes toward disability. By applying disability theories, such as those by critics David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder, Susan Sontag, Martha Stoddard Holmes, and Rosemarie Garland Thomson, that assess how texts invoke disability as a literary technique, this thesis shows that the narrative structure of Montgomerys fiction promotes the use of disability as a literary and social construct, while its subtext challenges the investment of metaphoric meaning in disability.

Spiritan Life No. 04 -- December 1991 -- Mission Sources Justice and Peace Number 4 -- CONTENTS -- Foreword – (pg 5) -- "Practical Union", by Maurice Gobeil -- (pg 7) -- Theft of the Vision Quest, by Dermot McLoughlin -- (pg 19) -- Missionary and Mission, by Eugene Uzukwu -- (pg 29) -- Blessings or Curses?, by Joseph Harris -- (pg 43) -- What does the 500th Anniversary mean to us Spiritans? by John Kilcrann -- (pg 53) -- The 5th Centenary of Evangelisation, by Jesus Cabellos -- (pg 65) -- A Spiritan in Mexico considers, by Antoine Mercier -- (pg 75) -- Evangelisation and Religions in Dialogue in Mauritius, by Raymond Zimmermann -- (pg 87) -- About the Chapter..., by Georges Thibault -- (pg 99) -- Challenges of the Changed Times -- (pg 103) -- Spiritan Life Reviews -- (pg 105) -- Other Spiritan Publications -- (pg 107)

Texte remanié de: Tesi--Torino, 1998. / Bibliogr. p. 221-239. Notes bibliogr. Index.

Texte remanié de: Th. doct.--Litt. française--Paris 3, 2000. Titre de soutenance : Le roman dialogué après 1950 : poétique d'un genre hybride. / Bibliogr. p. 405-427. Index.

Diss.--Rom--Pontificio istituto biblico, 1997. / Bibliogr. p. 365-405. Index.

Texte remanié de: Habilitationsschrift--Fachbereich Evangelische Theologie--Hamburg--Universität, 2000. / Bibliogr. p. 373-403.