Page 360 - Mike Ratner CC - WISR Complete Dissertation - v6

information obtained from interviews with deliberative dialogue participants. The information and

insight gained by close examination of the moment was instrumental in discerning emergent

dimensions and their supporting properties relative to the facilitator and group perspectives.

In this chapter, theoretical propositions and supporting properties is explained and made

clear. The propositions in conjunction with existing literature are used to illustrate patterns derived

from the dimensions that explain new insights and understandings about how civic gatherings in

the in the publicly invited open format of Community Conversations promotes healing and new

understanding across privileged and racialized perspectives. Discussion of the four propositions

within the context of the literature of civic and deliberative dialogue is presented below.

Theoretical Propositions

Four theoretical propositions emerged based on dimensional analysis of an estimated 880

nodes that were reduced to 48 node categories. The node categories were further analyzed using

dimensional analysis (Schatzman, 1991). Using the perspectives of the dialogue participant,

dialogue facilitator and dialogue group (participants and facilitators) dimensions from the node

categories representing context, condition, and process and consequence/impact and next step

dimensions were identified. The resulting theoretical propositions are an extension of the matrices

developed in Chapter IV and abstract representations of the individual and collective experiences

of the dialogue participants. Matrices for the dimensions and properties for each of four

perspectives of dialogue attendees (participants, facilitators, group interactions and the overall

setting/Metasphere experience) permitted conceptualizing about the fundamental benefits of the

public sphere and the dialogue group as a vehicle for addressing complex social issues such as race

relations. The composition of the dialogue group structure lends itself to distinct perspectives and

three interrelated propositions convey that when strangers engage in face-to-face dialogue

341