Page 365 - Mike Ratner CC - WISR Complete Dissertation - v6

Table 5.1

Profile of Dialogue Attendees: Please note the first CC session (S1) did not include any dialogues

Session (S) Number of Race/Ethnicity

Dialogue Attendees African White Bi-Racial/ Male Female
(D) Surveyed American Multiracial

S1D0 14 6 6 2 4 10
S2D1 22 10 9 3 8 14

S3D2 12 8 2 2 5 7

S4D3 7 4 1 2 2 5
S4D4 10 5 2 3 4 6

Session four (S4) is shaded because that CC evening hosted 2 dialogues as the series wrapped-up.

As shown above in Table 5.1, in each of the Albany NY CC dialogue sessions, the number

of women exceeded the number of men and similarly, the number of minorities, specifically

African Americans, equaled or outnumbered White participants. The literature on intergroup

contact is instructive about issues of safety and types of people, by race, exhibiting safety with

respect to participating in civic dialogues on the topic of race (Allport, 1954; Amir, 1969).

Concern about feelings and perceptions of safety for the potential attendees by conveners

is crucial to selecting a space for discussing sensitive topics. While Saunders (1999) advocates the

use of neutral places that are far away, yet known to a potential audience of participants, proximity

and ease of access was a prime consideration in convening the dialogues on implicit bias in Albany.

Ideally, both parties (participants and conveners) to the dialogue should agree on the

meeting location (Block, 2008; Neal & Neal, 2011; Saunders, 1999). In practice, it is not always

possible for the conveners to select venues that will assure a high degree of comfort level for every

attendee. Therefore, the dialogue space may unintentionally contribute to feelings of unease for

346