Page 383 - Mike Ratner CC - WISR Complete Dissertation - v6

Specifically, risk of perceived threats of harm, personal or otherwise, may have had an influence

on the composition of participants attending the dialogue. Risk was an issue articulated by some

respondents in making the decision to attend, and similarly speculated as a reason why more White

members of the community did not attend and why some community leaders, elected and non-

elected, were absent from the dialogue gathering. A threat is a direct display of power to influence

interaction and access to resources (Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 2013). Risk was also a factor in the

level of sharing among attendees of the dialogues on race.

Risk felt by dialogue group members for any reason, implies an imbalance in power

relationships (Folger et al., 2013) by those who felt that participation in the dialogues on race put

them at risk with some members of the local community. One dialogue respondent mentioned her

concerns about the possibility of retribution by members of the White community if it was known

that she attended the dialogues on race; she also indicated that African American participants were

probably unaware that sympathetic Whites were also subject to forms of discriminatory treatment.

Although she indicated an awareness of the threat of some level of retribution, it was not enough

to keep her from participating. Other White would-be participants may have had an interest in

participating, however were unable or unwilling to risk potential acts of retribution that may have

resulted if there was widespread knowledge of the identities of race dialogue attendees. This claim

has not been verified however none of the African American participants indicated feelings of fear

or risk associated with their participation in the dialogues on race. Nor did the interview questions

with participant volunteers address the issue of feelings of fear or risk.

The element of risk was minimized within the dialogues race by creating Metasphere in

which “voice” among all participants was valued through the process of creating safety within the

group, and skilled facilitation, even in instances of high emotion and disagreement. Dialogue

364