Examples Of Prejudice In Australia

[Cori Lenon]

ClickAccept all cookies' to agree to all cookies that collect anonymous data. To only allow the cookies that make the site work, click 'Use essential cookies only.' Visit 'Set cookie preferences' to control specific cookies.

Having summarised some of the important theoretical contributions to prejudice-reduction, I will now present a summary of the main types of interventions with evidence on effectiveness, drawing on case studies and suggesting some principles which may be usefully applied elsewhere. Again it is vital to note that the case studies are not intended to be directly applicable to prejudice-reduction in Scotland. For instance, some of them talk about successful interventions to improve intergroup relations in post-conflict societies, which may be dealing with tensions that often spills over into actual (violent) conflict, and we may also assume that these are likely to be more 'reactive' than preventative. However, it may be appropriate to apply some of the 'universal principles' emerging from these to future strategies.

A mixture of lab-based interventions and evaluations of prejudice-reduction initiatives 'in the field' make up the growing literature on 'what works', however the majority of studies are controlled and experimental, have taken place in psychology laboratories, and often with psychology students as participants. Fewer studies take place in 'real-life', in schools or communities for example.

Unsurprisingly, education has long been a key area of interest for scholars in all disciplines who have looked at 'what works' to reduce prejudice. Educational prejudice-reduction initiatives build on contact theory through the premise that activities such as cooperative learning; discussion and peer influence; instruction; and multi-cultural curriculum will help to reduce prejudice in a way that contact alone might not be sufficient to. Educational initiatives are concerned with promoting positive relations through challenging stereotypes and 'myths' about out-groups. This may involve groups being in direct contact with each other, for example pupils from different faith schools taking part in shared learning, or peer discussion between different groups on topics that might be said to create divisions and tensions (such as certain historical events).

Some educational initiatives may draw on 'extended contact' principles such as empathy and perspective taking, and might take the form of vicarious/imagined contact. These techniques may be useful for more 'hidden minorities', and situations where direct contact is either impractical (for instance, when dealing with prejudice against transgender people, who make up a very small proportion of the population) or might prove problematic (such as in post-conflict societies).

This section of the report outlines various case studies of these principles being implemented in prejudice-reduction interventions. Although much of the existing research in this area is lab-based, there is value in also highlighting those interventions that were carried out and evaluated 'in the field'. The case studies selected were sampled from a large number of interventions, on the basis that they cover different international contexts, different age groups, and deal with different types of prejudice: as such, they are intended to be merely an indication of the types of studies that exist. The final point to make is that 'diversity training', in the sense of short-term initiatives which often take place in corporate workplaces, is dealt with in a separate section, as the principles discussed in this section tend to focus on mid-long term educational strategies, and tend to be aimed at younger people rather than adults.

A recent intervention with a rigorous longitudinal evaluation is the 'Promoting Reconciliation through a Shared Curriculum Experience Programme' report, published 2013. Undertaken by the Centre for Effective Education at Queens University Belfast, the study was a two-year evaluation of the above programme, which was designed to address the "propensity of teachers to avoid controversial issues relating to sectarianism and the conflicted past in Northern Ireland" (1). The study was a clustered randomised controlled trial involving 27 primary and secondary schools in Northern Ireland, with a total of 840 children taking part. 12 'lessons' were delivered (by teachers) over a 6 month period, and the evaluation included pre and post-test questionnaires, interviews with teachers, focus groups with students, and observations. The programme was carried out in a 'curriculum only' or 'contact & curriculum' basis, to test the 'contact' effect (shared learning) as well as the impact of talking about the issues.

Findings were positive, in terms of children learning about people from other religious backgrounds, and signs of improved intergroup relations. The role of the facilitator (the teacher) was noted as very important. The study seemed to show support for Walsh (1988) argument about critical thinking in education, as participants became more critical of the in-group (perhaps questioning old assumptions). The report claims that the intervention helped to challenge everyday understandings about 'outgroups', particularly in the context of Catholic-Protestant relations. This might support the argument that acknowledging and discussing historical events would be helpful in terms of breaking down existing barriers and challenging the residual prejudice apparently stemming from historical conflict and poor relations.

Some limitations were noted. Firstly there is a question over long-term impact, which is the case with virtually all studies of this type, even if they show encouraging results. Results from this study also suggested that effects were different when lessons were delivered in single group versus contact settings. 'Shared learning' involving contact between groups at times actually counteracted the benefits from the curriculum. This does not suggest that contact in general is not beneficial, however it may be that when confronting history and attempting to challenge prejudices against out-groups, there are advantages of delivering this in single settings. This question is worthy of future research, and where possible a balance should be sought.

Secondly, one concern raised by teachers taking part in the study in Northern Ireland was that by raising sectarianism as an issue, it could in a sense worsen the situation by creating a problem where one does not exist:

Some of the feedback included use of symbols that children may not understand, for example paramilitary symbols. There are challenges associated with this type of intervention, as there is danger of essentialising group categories (Bekerman & Zembylas 2011). Again this is something that has to be carefully considered when designing, implementing, and monitoring prejudice-reduction initiatives based on intergroup theories. It would suggest that regular feedback is sought as part of on-going evaluation of projects, and acted upon when necessary in terms of changing content or delivery style. Notwithstanding the risks associated with transferring any policy from one jurisdiction to another, some of the principles raised in this intervention might be useful if applied carefully elsewhere.

Unsurprisingly, many of the key prejudice-reduction interventions have taken place in areas in which ethnic or other prejudice results in or is exacerbated by overt conflict, or at least has done in recent times. As such, quite a lot of literature on the topic of teaching history / education focuses on post-conflict settings. In relation to contexts with less overly problematic intergroup relations, such as Scotland, we of course have to be wary of what conclusions might be drawn from 'what works' in these settings, however there may be useful strategies that could help to influence prejudice-reduction initiatives more broadly.

With findings published in 2008, 'Enabling Adolescents in Culturally Diverse Environments to Peacefully Resolve Ethnic Group Conflicts' was a project based on the idea that change is best delivered through small groups. The project brought different ethnic groups together at two diverse Midwestern High Schools in the United States[2]. The programme was designed to maximise the benefits and diffuse the potential risks of contact, based on 'intergroup dialogue programmes' combined with 'conflict mediation'. Over a three-year period and with a total of 178 participants, school students explored dynamics of intergroup relations (in their own school and with another school) by exploring stereotypes, and examining their attitudes towards others and vice versa. The project evaluation was based on pre and post-test surveys, as well as qualitative interviews. Among the key findings was a reduction in prejudiced attitudes and stereotypes, reports of new friendships, and more knowledge. The authors note that crucial to the success of the intervention was careful choice of facilitators; involving those who had previously completed the programme to help run it the following year; careful attention to feedback; and the collaboration of researchers, practitioners (in this case teachers), and participants (in this case students).

In the same volume, Bargal (2008) describes the effects of an intervention with Israeli and Arab youth in Israel, which focused on reducing conflict and negative stereotypes between the two groups. Like the Michigan University project outlined above, the intervention was based on the principles of Lewin's 'reeducation' theory. Youth from both groups were recruited to participate in a three-day conflict management workshop, and participants dealt with issues such as intergroup conflict, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Central to the intervention was discussion of the complexity of the Arab-Jewish conflict, and the opportunity for both groups to discuss their personal experiences of living with conflict. According to Bargal, group facilitators played a crucial role:

3a8082e126