By Jill Kochanek A DISSERTATION DIALOGUE IN ATHLETICS: A PROGRAM EVALUATION OF A SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATION INITIATIVE IN SPORTS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Kinesiology—Doctor of Philosophy 2021 DIALOGUE IN ATHLETICS: A PROGRAM EVALUATION OF A SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATION INITIATIVE IN SPORTS PUBLIC ABSTRACT By Jill Kochanek Inclusive spaces and relationships that honor youth athletes’ unique identities are vital to ensure adaptive sport experiences (e.g., Coakley, 2016; Kochanek & Erickson, 2019a). With over 60 million youth participating in organized sport in the United States, efforts to make sure that sport is a positive developmental experience are worthwhile (National Council of Youth Sports, 2008). While youth athletes and sport coaches/administrators need to possess awareness and skills to foster inclusive sport environments and act as agents who can contribute to positive individual and social change, there are a lack of developmental programs that help youth and adult stakeholders develop with such critical competencies and evaluation research that assesses the efficacy of such initiatives. One promising evidence-based approach to social justice education in athletics is intergroup dialogue. Intergroup dialogue brings together individuals with different social identities to build their awareness and capacities to promote inclusion and social justice (Gurin, Nagda, & Zúñiga, 2013). The purpose of this dissertation was to provide a preliminary evaluation of a (3-week) sport-specific program, Dialogue in Athletics, that used intergroup (race) dialogue to address this critical need. The author (who was program facilitator and evaluator) delivered and assessed the efficacy of Dialogue in Athletics within one interscholastic sports community context: Sowers School (pseudonym). A utilization-focused evaluation framework (Patton, 2011) guided the assessment of program efficacy among Sowers student-athletes and coaches/administrators. This framework required engaging key community decision-makers (i.e., intended users) to support use of the evaluation findings. Thus, the author worked collaboratively with intended users throughout this project to define evaluation purposes and ensure that the evaluation met their informational/practical needs. The key purposes were to assess the impact of dialogue programming based on participants’ improvements in relevant (intergroup) learning outcomes (i.e., satisfaction, awareness, attitudes, and skills), and processes (i.e., program features) salient to participants’ learning experience. A mixed methods convergent evaluation design was used to collect data at the session-specific, pre/post-program, and follow-up time points. Results showed that student-athletes (n=7) and coaches/administrators (n=13) were satisfied with their program experience. Integrated analyses of quantitative and qualitative data revealed that coaches/administrators showed more marked increases in critical awareness and skills development/transference relative to student-athletes who showed some, though less pronounced, gains following the program. Results revealed favorable shifts in participants’ attitudes (i.e., increases in their valuing, confidence, and intentions to take dialogue-related action), with some variation between youth and adults. Participants emphasized the experiential practice of dialoguing with others in a supportive, small group setting as meaningful to their learning. Results on participants’ program process made visible various sources of discomfort, barriers to learning transference, and sources of support related to participants’ learning. From these findings, the author presents a formative judgment of Dialogue in Athletics and programmatic/evaluation recommendations for Sowers. This manuscript concludes with a general discussion of this project’s contribution to youth development through sport in research and practice. ABSTRACT DIALOGUE IN ATHLETICS: A PROGRAM EVALUATION OF A SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATION INITIATIVE IN SPORTS By Jill Kochanek Inclusive spaces and relationships that honor athletes’ unique identities are vital to ensure adaptive sport experiences (e.g., Kochanek & Erickson, 2019a, 2019b). And, the increasing diversity of sport stakeholders and rising visibility of athlete activism a part of the burgeoning Black Lives Matter movement have made visible how sport and social justice-related issues are inseparable (Cooky, 2017). While the current context demands that student-athletes and coaches possess critical capacities that support inclusion and contest discrimination, prevalent approaches to youth development through sport offer little guidance for how to proactively address broader social issues (e.g., racism), and empower youth participants and coaches/administrators as positive change agents. Kochanek and Erickson (2019a, 2019b) also identified the lack of developmental programs to help stakeholders develop such critical competencies and evaluation research that assesses the efficacy of such initiatives. One promising research-informed approach to social justice education in athletics is intergroup dialogue. Intergroup dialogue brings together individuals with different social identities to build their awareness and capacities to promote inclusion and social justice (Gurin, Nagda, & Zúñiga, 2013). The purpose of this dissertation was to provide a preliminary evaluation of a (3-week) sport-specific program, Dialogue in Athletics, that used intergroup (race) dialogue to address this gap in youth sport research and practice. The author (who was program facilitator and evaluator) delivered and assessed the efficacy of Dialogue in Athletics within one interscholastic sports community context: Sowers School (pseudonym). A utilization-focused evaluation framework (Patton, 2011) guided the assessment of program efficacy among Sowers student-athlete and coaches/administrators. This framework required engaging key community decision-makers (i.e., intended users) with the aim of supporting use of the evaluation findings. Thus, the author worked collaboratively with intended users throughout this project to define evaluation purposes and ensure that evaluation met their informational/practical needs. The key purposes were to assess the impact of dialogue programming based on participants’ improvements in relevant (intergroup) learning outcomes (i.e., satisfaction, awareness, affect, and skills transference), and processes (i.e., program features) salient to participants’ learning experience. A quasi- experimental, mixed methods convergent evaluation design was used to collect data at the session-specific, pre/post-program, and follow-up time points. Results showed that student-athletes (n=7) and coaches/administrators (n=13) were satisfied with their program experience. Integrated analyses revealed that coaches/administrators showed more marked increases in critical awareness and skills development/transference relative to student-athletes who showed some, though less pronounced, gains following the program. Participants showed favorable affective shifts (i.e., increases in their valuing, confidence, and intentions to take dialogue-related action), with some variation between youth and adults. Participants emphasized the experiential process/practice of dialoguing with others in a supportive, small group setting as meaningful to their learning. Results on participants’ program process showed various sources of discomfort, barriers to learning transference, and sources of support related to their learning. From these findings, the author presents a formative judgment of Dialogue in Athletics and programmatic/evaluation recommendations for Sowers. This manuscript concludes with a general discussion of this project’s contribution to youth development through sport praxis. Copyright by JILL KOCHANEK 2021 "Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better." -Dr. Harold Saunders -Maya Angelou “Dialogue is a process of genuine interaction through which human beings listen to each other deeply enough to be changed by what they learn.” This dissertation is dedicated to our on-going commitment to listen deeply to, learn from and be better for one another. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge all those who have supported me along my doctoral journey to help me grow as a scholar-practitioner. To my advisor, Karl: Thank you for encouraging me to believe in my abilities to turn half-formed thoughts into things—research as action that can make a difference. Your unconditional autonomy-supportive ‘nudges’ have been a gift. I promise to pass along your supportive advice to my future advisees/mentees: There will never a perfect study or project, and that’s the point. The point is progress. We shouldn’t let the illusion of perfection get in the way of taking practically meaningful action! To the community partner, reconnecting with the school that inspired me to pursue a career in the area of sport psychology has been a privilege. And, I am grateful to my co- facilitator—Vida. Just as you did when I was your coach, you continue to inspire me to be better. To ISYS ‘research hub’ graduate student teammates and faculty mentors, I have learned a great deal from all of you. I am crossing the dissertation finish line because of your wisdom and selflessness. A special thank you to Lauren Secaras for her adept interview/critical friend abilities and Kylee Ault for giving this paper a final review with a critical eye and kind heart. To my committee members (Andy, Janet, Soma, and Andrew), thank you for your mentorship. Your supportive presence and critical insights have been instrumental to my growth. To my Mom, Dad, Stan, and Ashley, I am grateful for your love and regular check-ins along the way. You can rest assured that—as the sole representative of the ‘soft’ sciences—I will continue to bring sport and social justice-related topics into our ‘hard scientific’ medical conversations at the dinner table. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Positive Youth Development Social Justice Youth Development Recent Evolutions in Positive Youth Development Positive Youth Development through Sport Prevalent Perspective on PYD through Sport and Social Issues Prevalent PYD through sport theory Mainstream PYD through sport programs Coaching for PYD through sport and social issues Critical Perspectives and Research on Sport and Social Issues Social issues and student-athlete experiences Social issues and student-athlete activism Social issues and youth sport coaching An Intergroup Dialogue Approach Background Theoretical framework Key pedagogical elements Intergroup dialogue processes Intergroup outcomes Supportive research Research on intergroup outcomes Research on intergroup processes Rationale for Evaluation CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY Research as Praxis Program Evaluation Theory of Evaluation Utilization-Focused Evaluation Fitting theory to the evaluation context Evaluation Purposes CHAPTER 4: METHODS vii xi xii 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 20 22 23 25 25 27 28 30 31 32 34 34 36 38 38 39 41 42 43 45 46 Phase 1: Prepare Reflexive process Program context Phase 2: Frame Phase 3: Implement and Collect Participants Dialogue in Athletics program Evaluation design Instruments Evaluation process use Impact measures Color-blind racial attitudes scale (CoBRAS) Scale of Ethnocultural empathy (SEE) Behavioral intentions for intergroup collaboration Process measures Communication processes survey Session-level surveys Follow-up interviews Phase 4: Analyze and Support Use Analysis of quantitative data Qualitative analytical approach Analysis of open-ended survey questions and follow-up interviews Disconfirming evidence Use of critical friends Integration of quantitative and qualitative data Intended user input from interim report Reactions Suggestions Evaluation considerations CHAPTER 5: RESULTS Summary of Results for Coaches/Administrators Coach and Administrator Participant Demographics Coach and Administrator Participants: Program Impact (Purpose 1) Program satisfaction Awareness Personal awareness Interpersonal awareness Critical awareness Ethnocultural empathy (outcome measure) Mixed methods results for critical awareness Affective components Adopting a ‘brave’ mindset Valuing of and confidence to take dialogue-related action Intentions to engage in intergroup action viii 49 51 53 54 56 57 57 61 65 66 66 66 67 69 70 70 71 73 74 75 76 78 80 80 82 84 85 86 87 88 88 89 90 90 91 91 92 93 94 95 99 99 100 102 Intentions to engage in intergroup collaboration (outcome measure) Mixed methods results for intentions to engage in intergroup action Developing skills and skills transference Coach and Administrator Dialogue Group: Program Processes (Purpose 2) Communication processes Mixed methods results for communication processes Facilitative program features Challenging aspects of adult participants’ learning experiences General discomfort Racial discomfort Participant-Context Considerations (Purpose 1 and 2) Individual barriers to apply learning Institutional barriers and sources of support Suggestions to improve the program Summary of Results for Student-Athletes Student-Athlete Participant Demographics Student-Athlete Participants: Program Impact (Purpose 1) Program satisfaction Awareness Personal awareness Interpersonal awareness Critical awareness Ethnocultural empathy (outcome measure) Mixed methods results for critical awareness Affective components Valuing of and confidence to take dialogue-related action Viewing dialogue-related skills as useful to sports Intentions to engage in intergroup action Intentions to engage in intergroup collaboration (outcome measure) Mixed methods results for intentions to engage in intergroup action Developing skills and skills transference General use of skills Skills transference Student-Athlete Dialogue Group: Program Processes (Purpose 2) Communication processes Mixed methods results for communication processes Facilitative program features Challenging aspects of youth participants’ learning experiences Participant-Context Considerations (Purposes 1 and 2) Barriers to apply learning and sources of support Individual barriers Institutional barriers and sources of support ix 102 103 106 108 109 110 112 113 113 114 115 115 116 117 119 119 120 120 121 121 122 124 125 125 130 131 133 135 135 136 139 140 142 144 144 146 149 150 152 152 152 153 Suggestions to improve the program CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION Evaluation Purposes Program impact Program satisfaction Critical awareness Affective components Valuing and confidence to take dialogue-related action Viewing dialogue-related skills as useful to sports Intentions to take social justice action Ambiguity/ambivalence toward social justice action Skills development and skills transference Skills transference among coaches/administrators Skills transference among student-athletes Communication processes Program features a part of participants’ learning process Supplemental initiatives as supportive of participants’ learning process Program processes Supporting use through the evaluation process Formative Judgments and Recommendations Formative judgments Future recommendations and considerations Limitations of the Evaluation Future Evaluation Directions for Sowers School Contributions to the Youth Development through Sport Literature Implications for Youth Development through Sport Theory and Research Practical Implications for Decision-makers and Leaders in Sports Appendix A: Instrument 1: Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS) Appendix B: Instrument 2: Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy (SEE) Appendix C: Instrument 3: Behavioral Intentions for Intergroup Collaboration Appendix D: Instrument 4: Communication Processes Appendix E: Session-specific Assessment Items Appendix F: Participant Follow-up Interview Protocol Appendix G: Means and Standard Deviations for Intergroup Learning Outcome Measures 154 156 156 156 156 157 160 160 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 169 170 172 173 175 176 179 182 186 188 192 193 195 196 197 199 200 201 205 206 207 APPENDICES REFERENCES x LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Dialogue in Athletics Logic Model Table 2. Dialogue in Athletics Objectives and Activities by Session Table 3. Dialogue in Athletics Session Outcomes, Objectives, and Assessment Table 4. Definition of Sensitizing Concepts Used in Coding Table 5. Pre/Post-Program Mean Differences in Ethnocultural Empathy Subscales among Coaches and Administrators Table 6. Mixed Methods Comparison of Critical Awareness among Coaches and Administrators Table 7. Pre/Post-Program Mean Differences in Behavioral Intentions for Intergroup Collaboration among Coaches and Administrators Table 8. Mixed Methods Comparison of Behavioral Intentions for Intergroup Action among Coaches and Administrators Table 9. Mean Scores for Communication Processes Contributing to Coaches’ and Administrators’ Learning Table 10. Mixed Methods Comparison of Communication Processes among Coaches and Administrators Table 11. Pre/Post-Program Mean Differences in Ethnocultural Empathy Subscales among Student-Athletes Table 12. Mixed Methods Joint Comparison of Critical Awareness among Student-Athletes Relative to Coaches/Administrators Table 13. Pre/Post-Program Mean Differences in Behavioral Intentions for Intergroup Collaboration among Student-Athletes Table 14. Mixed Methods Comparison of Behavioral Intentions for Intergroup Action among Student-Athletes Table 15. Mean Scores for Communication Processes Contributing to Student- Athletes’ Learning Table 16. Mixed Methods Comparison of Communication Processes among Student-Athletes Table 17. Formative Judgments and Justifications of Dialogue in Athletics xi 50 59 72 79 95 96 103 103 110 111 125 127 136 137 145 148 177 Table 18. Means and Standard Deviations for Coaches and Administrators on Intergroup Learning Outcome Measures Table 19. Means and Standard Deviations for Student-Athletes on Intergroup Learning Outcome Measures xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Intergroup Dialogue Theoretical Framework Figure 2. Evaluation Timeline of Events Figure 3. Evaluation Plan Measures and Purposes Figure 4. Flowchart of Steps to Integrate Qualitative and Quantitative Data Figure 5. Coach and Administrator Participants’ Session-level Program Satisfaction Figure 6. Student-Athlete Participants’ Session-level Program Satisfaction 27 48 63 83 91 121 xiii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The belief that youth athletes can develop life skills through sports abound (Holt, 2016). Quite paradoxically, views that broader societal issues are ‘distractions from the game’ (e.g., Kochanek & Erickson, 2019a, 2019b) and separate from sport (Hartmann, 2016) also prevail. The increasing diversity of sport stakeholders and recent flurry of athlete activism a part of the burgeoning Black Lives Matter movement, however, make visible the inextricable link between sport and social justice- and identity-related matters (Cooky, 2017; Kochanek & Erickson, 2019b; Ryba, Stambulova, & Schinke, 2013). Additional prominent examples include Pac-12 college football players’ #WeAreUnited boycott in response to the racist exploitation of Black student-athletes that the coronavirus pandemic has made glaringly obvious; Colin Kaepernick’s initial protest of police brutality against communities of color; Kevin Love’s mental health advocacy; and, activism a part of the #MeToo movement challenging sexual harassment against girls and women. Diversity trends along with the rising visibility and use of sport as a platform for social activism are not restricted to professional sport but also present among student-athletes—youth, adolescent, and emerging adults. Younger players may not only seek to emulate professional athletes but now readily consume messages that engage social justice issues through social media (Cooper, Macaulay, & Rodriguez, 2019). Recent data also indicate that Generation Z youth show greater levels of support for addressing racism and cissexism and promoting diversity than previous generations (Parker & Igielnik, 2020). And, recent critical scholarship on youth development through sport (e.g., Kochanek & Erickson, 2019a, 2019b) underscores inclusive, supportive spaces and relationships that honor athletes’ unique identities as vital to ensure adaptive sport experiences. Altogether, these realities demand that youth athlete and adult leaders 1 (e.g., coaches) possess critical capacities (i.e., awareness and skills that contest social oppression) to navigate social justice-related issues in socially responsible ways. Though sport has the potential to be an empowering experience for youth (Holt, 2016), athletics can also reflect and reinforce hegemonies of social oppression and inequality (Coakley, 2011; Eitzen & Sage, 2009). Extant scholarship has underlined that prejudice and discrimination still exist in sport—including but not limited to racism (Singer, 2005), sexism (e.g., Nelson, 1995), transphobia (e.g., Klein, Paule-Koba, & Krane, 2018a, 2018b), and homophobia (e.g., Anderson, 2000; Krane, 2001). Sport psychology and sociology scholars have made valuable efforts to center the experiences of student-athletes who may be uniquely constrained given aspects of their minoritized social identities (e.g., gender, race, and sexual orientation). For example, race-centered studies exposed the subtle, covert forms of racism that Black female and male student-athletes endure and must negotiate (Bruening, Armstrong, & Pastore, 2005; Withycombe, 2011). Researchers have also problematized sexist, heteronormative dynamics in sport (e.g., Krane, 2001; Kauer & Krane, 2006; McGrath, & Chananie, 2009; Waldron, 2016; Withycombe, 2011). Moreover, critical sport scholars have made conceptual and empirical contributions to the knowledge base on student-athlete activism—though largely within college athletics (e.g., Agyemang, Singer, & DeLorme, 2010; Kaufman, 2008; Kaufman & Wolff, 2010; Kluch, 2020; Lee & Cunningham, 2019; Mac Intosh, Martin, & Kluch, 2020). This scholarship sheds light on the oppressive forces and norms that operate in/through sport, relevance of social justice issues specific to the youth setting, and—importantly debunks popular beliefs that sport is separate from politics. While the current context demands that student-athletes and coaches possess awareness and skills that challenge social oppression and support inclusion, Kochanek and Erickson (2019a, 2 2019b) identified the lack of developmental initiatives to equip stakeholders with such critical competencies. Denison, Mills, and Konoval (2015) likewise commented on the limited training and resources available to prepare coaches (and administrators) for the ways social and political issues occur in their athletes’ lives. The wanting of practical support for all stakeholders is likely the case because current positive youth development (PYD) through sport and coach effectiveness frameworks (e.g., Côté & Gilbert, 2009) only marginally account for these sociocultural complexities (see Coakley, 2016; Kochanek & Erickson, 2019b). Such approaches have offered minimal elaboration on how to proactively address broader social issues (e.g., racism), and empower youth participants and coaches as agents of positive social change. These approaches (e.g., Côté & Gilbert, 2009; USOC, 2017) have recommended that coaches be aware of their athletes’ social identities and avoid actions that might encourage players to separate their sport and lived experiences. However, these frameworks have provided little explanation on how coaches might actually navigate social justice-related issues— beyond simply acknowledging their impact on athletes. Conceptual and empirical efforts among critical sport scholars have done better to attended to social issues and power dynamics relevant to coaching. While critical perspectives have put forth strong conceptual critiques they tend to do so less practical direction (e.g., Cassidy, Jones, & Potrac, 2009; Lyle & Cushion, 2017; Potrac & Jones, 2009). Critical sport scholars have critiqued prevalent conceptualizations of PYD through sport as functionalist (Kochanek & Erickson, 2019a; Rauscher & Cooky, 2016). Functionalist views uphold status quo structural and interpersonal dynamics that can (dis)advantage people based on their social identity rather than encourage critical dimensions of development—awareness and action that interrogates and pushes back against oppressive systems and norms. Sport-specific youth development and coach effectiveness frameworks leave out these critical developmental 3 components as adaptive outcomes in theory and practice (Coakley, 2011, 2016). As such, prevailing models risk reinforcing unjust systems of dominance (e.g., systemic racism) and compelling minority youth to acquiesce to—rather than challenge status quo (White, masculine, heteronormative) dynamics (e.g., kneeling during the national anthem). The lack of critical capacity building also thwarts the development of youth who have social privilege as they are left unaware of how and ill-prepared to use their privilege to make a positive social impact. Kochanek and Erickson (2019a, 2019b, 2021) have offered one example of a line of research that addresses the need for critical, practical approaches within youth development through sport. Researchers explored how, if at all, adult leaders in high school sports navigate broader social issues (e.g., racism) in the service of student-athlete development. Thematic analyses of interviews with head coaches from one affluent, predominately White high school setting highlighted that a coach’s critical awareness and action (i.e., praxis) varied along a continuum. Latent analyses problematized culture-blind assumptions (e.g., race/racial protest as irrelevant in predominately White spaces) that coaches made concerning coach effectiveness and athlete development. Findings corroborated previous research showing that coaches may overlook the relevance of certain issues given their social positioning (e.g., Gearity & Henderson-Metzger, 2017; Halbrook, Watson, & Voelker, 2018). When asked about why they addressed certain social issues, coaches identified their athletic director (AD) as a vital resource. This unique finding informed a subsequent study of athletic directors (Kochanek & Erickson, 2021), which similarly probed culture-blind assumptions that administrators made about educational athletics. While ADs were more willing to engage social issues, they expressed that they (and their coaches and youth) would benefit from practical initiatives to develop their 4 critical capacities to handle social issues. Thus, programming that helps youth and adult leaders build these competencies is worth exploring to ensure that sport is an empowering context for all. Despite stakeholders’ desire for critical capacity-building initiatives geared toward youth and adult leaders in sport, few programs exist within the literature (e.g., Kochanek, 2020; Mac Intosh & Martin, 2018). These practical efforts, however, offer promising evidence of the efficacy of pedagogical models and curricula in athletics. One promising technique is intergroup dialogue: a research-informed approach that teaches individuals to critically examine social identity-based relations and develop competencies to engage across differences (Gurin, Nagda, & Zúñiga, 2013; Zúñiga, Nagda, Chesler, & Cytron-Walker, 2007). Intergroup dialogue pedagogy consists of three components: active and engaged learning, structured interaction, and facilitated learning environment (Nagda, Gurin, Sorsensen, & Zuniga, 2009). Trained facilitators guide participants through reflection, communication, and experiential activities to examine their own/others’ lived and socialized experiences before proceeding to interrogate systems of dominance and social power, and foster alliance building. Curriculum covers a range of concepts (e.g., privilege, stereotypes, microaggressions) and helps participants develop practical skills (e.g., perspective taking, active listening) to promote diversity, inclusion, and social justice. This approach stems from Gordon Allport’s (1954) conditions for positive intergroup contact (Gurin et al., 2013). Allport (1954) posited that under specific conditions (e.g., equal group status; intergroup cooperation), intergroup contact functions as an effective means to reduce prejudice. As such, a traditional intergroup dialogue approach brings together members of two or more social identity groups (e.g., race) with equal representation in order to balance power for positive intergroup interactions. While balanced representation is ideal, structuring the dialogic space using a traditional intergroup model is not always feasible, such as 5 when a community does not have the diversity required (Frantell, Miles, & Ruwe, 2019). Intercultural dialogue refers to a dialogic approach that uses a less balanced social identity group structure. Frantell et al. (2019) advocated for scholars to incorporate new methods and assess how outcomes and processes of such variations compare with a traditional dialogue format. Scholars and practitioners have systematically employed and studied an intergroup dialogue approach within higher education among undergraduate students (Kaplowitz, Griffin, & Seyka, 2019; Nagda, Gurin, & Lopez, 2003). Extant research has indicated that intergroup dialogue facilitates critical thought about social identity- and justice-related issues among college participants. One multi-university study found that students who engaged in classes that employed intergroup dialogue showed improvements in their knowledge about different social identities (e.g., race), intergroup empathy and motivation to engage across differences, and commitment to social justice action when compared to control groups (Gurin et al., 2013). Additional research has shed light on relevant processes, or key mechanisms, that support effectiveness of intergroup learning (Gurin et al., 2011, 2013; Nagda, 2006). Notably, four communication processes are defined as central to the dialogic encounter: learning from others, engaging the self, critical reflection, and building alliances/common ground. Nagda (2006) offered initial empirical support for these processes as mediating the effect on intergroup learning. More recent intergroup dialogue research has since corroborated these findings (see Dressel, 2010; Frantell et al., 2019; Gurin et al., 2013). Intergroup dialogue programs have been developed from these previous efforts and substantiated these effects including at Michigan State University (See Kaplowitz et al., 2018, 2019). Recently, I applied an intergroup dialogue approach to athletic training education to promote cultural competence (Kochanek, 2020). In this educational techniques paper, I demonstrated the feasibility and suitability for using intergroup 6 dialogue in athletics—and pointed to its use among student-athlete and coaches to support inclusive, empowering sport experiences. The purpose of this dissertation was to provide a preliminary evaluation of a sport- specific program (Dialogue in Athletics) that adopted intergroup (race) dialogue pedagogy. While Dialogue in Athletics curriculum focused on issues around racial identity and relations in the United States, the program explored the fluid and multi-dimensional nature of identity and related social dynamics, including how other (social) identity characteristics (e.g., gender) intersect with race (e.g., intersectionality). Specifically, this evaluation study assessed the impact and processes that supported, or thwarted, the efficacy of dialogue programming for student- athlete and coach participants. Addressing these study purposes can valuably contribute to the knowledge base in two chief ways: (1) integrate critical capacity building (awareness and action) as a developmental asset within the youth development through sport research literature, and (2) offer practical guidance for how to equip youth and adult leaders with critical competencies that support individual development and societal progress through rigorous evaluation of one promising approach. To accomplish these study purposes required going beyond conventional research methods and carrying out a program evaluation. Program evaluation is a distinct type of social scientific inquiry that systematically investigates the effectiveness of social intervention programs in ways that are contextual, politically responsive and are designed to inform social action to improve social conditions (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004). Evaluators must balance between the scientific and pragmatic in order to attend to the context-specific and informational needs of relevant stakeholders. As such, evaluators may judge rigor according to different criteria—such prioritizing the use of evaluation findings (Patton, 2011). Conducting an 7 evaluation rather than a conventional research study was thus well suited for this project, which aimed to meet the informational needs of current (and future) sport stakeholders who might consider implementing intergroup dialogue. Relatedly, evaluation scholars have advocated for carrying out process and impact evaluations concurrently in order to gauge what changes occur (impact) and how those changes occur (process) (Newcomer, 2015, Rossi et al., 2004). Driska (2014) importantly commented on the dearth of evaluation research within sport psychology that simultaneously assesses outcomes and processes. As a scholar-practitioner, I take seriously that advice and aimed to conduct a more comprehensive evaluation to valuably contribute to research and practice. A mixed methods approach was used to best ensure scientific rigor and practical utility of this proposed concurrent impact and process evaluation. Mixed methods incorporates theoretically coordinated quantitative and qualitative research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Such an approach is rigorous and practical because evaluators can combine the strengths of qualitative (which can yield in-depth information about variation and context) and quantitative (which can yield established links) data to support breadth and depth of understanding along with corroboration (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). Given that this evaluation assessed both impact and process outcomes of Dialogue in Athletics program, use of mixed methods allowed for a more complete assessment than one data type could provide. Quantitative (e.g., closed- ended survey questions) and qualitative (e.g., open-ended questions and semi-structured interviews) data provided various indicators of program efficacy and in-depth, process-oriented information on the de facto realities of program implementation and contextual variation. 8 This dissertation is a preliminary evaluation of the impact of Dialogue in Athletics program bounded within a single high school sport community context. Two general priority purposes (identified in collaboration select school stakeholders) framed this evaluation study: (1) To assess the impact of dialogue programming on coach/administrator and student- athlete participants based on improvements in relevant (intergroup) learning outcomes (i.e., satisfaction, awareness, affect, and skills development/transference); (2) To assess the processes that support, or thwart, the efficacy of dialogue programming on participants along several dimensions: (a) Group communication processes; (b) Other program features at the session-specific and program levels; (c) Challenges to implement learning within the campus community. An underlining purpose was also to ensure that key community leaders use evaluation findings to guide future decision-making and action. 9 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Sport can be a positive developmental context for young people (Holt, 2016). With over 60 million youth in organized sport in the United States (National Council of Youth Sports, 2008), whether sport serves as a site for empowering, adaptive experiences can have significant implications. Existing research has underlined that sport is not inherently beneficial for youth, and valuably contributes to our understanding of conditions under which sport can be a setting in which young people thrive (Weiss, 2016). Considerable empirical work has drawn on positive youth development (PYD) frameworks, strength-based approaches that consider the skills vital for young people to fully function in society (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). Researchers and practitioners have applied a PYD framework to sport (e.g., Gould & Carson, 2008), and posited the influential role of the coach along with practical frameworks for coaching (e.g., Côté & Gilbert, 2009; USOC, 2017). While these efforts have extended the knowledge base, prevalent PYD through sport frameworks undertreat the critical capacities that youth (and coaches) need to possess in order to effectively navigate broader social justice issues (e.g., racism, transphobia) and stressors related to youth engagement in these matters (Coakley, 2011, 2016). As such, in this literature review I first overview positive youth development (PYD) and corresponding social justice oriented frameworks. From this background will follow a description of prevalent and critical perspectives of youth development through sport in theory and research to highlight the lack of critical capacity-building initiatives aimed for youth and coaches. I then explore one promising approach, intergroup dialogue—including its theoretical underpinnings, key pedagogical elements, and supportive research. I conclude this section by offering a rationale for the preliminary evaluation of a sport-specific intergroup dialogue program. 10 Positive Youth Development Positive youth development (PYD) is an integrative framework that considers cognitive, social, emotional, and intellectual skills essential for youth to fully function in society (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Larson, 2000). As a strength-based approach, PYD emphasizes promoting physical and psychosocial competencies and assets to enable youth to contribute to society rather than focusing on preventing or intervening on risk behaviors (Damon, 2004; Petitpas, Cornelius, Van Raalte & Jones, 2005). This alternative philosophy arose in reaction to earlier problem- centered approaches that focused on fixing individual deficiencies (Diener, 2009). Advocates of PYD in philosophy and practice viewed efforts to prevent and mitigate harmful behaviors as offering a restrictive vision of youth. This perspective characterized young people as problems to be solved and mainly concerned ridding them of deficits, but did not enable them to actually thrive (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). Rather than focus on eliminating problems, PYD posits that youth need to build on their own strengths to acquire knowledge, skills, and other assets that support flourishing. A PYD framework is grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems model, which centers the developing individual within a series of nested systems. These systems expand outward to represent proximate and distal social, contextual factors (e.g., actors, institutions, events, and norms) and their interactions, which reciprocally impact the individual over time. Theorists have developed myriad PYD models drawing on this systems-oriented paradigm (e.g., Benson, 2006; Benson, Scales, & Syvertsen, 2011; Larson, 2000; Larson, Hansen, & Moneta, 2006; Lerner et al., 2005). Lerner and colleagues (2005) offered one prevalent model based on Five Cs, which refer to five components necessary for young people to thrive in their communities: competence (i.e., positive view of one’s domain-specific actions), confidence (i.e., 11 an internal sense of overall positive self-worth and self-efficacy), character (i.e., respect for societal and cultural rules), caring (i.e., positive, reciprocal bonds between people/organizations), and connection (i.e., sympathy and empathy for others) (Lerner et al., 2005; Lerner et al., 2012). Beyond the developing individual, Lerner’s non-sport specific model has identified contribution (i.e., giving back to the community and supporting positive development of subsequent youth) as a sixth C that emerges when individuals exhibit the five core components (Lerner et al., 2012). Of importance to note is that scholars largely conceptualize social contribution as attributes and actions that uphold prevailing, status quo social norms and institutions. Social Justice Youth Development A social justice youth development approach emerged in reaction to perceived limitations of (positive) youth development models. Ginwright and colleagues (2002a, 2002b, 2006) offered a seminal critique of emergent PYD approaches and programmatic efforts. They argued that trends toward strength-based approaches that promote youth “asset building” peripherally and insufficiently account for complex social, economic, and political forces impacting young people (Ginwright, 2002). They pointed out that a PYD approach narrowly focuses on individual (mainly psychological) outcomes and family/local community dynamics, and ignores broader social, contextual issues and conditions (Ginwright, 2006; Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002). Ginwright and Cammorota (2002) concluded that PYD perspectives may engender “over- romanticized, problem-free” visions of youth. And in programmatic settings, PYD rhetoric may obscure a darker reality: young people lack capacities to critically interrogate existing social inequities to imagine and work toward a more equitable society. Ginwright (2002, 2006) have foregrounded how this discursive rhetoric is uniquely problematic for urban youth of color because racist structural systems can drastically affect their lived experience, well-being, and 12 growth. PYD approaches may oblige minoritized youth to leave uncontested and submit to institutional racism. Ginwright’s (2002, 2006) call to attend to societal forces/inequities is equally relevant to majority (e.g., White, masculine, cisgender) youth whose ignorance and inaction keep oppressive systems, beliefs, and norms in place. Ginwright and colleagues (2002, 2006) innovatively put forth theoretical foundations for social justice youth development (SJYD) to offer a more complete vision of youth development. This framework views youth as assets and active agents, and consists of five guiding principles (Ginwright, 2006; Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002; Ginwright & James, 2002). A SJYD framework guides youth to analyze power in social relations, makes identity central, promotes systemic social change, encourages collective action, and embraces youth culture (Ginwright & James, 2002). A SJYD frame aims to equip youth with the capacity to think critically about community/social problems, develop sociopolitical awareness, and understand how sociopolitical forces impact (their own/others’) identity. Such an approach encourages youth to believe in and develop their personal and collective capacities to effect individual, community, and social change. As such, prosocial behavior is not enough within an SJYD framework; critical consciousness (i.e., awareness of how institutional and historical forces limit and promote opportunities for social groups that leads to collective action against injustice) is a foundational outcome (Ginwright & James, 2002). Last, a SJYD framework requires centering the voices and agency of young people. Practices that support social justice-oriented outcomes include reflecting on power in one’s own life, critiquing stereotypes, refraining from behaviors that oppress others, and participating in collective action. Recent Evolutions in Positive Youth Development Since its initial conception, PYD approaches have—in some ways—evolved in alignment 13 with social-justice orientated perspectives. Hershberg and colleagues’ (2015) recent scholarship built off Lerner’s (2005) Five Cs model and elaborated on critical dimensions of this life skills construct (Hershberg, Johnson, DeSouza, Hunter, & Zaff, 2015). Critical contribution refers to thought and/or action that challenges systemic oppression (e.g., racism) and marginalizing norms (e.g., disability stigma) for the benefit of all youth. Critical forms of engagement (e.g., participating in cross-cultural dialogue or minority affinity groups) diverge from typical understandings of social contribution characterized as functioning. Functioning refers to the maintenance of dominant social structures that advantage, or disadvantage, people based on their social identity. Recently, Gonzales, Kokozos, Byrd, and McKee (2020) proposed a Critical Positive Youth Development (CPYD) model that more fully integrates critical contribution into a young person’s developmental process. Gonzales et al. (2020) defined critical consciousness (i.e., an individual’s ability to identify and reflect upon oppressive social conditions and take action to promote social transformation) as additional C in Lerner’s (2001) model. They put forth that critical consciousness has three components: critical reflection, political efficacy (i.e., an individual’s belief in their capacity to enact social change), and critical action. They explain that the development of critical reflection and political efficacy in a strength-based, supportive environment paves the way for critical action that results in contribution, and allows youth to challenge oppressive social conditions. Positive Youth Development through Sport Positive youth development through sport models have largely drawn from predominant PYD approaches oriented more toward social functioning rather than social justice (e.g., Fraser- Thomas, Côté, & Deakin, 2005; Gould & Carson, 2008; Petitpas et al., 2005; Weiss & Wiese- Bjornstal, 2009). For example, Petitpas et al. (2005) applied PYD principles to create a sport- 14 specific framework. They distinguished youth sport development from youth development: youth development emphasizes teaching youth life skills along with physical competencies while youth sport development refers strictly to the acquisition of sport skills. This approach suggests that sport programs have the potential to enable thriving contingent upon several factors: the context, external assets, and internal assets. This model aligns with other current perspectives (e.g., Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005; Gould & Carson, 2008), which posit that growth and life-skills acquisition, or transfer, (i.e., skills learned through sport that are useful and generalizable to other life domains) are most likely to occur when youth are participating in a chosen activity with support from adult mentors (e.g., coach) in a developmentally appropriate context (Weiss, 2016). In the last decade this framework has influenced, and been influenced by, research and practice (Holt & Neely, 2011; Weiss, 2016). While these efforts have enhanced our understanding of how programs can optimize adaptive outcomes among youth participants, the functionalist (less critical and non-dominant) ideology that underpins PYD through sport risks undermining holistic developmental aims and represents a critical area of growth in theory and practice (See Kochanek & Erickson, 2019a; Rauscher & Cooky, 2016). Prevalent Perspectives on PYD through Sport and Social Issues Though PYD efforts in youth sport are a welcome response to the limitations of prior deficit-based approaches, extant sport-specific frameworks (e.g., Gould & Carson, 2008; Petitpas et al., 2005; Weiss, 2016, Weiss & Wiese-Bjornstal, 2009) likewise have shortcomings. Proponents of PYD have yet to integrate critical dimensions of developmental outcomes for youth in theory or application—such through programmatic efforts and coaching practice (Coakley, 2011, 2016). Interrogation of mainstream practical frameworks and related research can make noticeable the current disconnect between PYD through sport and social justice, the 15 potential disempowering effects of this disconnect, and need for initiatives that promote critical capacity building among youth and coaches in concept and practice. Prevalent PYD through sport theory. Coakley (2011) put forth an early, foundational critique of the oft-unspoken functional role of youth sport: to teach young people to adopt predetermined worldviews and fit into preexisting social dynamics irrespective of whether such a view endorses social (in)justice. Although PYD through sport adopts a strength-based perspective, Coakley (2011, 2016) posited that mainstream approaches can reproduce this dominant vision absent intentional development of critical thought and action. In fact, notions that sport should promote the “proper functioning” of youth are central to PYD theory. Rauscher and Cooky (2016) exposed that the sociopolitical climate in which PYD through sport theory and practice emerged against a backdrop of neoliberalism (i.e., an individual-centered, functionalist ideology that designates individuals as personally responsible). Examination of prevalent conceptual scholarship reflects this functionalist orientation. For example, Weiss and Wiese- Bjornstal (2009) put forth that PYD through sport programs promote personal skills acquisition (e.g., cognitive, social, and emotional assets) essential for youth to become successfully functioning citizens. While intuitively appealing, vague descriptions of life skills offered (e.g., respect) neglect contextual, sociocultural assumptions that underlie these terms (Coakley, 2011, 2016). This ambiguity is problematic because descriptions are likely to favor status quo functional (e.g., respect as standing during the national anthem and assimilating to team norms) rather than critical developmental outcomes (e.g., respect as kneeling during the national anthem over dialoguing across differences in perspective and embracing diversity over cultural assimilation). Theory suggests that youth development constitutes navigating—and acquiescing to—rather than transforming our status quo (masculine, White) social reality. While some 16 scholars have acknowledged that different contexts may require distinct ways to teach life skills (e.g., Gould & Carson, 2008), this framing falls short of accounting for these sociocultural complexities and have possible adverse downstream effects for PYD through program sports that draw on this theory for practical guidance. Mainstream PYD through sport programs. Review of the extant research on PYD through sport programs further evidences their functional character-building focus at the expense of critical capacity building. Kochanek and Erickson (2019a) and Rauscher and Cooky (2016) have offered sharper race- and gender-specific analyses of prevalent programmatic efforts and related scholarship (e.g., Gano-Overway et al., 2009; Flett et al., 2013; Weiss, 2016; Weiss & Wiese-Bjornstal, 2009). Using a critical race perspective, Kochanek and Erickson (2019b) pointed to the efficacy and potential promise of such programs in many respects while also critiquing how few sport or physical activity-based programs (e.g., Hellison’s Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility, TPSR) explicitly address critical dimensions of life skills. For example, practitioners have implemented the TPSR model among underserved communities (of color), with the aim of shifting critical thinking and responsibility to youth (Hellison, 2011). The TPSR approach encourages youth to take responsibility in their development and relationships by teaching respect for the rights and feelings of others; effort and teamwork; self-direction and goal setting; and, leadership and helping (Hellison, 2011; Walsh, Ozaeta, & Wright, 2010). Skills such as self-directed introspection may have value for youth of color by allowing them to reflect on social factors that negatively affect their lives or community. However, this form of self- reflection is insufficient to equip youth with skills to critically interrogate and resist oppressive (i.e., racist) social systems, competencies that are core to SJYD approaches. Rauscher and Cooky (2016) expressed similar concerns about PYD through sport programs 17 from a critical feminist perspective. Scholars acknowledged that programs geared toward inspiring and empowering girls (e.g., Girls on the Run, Girls in the Game, GoGirlGo!) can foster adaptive physical and psychosocial outcomes (e.g., increases in confidence). Even so, their gender-centered perspective exposed how—despite admirable intentions— these individual- centered, functionalist-oriented programs may fail to actually empower girls because they do not equip them with capacities to critically question and contest oppressive (sexist, cissexist) social dynamics and norms. Instead, girl participants must learn to navigate—and conform to—rather than transform their status quo (heteronormative, masculine, White) social reality. Such critical PYD through sport scholarship valuably lays bare how sport programs may unwittingly maintain the gender and/or racial (i.e., White, masculine, heteronormative) status quo—with problematic implications for aspiring programs that may adopt similar models. In contrast to mainstream programmatic efforts, Rauscher and Cooky (2016) described one unique program (Hardy Girls, Healthy Women) that has moved beyond a functional and purely psychological focus. The program encourages its female youth participants to identify their stresses and constraints in relation to their social context and develop tools for mobilization against sexism, classism, and racism. These aims harken back to features of Ginwright and colleagues’ (2006) social justice youth development framework. Sport is by no means a panacea for social injustice and oppression, but athletics can be a context that empowers youth to critically view and participate in society. To achieve this broader developmental mission requires a non-dominant, transformational perspective. Though well- intentioned, mainstream PYD through sport programs make a superficial commitment to empowering all youth and society alike. If PYD through sport is to deliver on this holistic mission, future theory, research, and practice adopt a more transformational vision. 18 Coaching for PYD through sport and social issues. Practical frameworks specific to coaching have also overlooked broader sociopolitical considerations inherent in youth development and critical capacity building as an adaptive developmental aim. Côté and Gilbert’s (2009) integrative model defined coach effectiveness as the application of professional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal knowledge to contribute to athlete outcomes relative to the coaching context. Athlete outcomes are not only performance based but include psychosocial outcomes (i.e., competence, confidence, connection, and character) informed by Lerner’s (2005) Five Cs model. From this perspective, coaches must respond to contextual characteristics (e.g., performance- or participation-based demands) and athletes’ individual needs. This, and related, coaching-specific frameworks (e.g., USOC, 2017) have recommended that coaches be aware of their athletes’ social identities and avoid actions that encourage players to separate their sport and lived experiences. However, practical frameworks— similar to mainstream PYD through sport models (e.g., Fraser-Thomas et al. 2005; Gould & Carson, 2008)—have offered minimal elaboration on how coaches might develop awareness and skills to navigate social issues beyond simply acknowledging that they impact athletes. Examples of practical, political realities that coaches might have to navigate include how a White, cisgender coach can perspective take and validate the identity of a Black student-athlete who wants to kneel during the national anthem, or address institutional structures and norms that exemplify gender/sex as a binary on a team with a transgender athlete who is transitioning. Just as well, prevalent approaches have also left unacknowledged the role that coaches have in equipping youth with critical capacities to effectively engage in critical action (and contribution) themselves. Without accounting for broader sociocultural considerations and power dynamics that operate in/through sport, prevailing frameworks for PYD through sport promotion generally and 19 coaching specifically risk thwarting a young person’s developmental process (Kochanek & Erickson, 2019b; Rauscher & Cooky, 2016). In particular, coaches are unique individuals with distinct histories/identities that may (dis)advantage them. These privileges, or lack thereof, and personal experiences can also inform a coach’s philosophy and behaviors. Prevalent theoretical frameworks do not direct coaches to critically reflect on the privilege inherent in their professional role and assumptions that may underline their best practices (Kochanek & Erickson, 2019a, 2019b). And, such approaches provide little direction for how coaches might equip youth athletes with competencies to critically question and contest oppressive (e.g., racism, sexism) social structures inextricable to sport. These critical capacities are vital for players to be supportive, inclusive teammates and leaders. This reality is not simply a missed developmental opportunity but may have serious adverse effects on youth. Coaches may make narrow assumptions about what constitutes individual strengths and development—such as those that privilege White, masculine norms (e.g., appropriate dress, patterns of speech, notions of leadership). They may negate the strengths that minoritized youth may possess (e.g., resilience). And, coaches may uphold exclusionary norms that reinforce internalized oppression (e.g., self- doubt) among minority youth and internalized dominance (e.g., ignorance and prejudice) among socially privileged youth. Thus, explicit identification of coaching as political and integration of critical dimensions of development for student-athlete and coaches is essential in order to champion a robust version of development that actually empowers young people through sport. Critical Sport Perspectives and Research on Sport and Social Issues Social issues and student-athlete experiences. Scholars have importantly made visible the ways that athletics can embody and uphold various hegemonies of social oppression and inequality (Coakley, 2011, 2016; Eitzen & Sage, 2009). This body of scientific inquiry has 20 revealed the social prejudices and discrimination that operate in and through sport such as racism (Hylton, 2009; Singer, 2005), sexism (e.g., Nelson, 1994), transphobia (e.g., Klein, Paule-Koba, & Krane, 2018), and homophobia (e.g., Anderson, 2000; Griffin, 1998; Krane, 2001). Critical scholars within sport psychology and sociology have crucially centered the experiences of student-athletes with marginalized identities (e.g., gender identity, race, and sexual orientation) who are uniquely constrained based on their minority status across varying sport settings. For example, researchers used a critical race perspective to expose the prevalence of racial prejudices and their disempowering effect on student-athletes within college (e.g., Bruening, 2005; Bruening et al., 2005; Singer, 2005; Withycombe, 2011) and youth sports (e.g., Hodge, Kozub, Dixson, Moore, & Kambon, 2008; Kochanek & Erickson, 2019b). These lines of research shed light on the overt and covert forms of racism that Black female and male student-athletes must contend and cope with—largely focusing on college athletics (Bruening, 2005; Bruening et al., 2005; Withycombe, 2011). Other researchers have employed gender-centered and post-structural perspectives to problematize sexist, heteronormative, and transphobic norms and interactions (e.g., Kauer & Krane, 2006; Klein et al., 2018; Krane, 2001; McGrath, & Chananie, 2009; Waldron, 2016; Withycombe, 2011). For example, Klein and colleagues (2018a) used a transfeminist lens to conduct a case study of one U.S. transgender male college athlete as he transitioned from a women’s to a men’s team. This in-depth case highlights the significant role that social support (from teammates, coaches, and administrators) can have in alleviating the difficulties of transitioning—namely exclusionary cultural norms that reinforce sex and gender as binary. Altogether, these distinct lines of research commonly position social identity-related dynamics as central to individual experiences in sport, and demonstrate how athletics is not 21 immune from perpetuating oppressive institutional forces and norms. If left uncontested and unaddressed in research or practice, such marginalizing dynamics can have disempowering effects on individual sport participants and society. Social issues and student-athlete activism. Researchers have made additional conceptual and empirical contributions regarding various social issues in relation to athlete activism (e.g., Agyemang et al., 2010; Cooper et al., 2019; Kaufman, 2008; Kaufman & Wolff, 2010; Kluch, 2020; Lee & Cunningham, 2019). In a foundational paper, Kaufman and Wolff (2010) argued that sport is well suited for activism given features characteristic of the context (e.g., social consciousness, meritocracy, responsible citizenship, and interdependence). In line with this stance, Cooper et al. (2019) suggested that contemporary Black athlete activism has experienced a resurgence after a period of stagnation during the 1980s and early 2000s. They put forth a typology of African American sport activism that delineated various forms (e.g., type, intention, and agency). McCoy, Oregon, and Sullivan (2017) likewise commented on the rise of intercollegiate athletes using their social positioning as a platform to take a stand against injustice. McCoy et al. (2017) emphasized the need for leaders in athletics to express a greater sensitivity toward cultural/ethnic diversity concerns, encourage student-athletes to use their voice, and advocate for individuals who want to engage in activism. More recently, Kluch (2020) further elaborated on the topic by examining college student-athletes’ definitions of athlete activism for advancing social justice. Findings offered a nuanced conceptualization of athlete activism. Participants defined an activist as a person who uses the social power they have as an athlete to incite everyday strategic change (i.e., mentorship, authenticity, intervention, and public acts of resistance. A recent study by Mac Intosh, Martin, and Kluch (2020) built off this conceptual work and examined collegiate student-athletes’ perceptions of social justice activism 22 using Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (TBP). This study underscored the utility of applying the TBP framework for social justice behavior change in sports. Researchers found White student-athletes compared to student-athletes of color, and female student-athletes relative to males, held lower favorable attitudes toward social justice action. Specifically, White student- athletes’ attitudes (toward social justice) were a stronger predictor of their behavioral intentions whereas perceived behavioral control (i.e., self-efficacy to act) was a stronger predictor of intentions among student-athletes of color. This small body of research reflects how sport can serve as a vehicle for social change. That is, sport can be fertile grounds for student-athletes (and coaches) to develop the critical capacity to promote social justice in/outside of athletics, and help sport realize its transformative, unifying potential. Social issues and youth sport coaching. Along with research that has explored student- athlete activism, scholars within sport psychology have advocated for culturally-sensitive, context-specific work, including in coaching (Ryba et al., 2013; Ryba & Schinke, 2009; Ryba & Wright, 2005). Cultural sport psychology (CSP) concerns the broad genre of scholarly and applied efforts to introduce contextualized understandings of marginalized topics and cultural identities in sport (Ryba et al., 2013). Fundamental to the work of CSP researchers and practitioners is cultural praxis (Ryba et al., 2013; Schinke et al., 2012), which prioritizes diversity, identity, intersectionality, and power dynamics in sport (Ryba & Schinke, 2009; Ryba & Wright, 2005; Schinke & McGannon, 2015; Schinke, Blodgett, Ryba, Kao, & Middleton, 2019). Intersectionality is a key concept central to cultural praxis, and refers to the compounding oppressions that individuals with multiple socially marginalized identities (e.g., women of color) may experience (See Crenshaw, 1989). Cultural praxis combines theory, culture, and social action in a professional setting to promote athlete performance, development, well-being, and 23 equity. Cultural praxis also requires self-reflexive sensibility: critical awareness of how researchers’ and practitioners’ values, biases, and social position impact participants (Blodgett et al., 2015; Ryba et al., 2013). Cultural sport psychology (and sociology) scholars have employed cultural praxis to extend the knowledge base including within the youth setting. Researchers have interrogated everyday sport psychology practices of mental skills coaches (e.g., Schinke et al., 2012), and analyzed broader social issues and power dynamics in coaching (Cassidy et al., 2009; Cushion, 2018; Gearity & Mills, 2012; Gearity & Murray, 2011; Lyle & Cushion, 2017; Partington & Cushion, 2012; Potrac & Jones, 2009; Potrac, Jones, Gilbourne, & Nelson, 2012). For example, Cushion (2018) put forth that critical reflection might help guard against the potentially disempowering effects of dominant coaching practices (i.e., practical reflection). Critical reflection refers to introspection about how broader social structures and forces influence coaches’ attitudes and actions (Cassidy et al., 2009; Knowles, Gilbourne, Borrie, & Neville, 2001; Knowles Tyler, Gilbourne, & Eubank, 2006). Research evidenced critical reflection as absent from sport coaches’ recount of their reflective experiences (Knowles et al., 2006). A few recent studies have shown that high school and college coaches (and administrators) may overlook the relevance of certain social justice-related issues given their social positioning (e.g., Gearity & Metzger, 2017; Halbrook et al., 2018; Kochanek & Erickson, 2019b, 2021). Specific to youth sport, Kochanek and Erickson (2019b) conducted a study of (White) high school coaches situated in a predominantly White community. They found that a coach’s critical awareness and action (i.e., praxis) to address social issues—such as racism/racial protest—varied along a continuum. From their findings, researchers concluded that changes (even slight) that orient coaches toward a more robust critical praxis can help coaches foster inclusive climates and 24 meaningful coach-athlete relationships that support adaptive sport experiences and developmental outcomes for all. Altogether, critical sport scholars have made significant contributions to the literature related to various intersections between sport and societal issues, though these topics are often ignored within mainstream sport psychology and PYD through sport discourses. These lines research have challenged common myths within athletics that designate sport as separate from social, political matters. Drawing from this knowledge base, Kochanek and Erickson (2019a, 2019b) identified the existing need for critical yet practical initiatives that help sport leaders develop critical awareness and skills to ensure that athletics is an inclusive, empowering context for all participants. While some scholarship both centers social identity and offers practically- relevant guidance (e.g., Gearity & Henderson-Metzger, 2017; Kochanek & Erickson, 2019a, 2019b), critical perspectives often fall short of providing concrete practical direction to stakeholders. Research on practical initiatives that aim to equip student-athletes and coaches with critical competencies to navigate social justice issues is absent from the literature albeit a few developmental efforts (See Mac Intosh & Martin, 2018; Kochanek, 2020). An Intergroup Dialogue Approach This section explores intergroup dialogue as one pedagogical approach that has potential to address the paucity of critical capacity-building initiatives in the service of youth development through sport. Brief background on intergroup dialogue will situate an overview of its theoretical underpinnings, key pedagogical elements, and supportive research. Background. Intergroup dialogue (IGD) is an interdisciplinary approach that blends theory and experiential learning to teach people how to communicate across differences (Gurin et al., 2003; Zúñiga et al., 2007). This structured process of interactions helps individuals of 25 different social identities to critically examine social identity–based relations, inequities, and issues that divide them along with developing practical skills to engage in difficult dialogue (Zúñiga et al., 2007). The ultimate aim of intergroup dialogue is to strengthen intergroup (or cross cultural) relationships to promote social justice action. The historical roots of intergroup dialogue in education clarify the pedagogical assumptions that underpin this pedagogical approach. Intergroup dialogue can be traced to the progressive democratic education movement that drew from the work of John Dewey and other influential scholars in the 1930s and 1940s (Zúñiga et al., 2007). Intergroup dialogue also has its origins in critical pedagogical philosophies of Paulo Freire (1972) and bell hooks (1994), who understood learning as a co-constructed and contextually, historically located social process (Kaplowitz et al., 2019; Sorensen, Nagda, Gurin, & Maxwell, 2009; Zúñiga et al., 2007). Intergroup dialogue thus embodies a participant-centered approach that assumes participants can co-create knowledge through active learning processes that guide individuals examine their own and other’s lived experiences and content material. Along with these historical foundations, Gordon Allport’s (1954) theoretical and empirical work on positive intergroup contact heavily informs intergroup dialogue pedagogy. Allport (1954) posited that under specific conditions (i.e., equal group status; common goals; intergroup cooperation; and support of authorities/custom), intergroup contact functions as an effective way to reduce prejudice. The intergroup dialogue space uniquely employs Allport’s (1954) theory insofar as practitioners strive to structure the dialogic encounter with equal representation of social identity groups (e.g., race, gender) and use pedagogical strategies that support balancing power for nurturing positive intergroup interactions. Recent empirical work in social psychology has evidenced reductions in social prejudice associated with greater intergroup contact (see 26 Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). While Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) concluded that intergroup contact is not essential to mitigate prejudice—when applied—they echoed Allport’s (1954) original assertions that optimal conditions for contact are best conceptualized as functioning together, rather than separately, to facilitate positive intergroup outcomes. Theoretical framework. From these historical, conceptual underpinnings, Nagda (2006) put forth a theoretical model that describes and explains key elements of intergroup dialogue pedagogy, processes, and outcomes (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Intergroup Dialogue Theoretical Framework Intergroup Dialogue Pedagogy Communication Processes Psychological Processes Intergroup Outcomes Active Learning Appreciating difference Structured Interaction Facilitative Guidance Engaging the self Critical reflection Building Alliances and Common Ground Cognitive Processes Affective Processes 1. Understanding. Gain awareness of social identity, individual/instituti onal oppression, and different identities 2. Relationships. Develop skills that support intergroup understanding, trust, and cohesion 3. Collaboration. Work together to promote inclusion and social justice 27 Key pedagogical elements. Intergroup dialogue pedagogy involves three key elements: active learning, structured interaction, and facilitative guidance. Active learning as employed through intergroup dialogue concerns familiarizing participants with the concept, process, and practice of dialogue. Dialogue requires learning to listen, asking questions, and committing to understanding others’ perspectives, even if not agreeing (Gurin et al., 2011, 2013; Kaplowitz et al., 2019). Distinct from debate, dialogue is a style of interactive communication that facilitates understanding, rather than dismissal, of other perspectives. While disagreement can take place during dialogue, the underlying purpose is to add diverse perspectives to build a shared understanding (and broader pool of knowledge) rather than convincing others that one side of an argument has more merit (i.e., debate). Integrated alongside the interdependent learning process of dialogue, various reflective and experiential learning activities, readings, and didactic instruction also support participants’ active learning to promote critical consciousness raising (Gurin et al., 2011). Two content-related sequential organizers underpin active learning in dialogue: personal-to-institutional and diversity-to-justice sequencing (Zúñiga et al., 2007). Personal-to-institutional sequencing refers to the curriculum’s gradual progression from a focus on personal exploration of one’s own lived, socialized experience to a critical analysis of larger institutional and system dynamics. Diversity-to-justice sequencing occurs when participants attend to social identity-based commonalities/differences before proceeding to critically analyze social systems of dominance, power, and privilege that have been built around/reinforce social constructions of difference (e.g., racial inferiority). Expanding on these sequential organizers, a four-stage sequential process structures interactions within an intergroup dialogue setting (Kaplowitz et al., 2019; Zúñiga et al., 2007). In Stage 1: Dialogue Foundations and Forming Relationships, participants get acquainted with one 28 another and fundamental concepts and assumptions regarding dialogue. Establishing a common language, knowledge, values, and skills for dialogue sets a foundation for subsequent stages and individual/group learning. Stage 2: Exploring Differences and Commonalities regards understanding social identity differences and similarities within and across groups, and how institutions afford power and privilege to certain social identity groups and disadvantage others. Participants not only develop a knowledge of social identity-related concepts but have the opportunity to develop listening and perspective taking skills through group interactions and activities in this second stage (Kaplowitz et al., 2019; Zúñiga et al., 2007). In Stage 3: Exploring and Dialoguing Hot Topics, participants reflect and dialogue about controversial social issues and consider how institutional inequities and individual biases operate in real-world contexts. Through this third stage participants analyze systems of privilege, power, and oppression, along with employing the dialogic skills they have learned to productively navigate potential conflict and differences in perspective. In Stage 4: Action Planning and Collaboration, participants consider how to apply their knowledge and skills learned through dialogue to promote social justice in their personal and professional lives (Kaplowitz et al., 2019; Zúñiga et al., 2007). Participants explore the range of continuous learning opportunities and actions in the service of diversity, inclusion, and social justice (i.e., how to move from dialogue to action). It is important to emphasize that progressing through these stages does not have to be linear; and, stages are interrelated and not necessarily discrete. Facilitators play a significant role in creating a successful learning experience for dialogue participants (Kaplowitz et al., 2019; Zúñiga et al., 2007). For intergroup dialogue to achieve its intended effects, trained facilitators must uphold its key elements and guide knowledge sharing among participants through its sequential design over a designated time frame. Effective 29 facilitators support participant learning (and their own) by properly framing the space for deep reflection and discussion to challenges status quo assumptions. They pose open-ended questions that provoke critical thought among group members, and structure and reinforce the intergroup context to be a brave space. A brave space encourages participants to “stretch” themselves by sharing their perspective, embracing mistakes as learning opportunities, and considering points of view different from their own (Palfrey, 2017). Facilitators must also ensure that socially marginalized voices are heard so as not to enact existing social inequities and power dynamics (Kaplowitz et al., 2019; Zúñiga et al., 2007). That is, when interactions in the group reproduce larger sociopolitical processes and power inequities (e. g., when a cisgender male participant dominates the dialogue session, or White participants remain comfortably silent instead of sharing their racialized experiences) facilitators need to make the group aware of and interrupt these moments. Having two facilitators who represent different social identity groups (e.g., race) to guide the dialogue can best ensure power is balanced. And while not always possible, having facilitators with two distinct social identities (e.g., race and gender) is ideal in order to attend to the multiple, intersectional nature of our identities. Within this learning environment, facilitators can productively introduce concepts related to social inequality (e.g., prejudice, bias, privilege) and engage participants in experiential, dialogic activities (and serve as a model) to achieve intergroup outcomes. Last, facilitators can encourage participants to move from reflection to action that challenges discrimination and promotes diversity, inclusion and social justice. Intergroup dialogue processes. The intergroup dialogue theoretical model posits group (inter-) and individual (intra-) processes as key mechanisms that support effectiveness of intergroup learning (Gurin et al., 2011, 2013). Specifically, Nagda (2006) conceptualized communication processes central to the extant theoretical framework for intergroup dialogue. 30 Four communication processes include appreciating difference, engaging the self, critical reflection, and building alliances/common ground. These components represent aspects of participants’ learning through the intergroup encounter beyond their exposure to content material. Nagda (2006) offered initial empirical support for these processes as mediating the effect on intergroup learning and effectiveness of this pedagogical approach. Additional intergroup dialogue research has since corroborated these findings (see Dressel, 2010; Gurin et al., 2013; Frantell et al., 2019). And, more recent practical and empirical efforts have expounded upon these communication process to shed light on group processes (e.g., group climate) that facilitate intergroup outcomes described below (Miles et al., 2015, Muller & Miles, 2017). Along with within group communication processes, an intergroup dialogue theoretical model also identifies intrapersonal or psychological processes. These involve cognitive and affective components. Cognitive processes include thinking actively (e.g., assimilating information and didactic content) and reflecting on one’s identities in relation to systems of power (i.e., forming a politicized identity). Affective components involve experiencing emotions such as decreases in anxiety and increases in favorable feelings during intergroup encounters (Gurin-Sands, Gurin, Nagda, & Osuna, 2012). Intergroup outcomes. The three overarching outcomes (or goals) of intergroup dialogue include fostering: (1) intergroup understanding; (2) positive intergroup relationships; and (3) intergroup collaboration/action (Gurin et al., 2013, 2011; Nagda, Gurin, Sorensen, & Zuniga, 2011). Intergroup understanding concerns participants’ exploration of their own and others’ social identities and statuses, and role of social structures in relationships of privilege and inequality. Intergroup dialogue scholars and practitioners have largely drawn on two constructs to assess intergroup understanding: identity engagement and critical awareness (See Gurin et al., 31 2013). Critical awareness refers to knowledge of social inequities (e.g., race- and/or gender- based) and their structural causes, and identity engagement is defined as to one’s own ability to think and learn about their identity. Intergroup relationships regard the development of participants’ empathy (i.e., cognitive and affective perspective taking), skills to interact with people of different social identity (e.g., racial/ethnic, gender) groups, and motivation to bridge differences of identities and statuses. While Gurin et al. (2013) have developed and validated measures specific to intergroup dialogue programming (also see Gurin, Nagda, & Zúñiga, 2009), other researchers (e.g., Aldana, Rowley, Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2012; Muller & Miles, 2017) have used more widely validated measures (e.g., Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale; Scale for Ethnocultural Empathy) from related fields such as multicultural counseling and education to compare findings across contexts. Intergroup collaboration/action describes participants taking personal and social responsibility toward the promotion of social justice through continued (coalitional) action. Key constructs that reflect changes in this intergroup outcome include confidence, motivation, and behavioral intentions to engage in social justice action, and measures of actual behavior (Gurin et al., 2013). Supportive research. Scholars and practitioners have systematically employed and studied an intergroup dialogue approach within higher education among undergraduate, and less often in high school, students (Aldana et al., 2012; Frantell et al., 2019; Kaplowitz et al., 2019; Nagda et al., 2003). In an early attempt to understand the state of the research literature on intergroup dialogue, Dessel and Rogge (2008) conducted an empirical review using academic databases and websites of dialogue programs. Researchers identified mostly exploratory qualitative and quasi- experimental studies (e.g., Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2005; Hurtado, 2005; Nagda, 2006; Nagda & Zuniga, 2003; Nagda, Kim, & Truelove, 2004) that assessed various intergroup 32 outcome variables (e.g., perspective taking, views of conflict, comfort in communicating across difference, and interest in bridging differences). This small body of preliminary research showed that intergroup dialogue improved critical awareness about social identity- and justice-related issues, motivation for intergroup learning, beliefs about the importance of, and confidence, taking social action among undergraduate participants. In a seminal study, Nagda (2006) integrated and tested the efficacy of communication processes (i.e., engaging self, appreciating difference, critical self-reflection, and alliance building). Results showed that these processes served as key mechanisms through which an intergroup approach delivers its intended outcomes. From these initial exploratory empirical efforts, Gurin et al. (2013) conducted the first multi-university study of intergroup dialogue using an experimental design. Findings lend robust support for the efficacy of an intergroup approach (Gurin et al., 2011, 2013). The study found that—when compared to control and social science class (using a lecture-discussion format) comparison groups—undergraduate students who participated in a semester-long race- or gender-focused dialogue program improved on intergroup understanding, relationships, and collaboration outcomes. Specifically, participants showed increases in their knowledge about different social, cultural identities (i.e., race, gender); empathy and motivation to engage across differences; and, commitment to social justice action (i.e., anticipated community service and civic participation). Additional intergroup dialogue programs and studies (e.g., MSU Dialogues at Michigan State University) have been developed from this large-scale effort and corroborate programmatic outcomes (see Frantell et al., 2019; Kaplowitz et al., 2019). Specific to athletics, I used this approach within Michigan State University’s Athletic Training program to promote cultural competence (Kochanek, 2020). To our knowledge, this scholarly and practical work represents one, and possibly the first, effort to employ intergroup dialogue in athletics and 33 evidence its feasibility and applicability with athletic training students. I also underscore the promise of an intergroup dialogue approach to promote diversity, inclusion, and social justice among other sport leaders. Research on intergroup outcomes. Alongside Gurin et al. (2013)’s multi-university study, a recent literature review collated empirical findings related to common intergroup outcomes (Frantell et al., 2019). Researchers have studied (high school and college-aged) students’ dialogue experience across a variety of social identity-focused dialogues such as race, gender, religion, social class, or sexual orientation. Intergroup outcomes examined have included critical consciousness (or awareness), attitude changes, perspective taking, and action preparedness. Specific to intergroup understanding, this body of research has suggested that intergroup dialogue participants gained a deeper understanding of their own and others’ identities and knowledge about structural inequalities (i.e., critical consciousness) as a result of their program involvement (Dessel & Ali, 2012; Dessel, Woodford, & Warren, 2011; Rodriguez, Nagda, Sorensen, & Gurin, 2018; Thakral et al., 2016). In studies examining attitudinal changes and/or perspective taking, results likewise indicated favorable outcomes related to intergroup relationships (e.g., Dessel, 2010; Gurin et al., 2013; Muller & Miles, 2017; Thakral et al., 2016). For example, Muller and Miles (2017) found that color-blind attitudes decreased and empathic perspective-taking increased from pre- to post-program among dialogue participants. Last, researchers have assessed intergroup collaboration/action outcomes related to participants’ motivation, confidence, and commitment to engage in social action (e.g., educating others, acting as an ally, and interrupting oppression) and found favorable effects among dialogue participants (Gurin et al., 2013; Lopez-Humphreys & Dawson, 2014; Rodriguez et al., 2018) Research on intergroup processes. Research has shed light on relevant processes central 34 to the intergroup learning experience: communication, psychological, and (more recently examined) group-related components (Frantell et. al., 2019). Nagda (2006) tested the integration of four intergroup communication processes as a part of the intergroup dialogue encounter and theoretical model (i.e., engaging self, alliance building, critical self-reflection, and appreciating difference). Results from the study confirmed these processes as meditating the effect of the intergroup encounter on intended learning outcome in support of the theoretical model. Since this foundational study, researchers have explored related communication-based constructs, defined as both processes and skills (e.g., Dessel, 2010; Dessel & Ali, 2012; Hopkins & Domingue, 2015). For example, Hopkins and Domingue (2015) carried out a qualitative study of colleague students’ skill development in intergroup dialogue. Researchers defined skills as learned behaviors and ways of thinking that support a person’s ability to engage across difference and increases intergroup understanding. Results indicated that active listening, suspending judgement, perspective taking, recognizing social identities, and working through conflict were cognitive and communication-based skills inextricable to participants’ learning. Researcher have also explored cognitive and affective psychological processes including thinking actively about dialogue/program content, developing a politicized identity, and expressing emotion respectively (e.g., Gurin-Sands et al., 2012). Research on intergroup dialogue programs focused on religion, sexual orientation, and race reinforces the central role that emotions have as a part of the intergroup learning process (Dessel, 2010; Gurin et al., 2013; Gurin-Sands et al., 2012; Miles et al., 2015). In a unique study, Miles et al. (2015) examined session-level positive and negative emotions reflective of the group climate (i.e., emotional atmosphere). Results showed a high-low-high pattern of positive emotions and low-high-low pattern for negative emotions over time. From these findings, researchers extend literature on 35 intergroup dialogue by clarify the emotional patterns a part of the four-stage sequential process and concluded that some positive emotions may be necessary for participants to critically engage across difference and work through possible conflict. Taken together, intergroup dialogue research offers support for the efficacy of programs to improve participants’ intergroup understanding, relationships, and collaboration/action. This knowledge base also illuminates relevant processes that lead to favorable intergroup outcomes. Despite this growing body of literature, there remains a lack of research that explores the efficacy of approaches that vary from the traditional intergroup structure (where social identity group composition is balanced), which can be challenging to carry out in practice. Frantell et al. (2019) advocated for the delivery and evaluation of new methods when the traditional structure is not possible—such as when a community does not have the diversity required. They also emphasize that research comparing alternative (e.g., intercultural) and traditional (intergroup) dialogue models should attend to session-level processes including negative aspects of participants’ experiences (e.g., meaningful and/or challenging activities, critical incidents of change, or facilitator behaviors) that might support/thwart intergroup outcomes. Rationale for Evaluation The current landscape demands that youth and adult leaders in sport possess critical capacities to navigate social identity- and justice-related issues inextricable to athletics. However, there is a lack of developmental programs to serve this need and evaluation research on the efficacy of possible practical initiatives. However, the few programs that exist within the literature (e.g., Kochanek, 2020; Mac Intosh & Martin, 2018) offer promising evidence for the use of positive youth development (e.g., Mac Intosh & Martin, 2018) and intergroup dialogue (e.g., Kochanek, 2020) models. Informed by my application of intergroup dialogue within 36 athletic training (Kochanek, 2020), I sought to expand the implementation and evaluation of intergroup dialogue pedagogy among student-athletes and sport coaches through this dissertation. Specifically, this evaluation study assessed the impact and processes that supported, or thwarted, the efficacy of dialogue programming for youth and coach participants within a single high school sport setting. This project aimed to fulfill the critical capacity-building and informational needs within one interscholastic sport community and purposes of the evaluation that arose out of conversations with key community decision-makers. Beyond this context-specific application, the general rationale for the implementation and evaluation of Dialogue in Athletics was to contribute to the knowledge base in two chief ways: (1) to integrate critical capacity building (awareness and action) as a developmental asset within the youth development through sport research literature and, (2) to offer practical guidance for how to equip youth and adult leaders with critical capacities that support individual development and societal progress. While this evaluation has implications for program refinement and possible long-term integration within this single school community, this project has additional practical value. Evaluation findings can inform the use of intergroup dialogue by other interscholastic sport communities (e.g., high school and college/universities) and governing bodies (e.g., state high school sport and collegiate associations). Perhaps more promisingly, given the myriad of existing intergroup dialogue programs at universities/colleges nationally. this evaluation project can encourage and guide extant dialogue program leaders and athletic departments to establish partnerships that support programming so that educational institutions can deliver on sport’s unifying, transformative potential. 37 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY This chapter outlines the methodology that was used in the delivery and evaluation of Dialogue in Athletics. A separate chapter on methodology is needed for this unique research project because of its orientation toward praxis (detailed below) and program evaluation approach. Program evaluation is different from traditional research as this unique type of scientific inquiry must balance scientific rigor and the practical—namely, the context-specific realities and informational needs of key community (or program) stakeholders. To properly situate an overview of the proposed methods (chapter 4), in this chapter I explain this project’s orientation toward praxis, define program evaluation, and provide a rationale for why an evaluation approach was most appropriate to support research as praxis in this case. Research as Praxis I, the author, identify as a scholar-practitioner (and White, cisgender woman) who embraces the notion of research as praxis. Praxis refers to reflection and action (and their reciprocal relationship) that attend to broader social forces and contests status quo norms and their disempowering effects (Freire, 1972; hooks, 1994). Critical pedagogical (and race) scholars, namely Paulo Freire (1972) and bell hooks (1994), have made significant contributions to current conceptualization of praxis. They emphasize that the concept embodies a commitment to the promotion of individual and societal transformation in pursuit of social equity/justice. Within the sport psychology literature, praxis is central to cultural sport psychology (CSP): a genre of research that aims to critically examine issues of identity, intersectionality, power, and pedagogy that operate through athletics (e.g., Schinke & McGannon, 2015). Inspired by this scholarly work, I believe that knowledge is most valuable when knowing informs ‘doing’. I espouse ‘doing’ or taking action that: (a) centers oft-ignored social justice 38 issues that play out in sport; (b) contests prevailing dominant (White, masculine, cisgender, heteronormative), functionalist discourses; and (c) equips stakeholders with critical capacities to empower themselves and others. My own, and others’, scholarly contributions to the literature on youth development through sport and sport psychology (e.g., Gearity & Henderson-Metzger, 2017; Kochanek & Erickson, 2019a, 2019b, 2020, 2021) spotlight the need for research and action that pushes a critical and practical agenda: implementation and assessment of developmental initiatives that help youth and adult leaders effectively navigate social justice- related issues. My orientation toward praxis and the identified need for work that bridges the critical-practical gap within sport psychology research and practice underpin this project’s methodology (i.e., the process of research; see Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018): a evaluation of one critical capacity-building program, Dialogue in Athletics, that prioritizes use of findings among key community decision-makers for future program refinement and implementation. Program Evaluation Program evaluation regards a broad class of applied social scientific research approaches that systematically investigate the effectiveness of social intervention programs in ways that account for the political, organizational environments and inform action to improve social conditions (Rossi et al., 2004; Rossi et. al., 2019). Evaluation scholars identify that evaluations have several components. Rossi and colleagues (2004) outline that evaluations primarily describe a program (e.g., resources needed, services offered) and render a judgment about its performance in improving social conditions. More recently, Michael Patton (2011) put forth that evaluation concerns an additional component: utility. Patton’s (2011, 2013) utilization-focused evaluation (U-FE) framework underscores that evaluative findings should provide practically meaningful information that can guide key program stakeholders’ (who Patton refers to as intended users) 39 decision making and action. Thus, an evaluation study differs from a conventional research approach in that the social scientific line of inquiry can render a judgment, respond to the informational needs of program/community stakeholders (e.g., fitting the design to the current program status, contextual landscape, and resource constraints), and ensure the utility of evaluation findings. As such, evaluators must balance between the scientific and pragmatic in order to attend to the context and needs of program stakeholders. They thus judge rigor using different criteria—such as prioritizing what research is practically feasible carry out and most likely to guide decision making and action (Patton, 2011). Conducting an evaluation rather than a conventional research study was well suited for this project, which aimed to meet the informational needs key stakeholders (or intended users) involved with Dialogue in Athletics. The intended users for this project consisted of the Head of School and Associate Head of School, Athletic Director, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee liaison and member at Sowers School (the high school community in which program delivery took place). These five intended users were determined given their influence and/or interest in promoting a school culture of diversity, inclusion, and equity in/through athletics. More than meeting the informational and practical needs of intended users, evaluation research can also add to the scientific literature. Evaluation findings can have significant conceptual and real-world consequences for program delivery and application in other contexts (Patton, 2011). Thus, this evaluation project has potential to extend the knowledge base youth development through sport (and intergroup dialogue) given the novel use of a dialogic approach and wanting of critical capacity-building initiatives in interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics. Moreover, findings can have downstream implications for sport leaders/programs who might consider adopting (intergroup) dialogue programming provided evidence of its efficacy. 40 Theory of Evaluation Theories of evaluation regard various ways of focusing an evaluation and have distinct underlying assumptions and standards (e.g., evaluation purpose, stakeholder involvement) that evaluators strive for when carrying out projects (Miller, 2010; Patton, 2011). Using a theory of evaluation is vital to maximize the success of evaluations (i.e., meet key stakeholders’ informational needs) and show methodological coherence. Specifically, theory provides a concrete framework to guide the myriad decisions that evaluators can make as they conduct an evaluation (Miller, 2010; Patton, 2011; Rossi et al., 2004, 2019). Within the sport psychology literature, Driska (2014) critiqued the atheoretical nature of many evaluation studies. He identified that scholars have fallen short of adopting and adhering to a theoretical framework—or at least do not explicitly outline the theory guiding their evaluation. He urged scholars to employ a theoretical framework to better ensure that evaluation projects are rigorous, achieve their intended purpose, and have practical utility. While there are no strict rules that guide the theory selection and crafting of an evaluation, achieving optimal “fit” between the overall evaluation plan and program context is crucial (Miller & Campbell, 2006; Rossi et al., 2004). The American Evaluation Association (AEA) asserts that rigorous, ethical evaluations require evaluators to explore potential evaluation approaches, purposes, and questions with clients in order to design a plan that addresses the informational needs and matches the evaluative setting (AEA, 2014). Other evaluation scholars have echoed that (at least some stakeholder) engagement is essential to achieve “fit” in order to ensure that their approach aligns with organizational and contextual components such as the organization type, program content, location and sociopolitical underpinnings (Miller, 2010; Miller & Campbell, 2006); Rossi et al., 2004, 2019). Along with considering fit, Miller (2010) 41 proposed five criteria by which scholars and practitioners can judge various evaluation theories (e.g., utilization-focused, empowerment, and developmental). The five criteria include: operational specificity (i.e., clear guidance on what to do); range of application (i.e., situational flexibility and responsiveness); feasibility in practice (i.e., required evaluation skill and expertise of evaluators); discernible impact (i.e. desired outcome of the evaluation); and reproducibility (i.e., possibility of replicating the evaluation). Weighing how a particular theory of evaluation (e.g., utilization-focused) performs on these criteria can be helpful to gauge the rigor of a project. Utilization-Focused Evaluation The theoretical framework that guided this project is Patton’s (2011) utilization-focused evaluation (U-FE). A utilization-focused evaluation indicates that the purpose of an evaluation is use of findings by key program stakeholders (or intended users)—individuals who make important decisions regarding the program and its implementation. As such, U-FE is flexible: the approach does not advocate for any particular model or methodology, but what is appropriate for the situation (Patton, 2011). Evaluators can include any design, method, and measures as long their selection supports use (i.e., evaluation questions have answers that guide action). Patton (2011) operationalized U-FE in his foundational text and others have provided practical elaboration (e.g., Newcomer, 2015). Proponents of U-FE underline that evaluators can apply the approach to a range of contexts, namely where intended users are looking to better understand and improve their program. Because use for intended users is key to Patton (2011)’s U-FE approach, an evaluator who adopts such a framework must engage in on-going collaboration with key program stakeholders in order to understand and carry out an evaluation in alignment with their informational needs. This theoretical orientation also necessitates that evaluators demonstrate reflexivity— self-awareness, political/cultural consciousness, and 42 ownership of one’s perspective in order to best serve utility (Newcomer, 2015; Patton, 2011). Evaluators must identify (unexamined) program issues that might warrant probing and assumptions/expectations that underpin the program. And, they must critically reflect on their own biases to ensure that the selected approach is in the service of meeting the informational needs of key stakeholders. Altogether, U-FE performs satisfactory when examined using Miller’s (2010) criteria. U-FE is clearly operationalized given Patton’s (2011) work and the practical contributions of other evaluation scholars (e.g., Newcomer, 2015). The emphasis on utility of evaluation findings characteristic of a U-FE approach supports its contextually relevant (criteria two), practically feasible nature (criteria three)—though such a situationally responsive approach can raise concerns about reproducibility (criteria five). And, use of findings (e.g., whether findings inform decision making and/or action) can guide how an evaluator determines the evaluation’s discernable impact (criteria four). Fitting theory to the evaluation context. A utilization-focused evaluation addressed several needs specific to this evaluation project. A U-FE evaluation aligned with the unique program context, sport in general, and the evaluator’s unique positioning as facilitator-evaluator. First, U-FE was appropriate for this evaluative context given the framework’s situational responsiveness to the ‘messy’ practical realities of intergroup dialogue programming and athletics. This approach was fitting to explore potential differences in program effectiveness between adult and student-athlete dialogue groups. Patton (2011) referred to this line of inquiry as ‘reality testing’—determining whether program effects (i.e., intergroup learning outcomes) come from variability rather than strict fidelity to the program delivered as intended. Reality testing through the use of a priori outcome and process-oriented, exploratory measures can provide a more complete picture of what adaptations support/thwart program efficacy (i.e., ‘what 43 works, for whom, under what circumstances’). Such evaluative findings were vital to inform future refinement of the program and its implementation at Sowers School. A utilization-focused evaluation is also in alignment with the praxis-oriented nature of this inquiry and my unique role as program facilitator-evaluator-intended user. U-FE fits my facilitative style as evaluator and is consistent with my view that knowledge is most valuable when it informs use: action and decision making. While some critical, participatory theories of evaluation might also support a research as praxis orientation, they require significant stakeholder commitment. As such, U-FE was a more fitting approach, at least initially, because Dialogue in Athletics was newly being adopted within the sport community specific to this project. Greater stakeholder involvement might be more feasible in the future if the program were to garner long-term institutional support. Additionally, emphasis on evaluator readiness and reflexivity are characteristics of U-FE that aligned with this project given my unique positioning as facilitator-evaluator-intended user. As evaluator, I have a strong knowledge of intergroup dialogue pedagogy as a scholar in the area and trained facilitator along with my background in athletics as a researcher-practitioner. Even so, I acknowledge that I bring to these role(s) assumptions that will shape program implementation and evaluation. Iterative critical discussion with intended users and more experienced scholars and evaluators along with other reflexive strategies (described in depth in chapter 4) helped to ensure my ability to prioritize utility through all stages of the evaluation process. 44 Evaluation Purposes The purpose of this utilization-focused evaluation was to assess the impact of Dialogue in Athletics within one high school sport community. Two general evaluation purposes framed this project: (1) To assess the impact of dialogue programming on coach/administrator and student- athlete participants based on improvements in intergroup learning outcomes (i.e., satisfaction, awareness, affect, and skills/skills transference); (2) To assess the processes that support, or thwart, the efficacy of dialogue programming on participants along several dimensions: (a) Group communication processes (i.e., learning from others, engaging the self, critical reflection, and building alliances/common ground) (b) Other program features relevant to participants’ learning processes at the session-specific and program levels; (c) Challenges to implement learning on campus An underlining purpose was also to ensure that key community leaders use evaluation findings to guide future decision-making and action. 45 CHAPTER 4: METHODS This chapter does not follow a traditional procedure-participants-measures structure because this project was guided by a utilization-focused evaluation approach and not a conventional research study. To accomplish the evaluation purposes, this project occurred in four phases: prepare, frame, implement/understand, and synthesize/support use (see Figure 2 for a comprehensive timeline of events). Patton’s (2011) U-FE approach and related BetterEvaluation Rainbow Framework (2014) inform the outlined phases. In phase 1: prepare, I carried out preliminary steps necessary to conduct the evaluation by assessing program and evaluator readiness. To gauge program readiness, I reviewed relevant literature on intergroup dialogue and collaborated with MSU Dialogues program leaders to adapt/refine programming from their constructive feedback. I also engaged in critical reflection and dialogue with critical friends/peer debriefers (i.e., experienced evaluation and youth sport researchers) to assess my readiness as the evaluator. The process of critical dialogue helped me clarify my positionality and support transparency given my role as program facilitator and evaluator. In phase 2: frame, I identified key stakeholders within a single high school community, Sowers School, interested in the Dialogue in Athletics program. I proceeded to complete a situational analysis through conversations with school decision-makers to identify intended users and key evaluation purposes to ensure the project’s feasibility and utility.1 Establishing intended users, evaluation purposes and questions, and the evaluation design were vital to progress on to subsequent project phases. In phase 3: implement and collect, I delivered the program and collected data to answer evaluation purposes using a concurrent 1I also engaged intergroup dialogue practitioners in conversations to secondarily consider the potential use that evaluative findings might have beyond Sowers and among established programs. This purpose was considered secondary to this evaluation project in order to avoid Patton’s (2011) ‘user-focused use-deadly sins’: when priority focus is not on use by specific intended users, when organizations are targeted as users, and when the evaluator is considered a chief user (p. 83). 46 quasi-experimental, mixed methods design. In phase 4: analyze and support use, I integrated quantitative and qualitative data to form an overall assessment of impact and process outcomes of Dialogue in Athletics, and (plan to) present findings to support use. I outline the processes of each phase in more depth below. 47 Figure 2. Evaluation Timeline of Events 48 Phase 1: Prepare During phase 1, I first assessed the program’s (Dialogue in Athletics) readiness for an evaluation. I conducted a review of the literature on intergroup dialogue and collaborated with MSU Dialogues program leaders (i.e., current director and facilitator) to adapt/refine the program based on their constructive feedback and guidance. Through these processes, I sharpened my knowledge of intergroup dialogue in theory and practice (e.g., theoretical underpinnings, theory of change, and supportive research). This background research informed the creation of a logic model of Dialogue in Athletics program, the modified version of MSU Dialogues (see Table 1). An evaluation and sport coaching scholar also supported me in this step of the preparation phase. Specific adaptions are described later in phase 3, during which I implemented the program. I also considered potential evaluation purposes and questions without foreclosing any aims and/or methods during this preparatory phase. 49 Table 1. Dialogue in Athletics Logic Model Activities Resources and Actions Active learning • Reflection, dialogue, and experiential activities Structured interaction • Sustained encounter that balances power dynamics through a 4-stage model: forming relationships and learning dialogue skills; exploring group similarities/differences; dialoguing social issues/conflict; action planning & practice simulation for social justice promotion Facilitative Guidance • Trained facilitators guide an inclusive learning space and engagement through 4-stage model Inputs: Human, time, space, and financial needs Virtual (face-to-face) dialogue space/setting (Additional) facilitator pay Trained facilitator(s) of different racial identity group (e.g., Black, indigenous, and/or person of color) Partnerships within athletics departments/teams/programs (i.e., Sowers School) 1 group of (7-11 student- athletes; 1 group of approximately 10-15 coaches and administrators 6 sessions over approximately 3 weeks: 2-3 sessions per week format Outputs Direct measures of activities 6 sessions of sustained interaction by program participants (of more/less balanced racial identity group representation) Communication Processes including engaging the self, appreciating others, critical self-reflection, and alliance building Intergroup Outcomes Goals as knowledge, affect, and skill Intergroup understanding • Awareness. Increases in understanding of social inequalities and structural causes • Awareness. Identity engagement: self and others • Affect. Diversity as beneficial Intergroup relationships • Affect: Increases in commitment to bridge differences • Knowledge/Affect: • Increases in empathic awareness and concern Skill: Increases in communication and conflict capacities • Affect: Increases in views of conflict as productive Intergroup collaboration • Affect: Increases in commitment/motivation to educate self and be actively engaged after program • Affect: Increases in • confidence (SE) in taking actions Skill. Increases in actual behaviors/behavioral intentions that promote social justice In phase 1, I also assessed my own readiness to carry out the evaluation. I considered the American Evaluation Association’s (2004) four standards of evaluator competence: technical competence, cultural competence, explanation of evaluator limitations, and continual improvement. I crafted a reflexivity statement to make transparent my assumptions, expectations, and inclinations as a scholar-practitioner (relative to my roles as a critical sport researcher, facilitator, and evaluator), which outlined in chapter 3. I also engaged in critical dialogue with 50 two peer debriefers (or critical friends) who were experienced evaluation and/or youth development through sport researchers to better facilitate this process and support transparency given my dual role as program facilitator and evaluator. Overall, my strong knowledge of an intergroup dialogue approach, training as a facilitator, background in athletics as a scholar- practitioner, and course work in program evaluation made me well suited to conduct this preliminary evaluation project. Even so, iterative critical reflection and discussion with peer debriefers, intergroup dialogue program leaders, and Sowers intended users supported the integrity of my approach and prioritization of utility through all stages of the evaluation process. Reflexive process. I took specific steps given my positioning as program facilitator and evaluator in order to prioritize utility through this evaluation project. The following actions were key aspects of my reflexive process throughout this evaluation: (1) I took on-going methodological notes and recorded interactions with intended users (which totaled 10 pages) to make visible consistencies and changes in their expressed interests related to use. These notes were organized by month and provided a summary of actions that I took as facilitator/evaluator to engage stakeholders; (2) I critically reflected and journaled as the project progressed alongside tracking interactions with intended users to help surface my perspective (about use) relative to intended users, and better ensure that I was making decisions based on intended users’ needs rather than my own. I noted insights raised by critical friends, changes in my thinking, challenges/tensions that arose (e.g., balancing the scientific and practical), and reminders to help me center use [e.g., avoid getting trapped into intervention fidelity thinking!’]); (3) I debriefed with my co-facilitator following workshop sessions to get her impressions 51 of what went well and what could have been better—with a sensitivity to how her perceptions converged or diverged with my perspective. And, I shared participants’ session-level feedback with her to better meet participants’ needs/concerns; (4) I regularly (on a bi-weekly basis) communicated with a primary intended user, the athletic director, and sought her input as an ‘insider’ who had a pulse on the community. I inquired about what was most feasible (i.e., not overly disruptive or burdensome for program participants and stakeholders) and useful (i.e., helpful to know) in terms of program implementation and evaluation. I made adjustments to the evaluation project to support her and others stakeholders’ recommendations, including on decisions regarding program scheduling, groups of participants, timing of data collection (e.g., interviews), and priority evaluation questions; (5) I made strides to explicitly distinguish and clarify my concerns related to program delivery and evaluation in my communication with intended users. I framed conversations or request (e.g., “I am speaking to you as program facilitator or evaluator now”, or “Taking off my program facilitator ‘hat’, my job here is to critically assess the program’s efficacy”) to make my role frame apparent; (6) I had a researcher trained in qualitative methods and knowledgeable about program evaluation conduct follow-up interviews and serve as a critical friend to help me recognize my boundaries and support critical probing and reflection during data collection and analyses; (7) I sought advice and guidance from other evaluation and sport psychology experts when tensions arose around use and feasibility (e.g., stakeholder/participant buy-in)— given that this project took place during the coronavirus pandemic and required that several 52 changes to scheduling and participation be made. As a final part of phase 1, I began initial conversations with a prospective high school sport community, Sowers School, that expressed an interest in Dialogue in Athletics programming. From a preliminary discussion with administrative leaders (i.e., Athletic Director and Assistant Head of School), I proceeded to complete a situational analysis that continued through phase 2 (frame) of this project. I provide a description of this high school community context below. Program context. Sowers School (pseudonym) is a private high school located on the east coast of the United States. The school intentionally maintains a small student body in order to help each student thrive. As a predominately boarding community, most student and many faculty/staff live on campus in an effort to cultivate supportive, close relationships with trusted teachers, coaches, and mentors. The school has interscholastic sports teams including basketball, cross country, lacrosse, indoor/outdoor track, riding, softball, tennis, and volleyball. As a requirement, students must play at least one academic term of team sports. The campus also offers other co-curricular options for physical activity including dance, fitness and conditioning, and yoga. It is also important to situate Sowers School within the current sociopolitical landscape, namely the flurry racial (and social) justice activism in response to the recent police killings of unarmed Black Americans and racial disparities made glaringly obvious in light of the coronavirus pandemic. The educational community (like others within the U.S.) has experienced an onslaught of sharp criticism from former and current students and community members about the culture of anti-Black racism on campus. Criticism has surfaced in formal public meetings and through informal platforms (e.g., Instagram) to expose the problematic macro (institutional, cultural) and micro (internal, interactional) ways that racism is imbued within the campus to 53 undermine its actual commitment to providing an inclusive, safe environment for students— Black students and students of color in particular. In response, Sowers recently put forth a diversity, equity, and inclusion action plan to improve campus culture and hew to these values. It is against this situational backdrop that Sowers School stakeholders and I (the author and former community member) began conversations about how Dialogue in Athletics might serve to support the critical capacity building of community members (student-athletes and coaches) through athletics. Phase 2: Frame I completed a situational analysis of the evaluation context as a part of phase 2 (frame) in order to accomplish the following objectives: clarify intended users; define/refine evaluation purposes and key questions; and, create a suitable design that stems from guiding purposes. And, I obtained IRB approval before proceeding with program delivery and data collection. As a part of the situational analysis, I carried out two (virtual) conversations with key stakeholders from Sowers School. The first conversation consisted of a group of eight administrators and staff (including the athletic director) in which I overviewed Dialogue in Athletics program curriculum (i.e., learning objectives, sequential design, and example activities), invited stakeholders to ask questions, and familiarized them with the evaluation process. I emphasized that an evaluation is more likely to be used if intended users (i.e., key decision-makers within the school) were involved in ways they found meaningful, felt a sense of ownership in the evaluation and found the questions/purposes relevant. Patton (2011) refers to this notion as the personal factor: the presence of identifiable people who personally care about and are interested in the evaluation process and findings. From this initial conversation, I—in collaboration with the athletic director—solidified the 54 project’s intended users and met with these leaders (i.e., Head of School, Assistant Head of School, Athletic Director, and two DEI Committee Members) to get their input on what was most useful to know from the evaluation (e.g., what information would you want to know about the impact of the program on the community?; what do you want to know about participants’ learning experience?; what do you want to know about the program features that support/undermine participants’ learning and program impact?; what decisions, if any, are the evaluation findings expected to influence realistically?; what data and findings are needed to support this decision making?; what concerns do you have about the evaluation?; and, what deliverables would be most useful to you?). Drawing from Patton (2011), I posed these questions to support decision-makers use of the evaluation (p. 116). Based on recommendations from the athletic director, intended users offered their feedback in this conversation and also allowed them to follow up via a collaborative Google document to express lingering thoughts or comments. Through this co-creative process, I put forth some possible ways to think about evaluation priority purposes (i.e., impact outcome categories or ‘buckets’ might include participant knowledge, attitudes, and skills and processes that are salient to participants’ experience) to define “what could get measured” as Patton (2011) advised. Given stakeholders lack of experience with the evaluation process, I prefaced these potential topical areas as ‘food for thought’, without making any rigid suggestions. I encouraged intended users to offer their perspectives and thoughts.2 Where necessary, I followed up with specific probes to help intended users more narrowly define or clarify what they meant (e.g., “what do you mean by coaches’ ‘awareness’? or “could you tell me more about what you mean when you say how the program 2 I sought to bridge the conversation with intended users by introducing possible options for variables to measure given the program objectives while letting them, in their words, define what was most important. I remained open to measuring other factors or purposes and eliminating aspects that they saw as less relevant. This adaptability is reflected in the changes made to the ultimate purposes of this evaluation from my initial dissertation proposal. 55 might ‘trickle down’ into the community?”). Specific areas of interest that intended users expressed through this co-creative process were program-specific concerns about: (a) participant satisfaction, with a particular emphasis on student-athlete buy-in; (b) changes in critical awareness, perspective taking capacities (i.e., “a broadening of participants’ viewpoint and how the program helped them broaden their viewpoint”), and intentions and actions that support advocacy of minority students (of color) by adult (both sports coaches and administrators) and their peers; (c) skills transference to athletics or less structured sport-related settings given developments with the coronavirus pandemic; (d) challenges that participants experience in applying their program learning on campus (i.e., “what work still needs to be done on campus”; and “where might youth still be lacking or need more help”); and, (e) possible “trickle down” or “downstream effects” of the program to broader campus (e.g., classroom and dorm spaces). I concluded the meeting and circled back with a prospective, flexible evaluation timeline and plan via the athletic director—noting that we could make adaptations if necessary as the project progressed. It is important to note that the evaluation priority purposes defined in this plan shifted relative to the initial dissertation proposal in response to the practical realities (constraints) of the pandemic and the needs of the Sowers community. Phase 3: Implement and Collect In phase 3 of this evaluation project, I (program facilitator and evaluator) implemented Dialogue in Athletics at Sowers School. I carried out a concurrent quasi-experimental design that employed mixed methods to gather data. As such, this section first describes program participants and specific modifications that I made to tailor the program to student-athletes and coaches/administrators. I then outline the evaluation design including the plan and instruments for data collection. 56 Participants. Program participants were coaches/administrators and student-athletes identified through purposeful selection of a meaningful case (i.e., a single high school sport context), Sowers School. The bounded nature of this project served to offer an in-depth, community-specific evaluation of impact and process outcomes of Dialogue in Athletics that could ensure utility of findings. As such, adult participants were current members of the Sowers athletic department serving in either head and/or assistant coaching roles. And—at the request of intended users—the program was open to any administrators who wanted to participate as they regularly interact with student-athletes on the boarding school campus. Youth participants were current female student-athletes presently enrolled at Sowers School (in grades 9 to 12) who were members of the athletics (including dance) program. In total, 11 coaches and 2 administrators participated in adult dialogue group. While 11 student-athletes attended in at least 1 program session, 7 individuals participated 3 or more sessions and completed the final survey. Given the current demographics of coaches/administrators on staff, their dialogue group was intercultural (predominately White women) while the group of student-athlete leaders was more intergroup (or racially/ethnically balanced) in format. Dialogue in Athletics program. Dialogue in Athletics consisted of a 6-session program adapted from the MSU Dialogues curriculum (see Table 2 with an overview of session-level program objectives and activities). Through the Office of Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives and under the leadership of Dr. Donna Rich Kaplowitz, the existing 8-week MSU Dialogues race and gender programs have successfully engaged undergraduate and graduate students and faculty (Kaplowitz et al., 2019). It is important to note that although dialogue curriculum focused on race or gender, programming allows participants to explore the fluid and multi-dimensional nature of identity, including how other facets our (social) identities (e.g., gender) intersect with 57 race (e.g., intersectionality). The modified Dialogue in Athletics program adopted a similar race- centered yet integrative approach, and focused on issues around racial identity and relations in the United States. Dialogue in Athletics diverged from MSU Dialogues in three specific ways to better meet the needs of student-athlete and coaches: a condensed program; emphasis on the application of dialogue content/skills within the context of athletics; and, varied intergroup and intercultural format given the existing demographic make-up of adult leaders and interested youth participants. 58 Table 2. Dialogue in Athletics Objectives and Activities by Session Session 1: Dialogue Foundations and Group Building • Awareness. Define dialogue v. debate, and active listening (G2) • Affect. Understand the benefits of dialogue/active listening in athletics (G2) • Affect. Increase confidence in use of dialogue skills (G2) Skill. Develop dialogue and active listening skills (G2) • Session 2: Establishing Group Norms, & Unpacking Identity Session 3: Perspective Taking & Social Learning • Awareness. Define concepts related to personal and social group identity, oppression and privilege (G1) • Awareness. Deepen understanding of self and others, especially those who value different identities (G1) • Affect. Become more open to new ways of understanding identity and what identities others value (G1) • Awareness. Understand how social dynamics in athletics may honor or exclude aspects of our identities and its (dis)empowering effects (G1) • • • Identity object sharing Co-creating group norms Identity Toss Session 5: Institutional Oppression, Privilege, and the Myth of the Level Playing Field in Sport and Society • Awareness. Explore how our social identities and privileges, or lack thereof, impact our sport experience, performance, and development, and life. • Awareness. Debunk commonly held myths/values (meritocracy, colorblindness) held in sports • Affective. Strength attitudes about the importance of challenging social inequities to promote social justice • Affect. Consider what power we have to promote equity & social justice given our privilege Privilege Chart – how does privilege impact you in sports? • Discuss popular values/myths in • sports that discount social privilege & other institutional inequities Privilege Walk • • Awareness. Define and explore the concept of perspective taking (G2) • Skill. Develop the skill of perspective taking through (using “ACT” to practice deep listening) (G2) • Awareness. Become aware/actively think about our social learning process (self and society relationships) (G1) • Awareness. Become aware of microaggressions and stereotypes (G1) • Active communication technique (ACT) practice Early learning imagery Cycles of Socialization • • Session 6: Hot Topics, Action as Accomplice • Affective. Develop comfort and motivation in dialogue process through hot topics • Awareness. Define accomplice and common misconceptions • Affective. Increase confidence and (planned) frequency of action to address discrimination. • Affective. Create an action plan • Dialoguing hot topics • • Action Plan Spheres of influence for action Objectives Activities Objectives Activities • • • • • Guided Imagery and sharing • Dialogue v. debate visualization • Active Listening exercise • Hopes and fears activity Session 4: Individual Oppression - Stereotypes, Microaggressions, Bias & Interrupting • Awareness. Define individual oppression, related concepts, and its link to institutional oppression Skill. Share previous encounters of individual discrimination (in/out of sports) to develop awareness and intergroup empathy. Skill. Develop PALS to interrupt prejudicial, derogatory comments Four Corners activity – how we act around issues of individual discrimination (‘isms’) PALS practice to interrupt microaggressions, jokes/comments First, Dialogue in Athletics used a condensed 6-session program (over approximately 3 weeks) relative to the more traditional 8-session (over 8 weeks) program length. Scholars and practitioners suggested that intergroup dialogue programming (and its sequential design) can 59 take place over varied time frames (see Kaplowitz et al., 2019). They noted that short-term interactions can be educational and raise awareness, though recurring experiences over a longer time period are most effective to build intergroup trust, deeply explore identity differences and similarities, and hone critical skills. This condensed program was meant to strike a balance between accounting for practical limitations (i.e., busy schedules of student-athletes and coaches) and maintaining program quality (i.e., a multi-session, sequential program design). Second, Dialogue in Athletics offered sport-specific content, examples, and application of dialogue curriculum to better ensure the practical relevance of the program for leaders in athletics and other related performance contexts. Sport-specific adaptations were used to ensure that student-athletes and coaches develop awareness and skills to effectively examine broader social issues as they arise with teammates and coaches. Sport-adapted programming aimed to give participants space to explore de facto challenges in promoting diversity and inclusion in sport, along with how to leverage potential opportunities that the context and subculture of specific sports afford. Tailoring programming in this way was intended to empower youth and adult leaders to take action in the service of youth development and social progress. Third, Dialogue in Athletics consisted of either a traditional intergroup model that balanced representation of racial (and ethnic) identity groups along with a modified intercultural approach that less evenly balanced racial (and ethnic) identity group representation. It is important to note that the facilitators structured the space using other aspects of intergroup dialogue pedagogy in order to make efforts to prevent societal imbalances in (social) power from manifesting in the dialogue encounter. While balanced representation is ideal, structuring the dialogic space using a traditional intergroup model is not always feasible—such as when an institution/group does not have the diversity required (Frantell et al., 2019). Frantell et al. (2019) 60 advocated for scholars to incorporate new methods, and assess how outcomes and processes of such variations compare with a traditional dialogue format. Within the context of sport, balanced representation may not exist on a team or within an athletic department that has an interest in participating in dialogues. A modified intercultural approach was taken given the racial composition of (mostly White) coaches/administrators at Sowers. However, a more intergroup approach took place with the student-athlete group based on their demographic make-up. Evaluation design. A quasi-experimental convergent design was well suited for prioritizing the use of findings for this evaluation project. Applied to evaluation, quasi experimental designs have treatments, outcome measures, and conditions but do not use random selection and assignment of treatment conditions (Rossi et al., 2004, 2019). Although scientific discourse views randomized experimental designs as the gold standard as these designs enable evaluators to make causal attributions, a quasi-experimental design can be a valid impact assessment strategy when it is not feasible to randomly assign participants to intervention and control conditions (Rossi et al., 2004). Rossi and colleagues specified that a simple pre/post-test reflective design can be appropriate for short-term impact assessments of programs attempting to affect conditions (namely those unlikely to change on their own) that aim to examine the associative or correlational nature of participants’ perceptions of the impact of an intervention/program. Such a design was appropriate given the short-term, preliminary nature of this evaluation, which will does not aim to determine causality but instead examine whether the program made a difference (i.e., participants’ perceptions of program satisfaction and application of program learning). This design is also most feasible given the practical realities of program implementation and evaluation. Random assignment was not feasible nor reflective of how the program is (or would be) delivered as individuals choose to participate. A quasi-experimental 61 design was thus able to provide preliminary insight into the impact and processes that support/thwart efficacy given this novel application and evaluation of dialogues within athletics in a unique high school community. Program impact and process insights were able to adequately service key stakeholders’ informational needs for future program delivery and refinement in alignment with a U-FE approach. Thus, a quasi-experimental design allowed for a meaningful program evaluation that balanced between the scientific and pragmatic. A convergent design that used mixed methods was also employed. A convergent design occurs when the evaluator collects various data streams independently and then integrates them in the interpretation of evaluation findings (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). The data collected for this U-FE project consisted of quantitative and qualitative sources. This mixed methods approach aligned with U-FE, which affords evaluators flexibility to select a research methodology and measures that best fit the evaluation context and key stakeholders’ informational needs. For this project, quantitative types of data consisted of survey measures completed following each session and included retrospective pre/post-test measures to assess impact outcomes. Qualitative types of data consisted of open-ended response questions and semi-structured follow-up interviews with participants. The justification for using mixed methods was to provide a more complete assessment of impact and process outcomes tied to the efficacy of the Dialogue in Athletics than would have been provided by quantitative or qualitative results alone. Figure 3 depicts the evaluation plan with measures (instruments) described in detail in the next section. 62 Figure 3. Evaluation Plan Measures and Purposes Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5 Session 6 Follow-up 1 to 3 months Survey of participant satisfaction, knowledge/awar eness, affect, and skill Purpose 1 and 2 Survey of participant satisfaction, knowledge/awar eness, affect, and skill Purpose 1 and 2 P Survey of participant satisfaction, knowledge/awaren ess, affect, and skill Purpose 1 and 2 IGD Communication process (Gurin et al., 2013) Purpose 2 Survey of participant satisfaction, knowledge/awa reness, affect, and skill Survey of participant satisfaction, knowledge/awar eness, affect, and skill Purpose 1 and 2 Purpose 1 and 2 Qualitative semi- structured interviews with coach and student-athlete participants on program impact/experience, skills transference, and barriers to apply learning Purpose 1 and 2 Survey of participant satisfaction Purpose 1 and 2 Post-program measures Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy (SEE) (Wang et al., 2003) Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS) (Neville et al., 2000) IGD Behavioral intentions measure (Gurin et al., 2013) Purpose 1 IGD Communication processes (Gurin et al., 2013) & open-ended questions Program delivered over 3-4 weeks (September/October for Coaches and January/February for Student-Athletes) 63 Specific to impact outcomes, quantitative measures consisted of survey measures targeting constructs that corresponded to the evaluation priorities co-created with intended users in the situational analysis—namely, (critical) awareness, empathic capacity, and behavioral intentions to engage in social justice (intergroup) action. A priori constructs that hewed to the evaluation priorities were colorblind attitudes, ethnocultural empathy, and behavioral intentions for intergroup collaboration (described in the section on instruments below). Corresponding constructs served as proxy measures that also related to program-designated intergroup learning outcomes of understanding, relationships, and action. Given intended users interest in learning/skill transference to sport and other campus settings, qualitative measures (i.e., open-ended responses and follow-up interviews) were employed to provide in-depth, person- and context-specific information about participants’ learning and transference within the broader community (purpose 1). It is important to note that because of the coronavirus pandemic, fall—and eventually winter—sports were cancelled. Sowers School held less structured physical activity/sport skills opportunities after school in place of in-season sports, which some coaches helped run. Informed by the established evaluation purposes and on-going communication with the athletic director as the pandemic unfolded, the timeline for follow-up interviews was delayed for the coach/administrator group to the winter in an effort to provide more time and possible opportunities for them to work with student-athletes in season. As such, coach/administrator and student-athlete follow-up interviews took place 3 months and 1 month after the program respectively (See Figure 3). Regarding program processes, quantitative (i.e., close-ended survey questions) and qualitative (i.e., open-ended survey questions and semi-structured interviews) data were used to explore relevant processes along several dimensions: communication processes, other program 64 features, and challenges to transfer program learning (purpose 2). Examination of these processes aimed to support the practical utility of evaluation findings by bringing to light meaningful and challenging aspects of participants’ experiences at the (macro) program- and (micro) session- level and giving insight into the conditions that might maximize program effectiveness. Such process-relevant information could inform future program implementation (in whole or part) and improvement at Sowers. Evaluation process use. Patton (2011) defined process use as the idea that possible learning can occur in individuals (and an organization), directly or indirectly, as a result of being involved in the evaluation process. While Patton identified several varieties of process use, a type relevant to this evaluation process is instrumentation effects and reactivity. Two types of process use of relevance to this project are development of evaluative thinking and instrumentation effects and reactivity. Development of evaluation thinking concerns increasing intended users’ capacity to understand and strategize using an evaluation lens as a result of their engagement in the process. My collaboration with intended users at multiple time points had potential to give them new insight into evaluative thinking and strategies that would be useful to them in making decisions regarding programming in the future. Instrumentation effects and reactivity regards “how completing surveys or interviews might affect participants” (p. 151). Data collection for the evaluation can present opportunities for participants to (critically) reflect on their experiences. For example, a probing interview or survey question might invite participants to engage in reflection that influences opinions, feelings, and behaviors. In this evaluation project, adult and youth participants’ engagement in surveys and follow-up interviews had potential to further reinforce the utility of the evaluation for Sowers stakeholders as their reflections on their program experience could impact them (e.g., augment their learning). The 65 measures I used to assess participants’ experience (i.e., impact, processes) are overviewed next. Instruments. I intentionally selected instruments to assess dialogue program impact and process outcomes in order to address the evaluation priority purposes that were co-created with intended users. Using a mixed methods approach, my aims was to maximize the rigor, feasibility, and use of evaluative findings. Impact measures. Impact measures were selected to assess theoretically-derived intergroup outcomes (i.e., understanding, relationships, and collaboration/action) to accomplish evaluation purpose 1. Use of a priori (validated) measures to assess intergroup learning outcomes that are commonly employed within multicultural education and extant intergroup dialogue research was deemed particularly appropriate and useful based on the situational analysis involving intended users from Sowers School. Use of commonly validated measures could also aid in comparing findings across contexts (See Aldana et al., 2012; Muller & Miles, 2015). Color-blind racial attitudes scale (CoBRAS). The Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS) was used to examine intergroup understanding (i.e., critical awareness of social privilege and inequities/oppression). CoBRAS assesses cognitive aspects of colorblind racial attitudes: the belief that race should not and does not matter (Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee, & Browne, 2000). The 20-item instrument consists of three subscales: Racial Privilege (RP), Institutional Discrimination (ID), and Blatant Racial Issues (BRI). RP probes blindness of the existence of White privilege (e.g., “White people in the U.S. have certain advantages because of their skin color”). ID refers to a limited awareness of the consequences of institutional forms of racial discrimination (e.g., “Racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. have certain advantages because of the color of their skin”). BRI indicates a lack of awareness to general, pervasive racial discrimination (e.g., “Racism may have been a problem in the past, it is not an important 66 problem today”). Questions adopted a 6-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), and subscale scores were calculated from the mean of the individual items (see Appendix A). Neville et al. (2000) reported reliabilities ranging from .84 to .91 overall, and .70 or above for each subscale. And, a recent study on the effects of dialogue programming corroborate the reliability and validity of the measure (Muller & Miles, 2015), though another study found low reliability for measure subscales (Aldana et al., 2012). An adjustment was made to the scale (from 6- to 7- point scale with 4 = neutral), and reliability scores calculated for before and after program scores for all coach and student-athlete dialogue groups.3 While this instrument was administrated, scores for the subscales were below .60 for both dialogue groups and indicated poor reliability. As such, data from this measure was not included in further analyses. Scale of ethnocultural empathy (SEE). The Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy (SEE) was used to assess intergroup understanding and relationships (i.e., empathic awareness and beliefs). SEE is a self-report, 31-item instrument that measures empathy toward people of racial and ethnic backgrounds different from one’s own identity (Wang et al., 2003; see Appendix B). The SEE is comprised of four subscales: Empathetic Feeling and Expression (EFE), Empathetic Perspective Taking (EPT), Acceptance of Cultural Differences (ACD), and Empathetic Awareness (EA). EFE probes concern toward discriminatory or prejudiced attitudes/beliefs and affective responses to the experiences of people from different racial or ethnic groups (e.g., “When I hear people make racist jokes, I tell them I am offended even though they are not 3 Patton (2011) provided insight into scale adjustments that create a mid-point option in evaluation studies. While even-numbered scales force respondents to “lean in one direction or the other”, odd-number scales can support utility insofar as it “reveals people who are undecided or uncertain” (p. 270). The adapted survey measures were meant to more specifically gauge where participants were at in terms of their critical awareness and attitudes as previously done in intergroup dialogue research (Aldana et al., 2012). 67 referring to my racial or ethnic group.”). EPT probes effort to understand experiences and emotions of people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds through perspective taking (e.g., “I feel uncomfortable when I am around a significant number of people who are racially/ethnically different than me”). ACD reflects understanding and valuing of diverse/different cultural traditions and customs (e.g., “I feel annoyed when people do not speak standard English). EA gauges “awareness about the experience of people from different racial or ethnic backgrounds (e.g., “I recognize that the media often portrays people based on racial or ethnic stereotypes”). Questions adopted a 6-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) and subscale scores are calculated from the mean of the individual items. Wang et al. (2003) found sufficient reliability, as indicated by Cronbach’s alphas between .71 and .90, for subscales. And, a recent study on the effects of intergroup dialogue programming corroborate the reliability of this measure (see Muller & Miles, 2017). An adjustment was made to the scale (from 6- to 7- point scale with 4 = neutral), and reliability scores calculated for before and after program scores for coach/administrator and student-athlete dialogue groups.4 Reliability scores were found for this adapted measure. Scores ranged from .810 to .944 for EA, .71 to .83 for EF, but ACD (which ranged from .34 to .83) and PT (which ranged from .67 to .75) subscales were not reliable for coaches/administrators. Scores ranged from .79 to .86 for EA, .86 to .96 for ACD, but EF (which ranged from -.29 to .78) and PT (which ranged from -.11 to .78) subscales showed low psychometric properties among student-athletes. As such, only reliable subscales were fully 4 Patton (2011) provided insight into scale adjustments that create a mid-point option in evaluation studies. While even-numbered scales force respondents to “lean in one direction or the other”, odd-number scales can support utility insofar as it “reveals people who are undecided or uncertain” (p. 270). Adapted survey measures were meant to more specifically gauge where participants were at in terms of their critical awareness and attitudes as previously done in intergroup dialogue research (Aldana et al., 2012). 68 interpreted and the composite scores were interpreted with caution. Behavioral intentions for intergroup collaboration. Along with measures to gauge critical awareness (or understanding) and attitudes (or relationships), intergroup collaboration/action was assessed using an adapted survey of behavioral intentions from established measures drawn from the intergroup dialogue literature outlined in Appendix C (Gurin et al., 2013; Nagda, Kim, & Truelove, 2004; also see Multi-University Intergroup Dialogue Research Project Guidebook, Gurin et al., 2009). Previous work on intergroup dialogue programs have assessed participants’ confidence in engaging in a variety of self-directed, other-directed, and collaboration actions to address issues of prejudice, discrimination, and injustices in the future. An example of self- directed action includes, “avoiding language that reinforces negative stereotypes”; an example of others’ directed action includes, “challenging others on derogatory comments”; and, an example of collaboration includes, “joining a community group/organization that promotes diversity”. In order to gauge participants’ intentions to act rather than confidence in action, the revised instrument probed the extent (or likelihood) with the following instructions: “Indicate the extent to which you plan to engage in the following actions (1= extremely unlikely, 7 = extremely likely)”. An open-ended response question (“is there any other actions you intend to take to promote diversity, inclusion, and/or social justice?”) was also added to provide space for participants to give additional information on their behavioral intentions if closed responses did not address all actions they intended to carry out. Taken together, these instruments aligned with identified evaluation priorities and allowed for sufficient assessment of contextually relevant intergroup learning outcomes. In particular, a focus on race and ethnicity specific to the SEE measure was suitable given intended users expressed interests for the inquiry, the emphasis (though not exclusive focus) on race and 69 ethnicity in Dialogue in Athletics curriculum, and previously validated use of these instruments. I used a retrospective pre/post-survey design to collect data for these measures (see Appendix A and B). In a retrospective design, respondents rate themselves before and after an intervention in a single data collection event. Extant literature supports this design as a method to reduce response shift bias, which can occur when participants use a different internal standard between ratings (i.e., before and after an intervention). I employed this approach to assess individual-level changes in awareness, attitude, and behaviors as one part of an overall evaluation of a program (Klatt & Taylor-Powell, 2005), a format that was also beneficial to minimize participant burden. Process measures. This section outlines the measures that I used to examine dialogue program processes along several dimensions: communication processes, other program features, and challenges to implement program learning (Purpose 2). Communication processes survey. Along with assessing the programmatic outcomes of intergroup dialogue, this evaluation also aimed to explore relevant processes (i.e., “how” the dialogue program supports/thwarts participant learning). I drew on the intergroup dialogue literature to select appropriate, practically meaningful measures that addressed evaluation priorities as co-defined with intended users. Nagda (2006) originally integrated and tested the communication processes a part of the larger theoretical model of intergroup dialogue. Results from this study confirmed four processes that help explain the mechanisms through which intergroup encounters lead to desired outcomes. These processes include engaging the self (e.g., “sharing my view and experiences”); appreciating difference (e.g., “hearing different points of view”); critical self-reflection (e.g., “examining sources of personal biases and assumptions”); and, alliance building (e.g., “working through disagreement and conflict”). Survey constructs were adapted from established measures from Gurin et al. (2013)’s multi-university study and 70 IGD Research Project Guidebook (Gurin et al., 2009) and are featured in Appendix D. Participants completed a 20-item measure to indicate how much each communication process contributed to their learning at the program midpoint and end using a 5-point scale (ranging from 1 = a great deal, 5 = not at all). Based on the sequential design of Dialogue in Athletics content, which progresses from critical awareness raising to alliance building and action, only 13 items were used at the mid-point specific to the first 3 communication processes (excluding alliance building). The full 20-item measure featuring all four communication processes (including alliance building) was used at the post-program survey. Session-level surveys. This evaluation also assessed session-level impact and processes in an effort to provide in-depth information about Dialogue in Athletics to support use of findings. Session-specific surveys were employed to examine participant satisfaction and learning (i.e., awareness, affect, skills development/transference). Given the flexibility that a U-FE evaluation affords, this evaluation did not solely rely on a priori measures but featured exploratory measures tailored to examine the learning objectives of each unique session in relation to evaluation priority purposes. Drawing from Kraiger, Ford, and Salas’s (1993) and Kirkpatrick’s (2009) learning models, I designed open-ended and close-ended survey questions for each session to explore changes in participant satisfaction, (critical) awareness, affect, and skill/skill transference tailored to the specific content of each session. Session-specific assessment items are depicted in Table 3, along with the learning objectives and corresponding theory-derived intergroup learning outcomes. Appendix E outlines all session-specific measures including those delivered at the program midpoint and end. 71 Table 3. Dialogue in Athletics Session Outcomes, Objectives, and Assessment Session Measures/Assessment IGD Outcomes 1. Knowledge - Of the following statements, check all that apply that are true about dialogue. 2. Affect – Dialogue foundations Compared to before today’s meeting I feel more confident in my ability to… • • Actively listen to others Reframe debates into dialogues in interactions with others 1. Knowledge/awareness - Short response What have you learned about identity because of participating in today’s session? 2. Critical awareness - How, if at all, has this session deepened your understanding of your own identities and social privilege (in sport), and broadened your perspective of the identities that others value? 3. Skill Transference – Follow-up from session 1 • Recall, if any, time during/since you’ve participated in dialogue that you have reframed a difficult situation as a dialogue instead of a debate. How, if at all, was this helpful to you? 1. Knowledge – True/False to define perspective taking *Mid-point program survey questions 1. Affect - Interrupting Compared to before today’s meeting… • • I have a process to go to interrupt derogatory comments I feel it is important to interrupt derogatory comments (e.g., stereotypes) 2. Skill Transference – Follow-up from session 3 • How, if at all, have you used active listening (ACT) or perspective taking skills as a student-athlete/coach in athletics or in other spaces since participating in dialogues? 1. Knowledge/awareness - Of the following statements, check all that apply that are true about social privilege… 2. Affect - Privilege Acceptance: _____________ is a form of privilege that I have, which I view as a power/responsibility to help others in athletics/society. How I plan to use my _______________ privilege to help others is by…. 3. Skill Transference - Follow-up from session 4 Describe a situation, if any, in which you used PALS to interrupt an instance of individual discrimination (stereotyping, microaggression, and/or joke) in/outside of athletics since participating in dialogues. 1. Satisfaction/Use – How useful did you find today’s action planning (or spheres of influence) activity? *Final program survey questions Outcome 1 Understand Outcome 2 Relations Outcome 1 Understand Outcome 2 Relations Outcome 1 Understand Outcome 2 Relations Outcome 1 Relations Outcome 1 Relations Outcome 3 Action Outcome 3 Action 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. 1. 2. 3. 4. Objectives 1. Knowledge. Describe the difference between dialogue and debate, and active listening (G2) 2. Affective. Consider the benefits of using dialogue (G2) 3. Affective. Increase confidence in using 4. dialogue skills (G2) Skill. Develop dialogue and active listening skills (G2/3) 1. Knowledge. Define concepts related to social group identity, oppression and privilege (G1) 2. Knowledge. Deepen understanding of self and others, especially those who have different identities (G1) 3. Knowledge. Understand how social dynamics in athletics may honor or exclude aspects of our identities and its (dis)empowering effects (G1) 4. Affect. Become open to new ways of understanding identity and what identities others value (G1) 1. Knowledge. Define perspective taking 2. (G2) Skill. Develop perspective taking as a skill (using “ACT”) (G2) 3. Knowledge. Become aware/actively think about our social learning process and factors influencing our perspective (G1) 4. Knowledge. Become aware microaggressions and stereotypes and their harmful effects (G1) 1. Knowledge. Define individual oppression and its link to institutional oppression Skill. Share previous encounters of individual discrimination (in/out of sports) to develop awareness and intergroup empathy. 3. Affect/Skill. Develop capacity to use PALS to interrupt prejudicial, derogatory comments Knowledge. Explore how our social identities and privileges, or lack thereof, impact our sport experience and life. Knowledge. Debunk commonly held myths/values held in sports Affective. Strength attitudes about the importance of challenging social inequities to promote social justice Affective. Identify what power (privilege) we have to promote equity & social justice given 1. Affective. Develop comfort and motivation in dialogue process 2. Knowledge. Define accomplice and common misconceptions 3. Affective. Increase confidence and (planned) frequency of action to address discrimination. 4. Affective. Create an intergroup action plan 72 Follow-up qualitative interviews. Follow-up qualitative interviews took place 1 to 3 months after completion of Dialogue in Athletics program for student-athletes and coaches/administrators respectively. This difference in amount of time from program completion to follow up occurred because of the coronavirus pandemic. After coaches/administrators completed the program in the fall (during which there was no in-season sports), winter sports were later cancelled. Input from Sowers leadership and on-going conversations with the athletic director prompted the decision to postpone follow-up interviews with adult participants with the hope that coaches might have in-season opportunities to interact with athletes in the late winter/early spring. As such, coach/administrator interviews took place 3 months after, whereas student-athlete interviews took place 1 month after, the program end. A research team member who is trained in qualitative methods and is also a youth sports coach conducted follow-up interviews. This research team member was not involved in program delivery/facilitation in any way. Having another researcher (and not program facilitator or evaluator) conduct interviews was meant to encourage participants to be open and transparent about their program experience and allow for possible disconfirming (or unexpected) evidence to surface (see Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). All coaches/administrators and student-athletes who were willing to be involved interviews participated. Individual interviews lasted approximately 30-35 minutes and included 6 of 13 adult and all 7 youth (who completed final pre/post program surveys) participants.5 5 Coaches’/administrators’ participation in interviews was a challenge given the many roles that adult leaders have on campus and added stress during the pandemic. After only 2 adults signed up for interviews, I consulted with an expert in coach education and evaluation to craft an email to invite coaches/administrators to participate while also being sensitive to these external circumstances. While I sought interviews with every coaches/administrators to get all perspectives (including those from White and Black male participants), only 6 of 13 participants agreed to interviews. Two coaches replied that the did not have enough time (i.e., “were stretched too thin”). I did not reach out to the only Black male coach after my first email. In conversations with the athletic director, she indicated that he did not want to participate. This was an intentional choice that I made to prioritize the integrity of this evaluation project and not further burden the only Black participant in the coach/administrator group, especially because the insurrection by White nationalists on the U.S. Capitol had just occurred. 73 Semi-structured interviews allowed program participants to offer valuable information about program experience, potential skills transference, and barriers to apply their learning to address evaluation priority purposes. The interview protocol focused on three thematic categories in order to support the use of findings: (1) impact of experience, (2) skills transference, and (3) challenges to implement learning (see Appendix E). By probing these general categories, semi- structured interviews served to triangulate and complement quantitative and qualitative survey data collected. Specifically, I (the evaluator) designed the interview protocol to gauge meaningful and challenging aspects of program experience as a form of within-subjects’ triangulation; evaluate possible changes over time; and, inquire about examples of and challenges to skills transference as this information was captured with less depth given that surveys were short and in written form. I analyzed data from session-specific surveys prior to follow-up interviews. This preliminary analysis of the data informed conversations with my research team member in preparation for her interviews with participants. I encouraged the interviewer to ask open-ended questions and probe for concrete examples (rather than general statements) and clarification insofar as some survey questions were left blank, responses vague, or participants indicated that they had yet to have the opportunity to apply their learning. She also asked participants about challenging (unfavorable) aspects of their program experience and suggestions for improvement. Phase 4: Analyze and Support Use In phase 4 of this evaluation, I analyzed quantitative and qualitative data sources and integrated findings in order to assess the impact and process outcomes of Dialogue in Athletics. Below is an overview of methods employed to analyze data. Ensuring that key stakeholders use evaluative findings is integral to the purposes of this U-FE project. Patton (2011) recommended 74 informing key stakeholders of preliminary findings as the evaluation progresses. Following the completion of coach/administrator data collection and analyses (but before follow-up interviews with student-athletes took place so that I could make any desired adjustments to their interviews) I crafted a short interim report for intended users. I conclude this section with a succinct description of information gleaned from intended users’ reactions/input to situate the evaluation results for the dissertation (Chapter 5). I plan to carry out a final presentation of the full evaluation with intended users (schedule for June 8th) to put forth a formative judgment and recommendations (offered in Chapter 6). Analysis of quantitative data. Given the exploratory nature of this evaluation and small sample size of participants, descriptive and correlational quantitative analyses were best suited for the purposes of this project. I describe the analyses below relative to evaluation purposes: • Purpose 1: To assess the overall impact of dialogue programming on coach/administrator and student-athlete participants, selected measures that align with intergroup learning outcomes were analyzed using paired-samples t-tests to examine any changes between the retrospective pre/post-survey scores. Descriptive statistics were also be used. • Purpose 1: To assess the session-level impact of dialogue programming on coach/administrator and student-athlete participants, descriptive statistics were used to examine session-level, close-ended questions gauging participant satisfaction, awareness, affect, and skills development/transference • Purpose 2: To assess processes that support, or thwart, the efficacy of dialogues programming on participants relative to group communication processes, descriptive statistics were used to examine theoretically-defined constructs at the midpoint (after session 3) and post program (after session 6). 75 Qualitative analytical approach. Qualitative analyses allowed for in-depth, participant- and group-specific information in line with all evaluation purposes framing this project. I employed Patton’s (2002) abductive analysis approach to guide the data collection process for open-ended survey questions and semi-structured interviews (also see Sparkes & Smith, 2014). Abductive analysis regards a mix of inductive and deductive reasoning in which theory and practice inform one another (i.e., praxis). This approach involved bouncing between deductive and inductive analytical methods in order to gather information about the program specific to pre-determined categories of questions that underpin the evaluation purposes (i.e., deductive) while using open-ended questions that allowed participants to respond freely for patterns in the data to emerge naturally (i.e., inductive). Close- (quantitative) and open-ended (qualitative) data at the session level were helpful to support the trustworthiness of data as a form of triangulation within subjects. Integration of data types across coach and student-athlete groups also served as a form of between-subjects triangulation to support validity and rigor (e.g., student-athletes’ perceptions of adult leaders on campus). Open-ended session level surveys and follow-up interviews adopted an abductive orientation insofar as they targeted key sensitizing concepts and sub-concepts related to program impact (i.e., awareness, affect, and skill/skills transference) and processes. Specific to surveys, participants could also comment on process features and aspects of the program that they would change. Participants had some degrees of freedom to openly elaborate with personal examples, experiences, or insights from this deductive framing of questions. Through follow-up interviews, an abductive approach aided the interviewer (research team member), in directing a participant’s attention around specific topics of interest while also giving them space to express their unique (and possibly unexpected) insights about their program experience. 76 Three sensitizing concepts (thematic categories) purposefully yet flexibly structured semi- structured interviews: (1) impact of program experience; (2) skills transference; and, (3) barriers to implement learning on campus. Questions targeting the thematic category “impact of program experience” concerned participants’ perceptions of program impact (e.g., “How, if at all, has the program impacted you?”) along with probing appraisals of most meaningful and difficult moments during their dialogue experience (e.g., “Can you describe a meaningful, or challenging, moment for you during your dialogue experience and share why it was so?”). Questions pertaining to the thematic category “skills transference” probed participants’ implementation of concepts or skills, and potential challenges they may have experienced in applying their learning). Specific follow-up probes supported further elaboration on a topic (such as skill or concept) (e.g., “is there a specific example that comes to mind when you used the strategy you mentioned?”). The less restrictive form of questioning aimed to encourage participants to put forth their individual perspective rather than confine them to a particular concept or skill (e.g., “How have you used active listening?”), and served to guard against confirmation bias (Patton, 2011). For the sensitizing concept “challenges to implement learning”, an open-ended question (e.g., “What, if any, concepts or skills have been challenging to use on campus?) to elaborate on barriers to applying their learning. Participants could share anything they did not get the chance to express to conclude the interview. While a strict deductive approach can limit the breadth and richness of participant responses, a purely inductive approach can generate responses that would result in findings that stray from priority purpose. This deductive-inductive frame aimed to balance these realities and support use of the evaluation. Analysis of open-ended survey questions and follow-up interviews. This section 77 provides a detailed description of the qualitative analytical process that I carried out including steps taken to support validity and trustworthiness within this mixed methods evaluation (see Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018 for strategies to support validity). I adopted several suggested strategies (i.e., triangulation, use of critical friends/peer debriefers, and disconfirming evidence). For this project, I first examined qualitative data sources (i.e., open-end survey questions and follow-up interviews) from adult and youth participants separately. A second step of this process consisted of considering qualitative sources together to build evidence for a theme (or subtheme) because similar sensitizing concepts informed both methods of data collection as previously described. Written results with final analyses (chapter 5) are thus presented in an integrated fashion while showcasing commonalities and unique features of each data type and time point of collection (e.g., after a session, pre/post-program, or follow-up). Overarching thematic deductive categories related to program impact (i.e., awareness, affect, skills development and skills transference) and program processes guided the generation of meaning units. See Table 4 for a definition of specific deductive categories as informed by scholarship on learning outcomes (Kirkpatrick, 2009; Kraiger et al., 1993) and skills development in intergroup dialogue research (Hopkins & Domingue, 2014) to support trustworthiness of the analysis. 78 Table 4. Definition of Sensitizing Concepts Used in Coding Sensitizing concept (coded theme) Definition Awareness Affect Skill Skills Transference To understand a concept, idea, or gain insight into the self, others, or society (information about what) or strategies (information about how) . An internal state that can influence behavior including attitude direction/strength, motivational disposition, self-efficacy (confidence), goal setting, or behavioral intentions. Learned behaviors and ways of thinking that support a person’s ability to engage across difference (Hopkins & Domingue, 2014). Initial skill acquisition involves the transition from knowing ‘what’ to knowing ‘how’ (declarative to procedural knowledge). To demonstrate the capacity to use a skill beyond the situation trained (dialogic encounter) and discriminate when skills need to be adapted to fit the context. For open-ended surveys, I generated codes based on coach/administrator and student-athlete responses by identifying and coding meaning units and then proceeded to organize them into hierarchical themes from specific to broad (Patton, 2002; Sparks & Smith, 2014). For example, the written response from a participant’s survey “For me, it helps me focus on the priorities of who I identify myself as—meaning to put more effort into that and let go of worrying about the other things” was coded personal awareness. Personal awareness of one’s identities was coded as distinct from critical awareness (i.e., understanding of social privilege/oppression or inequities). An example of critical awareness from one participant’s written response explicating a key session take-away was “How little we, as White people, have to think about our racial identity in our daily life. Socially, professionally, emotionally.” I carried out a similar abductive process for follow-up interviews. As an illustrative example related to the deductive sensitizing concept of affect, “So, I think just, I just got to be brave and not be afraid of trying to apply those things”, I inductively coded as adopting a brave mindset. Inductive codes or (sub)themes were generated based on participants’ unique responses and, where fitting, subsumed under deductive sensitizing concepts. In some cases, variation in participants’ responses could not be accurately 79 categorized under a deductive sensitizing concept so a broader inductive theme was generated (e.g., participant-context considerations). I aggregated codes into subthemes (e.g., awareness) that captured participants’ experiences relative to overarching themes (i.e., program impact and processes). Through this abductive analytical process, I strove to reach code saturation: to capture a comprehensive range of thematic issues related to the underlying phenomenon (i.e., program impact and process; Hennink, Kaiser, & Marconi, 2017). Last, I ordered subthemes/themes to create a coherent thematic frame. Disconfirming evidence. In order to support trustworthiness and rigor, I made intentional efforts to attend to disconfirming evidence by accounting for what was written/expressed and also not expressed. In open-ended surveys, I tracked cases where participants left questions blank or indicated that a particular example did not come to mind and/or had not happened to them). Additionally, I sought to create opportunities for disconfirming evidence to surface in open- ended surveys and follow-up interviews through questions that solicited participant input regarding program features they would change, difficult moments, and barriers to apply learning to campus. Examples of how disconfirming (and unexpected) evidence were less favorable data (i.e., challenges with participant buy-in/scheduling and marginalizing experiences) and data that elucidated insight into the supplemental diversity-related campus initiatives that took place in addition to Dialogue in Athletics. This data changed my thinking— guiding me to make more conservative appraisals of short- and long-term impact as uniquely attributable to the program. Use of critical friends. Throughout the qualitative analytical process, I iteratively involved two critical friends who challenged my analyses relative to the deductive-inductive generation of hierarchical themes for surveys and follow-up interviews. After familiarizing myself with each data type (separately), I debrief with one critical friend (a sport psychology researcher who had 80 some familiarity with dialogue pedagogy) about my initial impressions. I also followed up with this colleague in the final stages of analyses to debrief the overarching thematic framework. This critical dialogue served to support rigor and trustworthiness of my interpretation through critical questions that challenged me to consider alternative meanings of my interpretation of program impact and relevant processes within the unique community context. I used a second critical friend (also interviewer) throughout the stages of data analysis. I engaged in critical dialogue sessions (a total of 4) after preliminary analyses of session-level survey and follow-up interview data for coaches/administrators and student-athletes. This critical dialogue served to support trustworthiness through questioning that challenged me to consistently coded subthemes, appropriately code meaning units under a particular sensitizing concept, shed light on disconfirming (and unexpected) evidence (e.g., aspects of program impact in conjunction with other supplemental school initiatives that participants mentioned), and interpret meaning units relative to participant responses given her involvement in interviews (i.e., how my interpretation of the data more or less fit with her experience of what participants said). I defined and clarified sensitizing concepts with her (see Table 5) and reviewed select, representative quotations and meaning units for all possible (sub)themes. Her constructive challenges better ensured the accurate coding of subthemes (e.g., distinguishing between racial discomfort and general discomfort under challenging aspects of participants’ experience) and their consistent application. For example, she helped check examples of skills transference to ensure that a given meaning unit referred to a concrete (rather than general or hypothetical) explanation of a participant using a dialogue-related skill. After separately examining qualitative data types, the next step of this process consisted of bringing qualitative sources together to build evidence for a theme (or subtheme) because similar 81 sensitizing concepts informed both methods of data collection. I also determined when there was insufficient evidence for a particular code or subtheme, a decision that was further supported through critical dialogue with a peer debriefer. Written results with final analyses (chapter 5) are thus presented in an integrated fashion while highlighting areas of convergence/divergence and unique features of each data source including time point of collection (e.g., after a session, pre- post program, or follow up). I have organized the results by sensitizing concepts (or overall themes) representing experiences of change rather than in a strict chronological fashion. I used this structure in order to focus on the priority purposes (program impact and processes) and better support the practical ease of understanding evaluation findings to support use. This approach also aligns with the often non-linear trajectory of an individual’s (social justice) behavior change process (e.g., Frantell et al., 2019; Lee, Singh, & Wright, 2020). Integration of qualitative and quantitative data. After merging qualitative data types for coach/administrator and student-athlete groups respectively, I later integrated quantitative and qualitative data. Subsumed under the overarching (themes) purposes of program impact and processes, I organized deductively derived sensitizing (e.g., critical awareness, affect, and skills transference) and inductively generated concepts and subconcepts (e.g., program-context considerations, adopting a brave mindset) together in a coherent structure. Figure 4 depicts a flowchart with the steps that I took to merge qualitative data types, integrate qualitative and quantitative data, and consider joint comparisons between student-athletes and coaches—where such comparisons were helpful to elucidate findings specific to the priority purposes (e.g., critical awareness). 82 Figure 4. Flowchart of Steps Taken to Merge and Integrate Qualitative and Quantitative Data Group Coaches/Administrators Data collection/analysis took place from November - Jannuary Student-athletes Data collection/analysis took place from February - March Step 1 Step 2 Qualitative abductive analysis of session- level surveys; quantitative analysis of outcome variables; descriptive analysis of close-ended questions, and communication processes Qualitative abductive analysis of session- level surveys; quantitative analysis of outcome variables; descriptive analysis of close-ended questions, and communication processes Abductive analysis of follow-up interviews from deductively identified sensitizing concepts and inductively generated (sub)themes Abductive analysis of follow-up interviews from deductively identified sensitizing concepts and inductively generated (sub)themes Step 3 Merge qualitative data sources from session- level and follow-up time points via deductive sensitizing concepts and inductively generate (sub)themes Merge qualitative data sources from session-level and follow-up time points via deductive sensitizing concepts and inductively generate (sub)themes Step 4 Step 5 Integrate qualitative and quanitative data relative to sensitizing concepts (i.e., critical awareness, behavioral intentions) and processes (i.e., communication) Integrate qualitative and quanitative data relative to sensitizing concepts (i.e., critical awareness, behavioral intentions) and processes (i.e., communication) Interpret mixed methods results for coaches/administrators and student-athletes respectively considering areas of convergence and divergence; Make joint comparisons of coaches/administrators and student-athletes mixed methods results specific to key sensitizing concepts where comparisons could enhance an understanding of evaluation priority purposes. 83 This integrative approach stands in contrast to a “mixed methods light” approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018) or when qualitative measures are superficially “added” to quantitative measures. Through this integrative analysis, I did not prioritize one data source over another. Qualitative data served to complement and support within- and between-subjects triangulation of quantitative data sources. First, qualitative findings complemented quantitative findings to gauge potential long-term implications associated with participants’ experience beyond the immediate pre/post-program quantitative survey data (e.g., instances of learning transference to campus). Second, qualitative interviews extended quantitative data by focusing on participants’ perceptions of transference of learning (including barriers) and dialogue-related action taken. Third, qualitative findings also helped to elucidate the trajectory of participants’ learning process as they reflected on meaningful and/or challenging aspects of their experience. These retrospective reflections were valuable to more fully understand the broader developmental picture and nuanced, possibly non-linear nature of a participant’s learning processes that a short- term assessment could not bring to light. Last, qualitative findings were useful to triangulate and compare quantitative results that indicated potential changes in intergroup learning outcomes by giving participants the opportunity to offer concrete, personal examples reflective of, or contrary to, changes in these constructs. Altogether, abductive analyses revealed key themes (and subthemes) specific to the aforementioned sensitizing concepts and evaluation purposes: programs impact and relevant processes. Intended user input from interim report. In order to support utility of the evaluation, I generated an interim report with (preliminary) findings from the coach/administrator dialogue group. This report was meant to give intended users a preview of evaluation findings and the opportunity to provide their reactions, pose questions, and offer input to inform the final report. I 84 provided this preliminary report (with an emphasis placed on its incomplete nature) to intended users prior to completing student-athlete follow-up interviews to make any changes to this final stage of data collection as Sowers decision-makers deemed useful. Patton (2011) advised that reports should be succinct and focused on the evaluation priority purposes. As such, I crafted a short document, which featured bullet points with key findings and considerations, select representative participant quotations, and graphics in order to convey information in a clear, digestible way. This (electronic) report was sent to all intended users along with 3 questions to key stakeholders to guide their review and support utility: (1) What is your general reaction to the report? Does anything surprise you, and are results in line with your expectations? (2) Does the evaluation capture what you want to know about the program? Does it shed light on aspects of the program impact and relevant processes, and future considerations that Sowers views as most relevant and helpful to future decision-making? (3) Is there anything you’d like me to keep in mind, focus on, or change for the evaluation inquiry into program impact and processes for the student-athlete group? I gathered feedback from the report through communication with all intended user corresponding via Zoom conference calls (in pairs or individually based on their varied availability at the recommendation of the athletic director). During these conversations, I made explicit that my role as program evaluator was distinct from that of facilitator. I also clarified that attributions about program efficacy could only be contributory not causal given the nature of this evaluation and other diversity-related supplemental initiatives in place—as highlighted in the report. Below is a brief summary of intended users’ reactions and suggestions. Reactions. Overall, intended users stated that the report was informative and useful. Key 85 stakeholders did not view findings from the report to be surprising. Intended users indicated that the “report made sense”, and “small shifts were reassuring” to see given the work they were doing on campus. One intended user (DEI Committee Liaison) expressed favorable reactions to being able to “actually see that you can scientifically track what we are doing.” Another campus leader (the Head of School) further commented that “there was a lot of information to consume and process.” Suggestions. Four suggestions (or areas of interest) for the follow-up inquiry with student- athletes and/or final evaluation emanated from conversations with intended users. First, users (Athletic Director and DEI committee member) wanted more insight into the “nuances of athletics” including student-athletes’ views on the use/application of dialogue skills and possible transference—if/when spring sports commence. Second, intended users (Head of School and Assistant Head of School) wanted clarity on youth (and adult) participants’ process. That is “what helps them or are components that they are benefitting from”; what are the “eye-opening activities”; and, what are the “starts and stops” as individuals go through the program. Intended users were also interested in the sequential design of future programming (i.e., “how the program moves into the next year?”) given where individuals are in their development. I proposed highlighting areas for improvement for the program and room for growth among youth and adults, which they thought suitable. Third, intended user conveyed an interest in the evaluation shedding light on what “students’ perceive or see” in terms of their level of comfortable going to educators and adults’ openness to dialogue. Lastly, intended users also sought information about how to measure success in the future. One intended user (Head of School) noted the struggle that the school has had to learn from and make decisions based on data. He put forth that there would be great utility in knowing “how to measure the success of this specific program going forward, 86 but would welcome the opportunity to think more broadly.” Evaluator considerations. Feedback from intended users informed follow-up interviews with student-athletes and key considerations that I made in the final presentation of evaluation findings. Specific to follow-up interviews, I debriefed with the research team member who conducted interviews on key points of interest related to student-athletes (e.g., students’ attitudes toward the utility of dialogue-related skills in sports; beneficial and challenging aspects of their program experience, suggestions for improvement; and, perceptions of support from adult leaders). Relatedly, constructive feedback from intended users made apparent that I needed to more clearly convey and highlight “starts, stops” related to participants’ learning experience. I also noted that this report, though brief, was information-rich and a lot to process. A key take- away from this reaction was to more succinctly tailor the final presentation of evaluation findings to priority purposes. 87 The results of this evaluation are ordered according to the general evaluation purposes CHAPTER 5: RESULTS (i.e., program impact and relevant processes) and presented first for coaches/administrators and then for student-athletes. In keeping with a concurrent mixed methods design and U-FE theoretical orientation, I have integrated data analyses of quantitative (i.e., close-ended survey questions) and qualitative post-session and overall pre/post-program measures (i.e., open-ended survey questions) along with follow-up interviews (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). I have organized the results by sensitizing concepts—hereafter referred to as themes—which represent participants’ experiences of change through Dialogue in Athletics rather than in a strict chronological fashion (e.g., by session, overall pre/post-program, and follow up). I used this structure in order to support the practical ease of understanding evaluation findings through a focus on the learning concepts related to outcomes and processes rather than (possible short- lived and nuanced) temporal fluctuations. This approach was appropriate given the often non- linear trajectory of an individual’s (social justice) behavior change process (e.g., Lee, Singh, & Wright, 2020). A general discussion of result appears in chapter 6. Summary of Results for Coaches/Administrators To guide the reader through this in-depth overview of evaluation results for coaches/administrators, I offer key takeaways related to priority purposes: program impact and processes. Specific to program impact, coach/administrator were satisfied with the program and improved their critical awareness (and facets of personal/interpersonal awareness that underpin this critical construct). Coaches/administrators demonstrated affective shifts including stronger attitudes towards the value of dialogue-related behaviors, and increases in their confidence and behavioral intentions to engage in social justice (intergroup) action. They also evidenced some 88 skills transference. In regards to program processes, results indicated dialogic communication categories as salient to participants’ learning with emphasis placed on the importance of communication types that involved appreciating differences (e.g., hearing others’ personal stories). Other related facilitative processes included the nonjudgmental, small group setting, which helped (White) participants work through general and racial discomfort. Results also made visible the burden that the only Black coach endured in feeling responsible to educate his White colleagues in this less racially balanced intercultural format. Last, participant-context considerations emerged as an inductive theme and consisted of individual and institutional barriers to learning implementation, sources of support, and suggestions to improve the program. Coach and Administrator Participant Demographics Thirteen coaches and administrators (11 coaches, 2 administrators) participated in program sessions. Eleven participants identified as White women, 1 as a Black American man, and 1 as a White/multiracial man. Participants had experience coaching various sports including riding, cross country, indoor and outdoor track and field, volleyball, badminton, basketball, lacrosse, field hockey, softball, and soccer. Programming was offered to all adult leaders who work with student-athletes and performers (e.g., dance, theater) at the request of Sowers. Two administrators (i.e., Director of Performing Arts and Dean of Students) who were not sport coaches also participated in the program. Administrators were included in data analyses because although these adult leaders did not interact with student-athletes in athletics, they engaged with student-athletes in their other roles (e.g., dorm parent or dean) in this unique boarding school setting. Including them in data analyses thus offer a more comprehensive assess program impact and processes specific to the identified needs of this community. 89 Coach and Administrator Participants: Program Impact (Purpose 1) Evaluation of the impact of Dialogue in Athletics on coaches and administrators consisted of analyses of quantitative and qualitative measures of program satisfaction, awareness, affect, and skills developed/transference at multiple time-points. Program satisfaction. Coaches and administrators responded to the prompt “Overall, I liked the session” using a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 4 = neither agree or disagree, 7= strongly disagree) to assess program satisfaction at the session level. Most participants indicated that they were satisfied with individual workshops. Over half of participants “strongly agreed” that they liked each of the 6 sessions. They gave session 2 on exploring our identities (92% or n=11), session 4 on individual oppression (89% or n=8), and session 5 on institutional oppression (78% or n=7) the highest overall ratings of satisfaction. Sessions with slightly lower ratings (“somewhat agreed”) included sessions 1, 3 and 6. Following session 1 on dialogue foundations, 54% of participants “strongly agreed” and 36% “somewhat agreed” that they liked the session. After session 3 on perspective taking and social learning, 50% of participants “strongly agreed”, 40% “somewhat agreed”, and 10% (n=1) neither agreed/disagreed that they liked the session. After session 6 on social justice action planning, 62% of participants “strongly agreed” and 38% “somewhat agreed”. There were no sessions for which participants indicated that they were dissatisfied (“somewhat” or “strongly disagree” that they liked the session). Figure 5 depicts session specific ratings of satisfaction. 90 Figure 5. Coach and Administrator Participants’ Session-level Program Satisfaction s t n a p i c i t r a P f o e g a t n e c r e P 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 6 1 "Overall, I liked the session (or found action planning in session 6 useful)" 4 5 2 3 Strongly agree Somewhat agree neither agree/disagree Awareness. Open-ended survey responses and follow-up interviews from participants provided insight into the impact of Dialogue in Athletics on participants’ personal awareness, (i.e., understanding one’s own identities, values, thoughts/feelings and behaviors), interpersonal awareness (i.e., understanding aspects of others’ experience, perspective, and background), and critical awareness (i.e., understanding individual and/or systemic oppression and privilege). Despite qualitative results in support of adults’ critical awareness development, quantitative analyses showed ambivalent changes in coaches’ and administrators’ critical awareness from pre-to-post program based on the a priori (intergroup understanding and relationships) outcome measure: ethnocultural empathy (i.e., Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy). A mixed method comparison of quantitative and qualitative data sources related to the sensitizing concept, critical awareness, conclude this section. Personal awareness. In session-specific surveys participants expressed that they increased their awareness of their own emotions and identities they viewed as salient through the 91 dialogue encounter. After the 1st session (dialogue foundations), one coach wrote that a most meaningful aspect of the session was “learning to recognize how [she] reacts to uncomfortable situations.” Another participant commented that activities were helpful and allowed them to “identify what thoughts and feelings come up” in a dialogue or debate scenario. Coaches also mentioned their heightened awareness of difficult emotions. They responded that the one activity (i.e., identity toss) guided them to “reflect about vulnerable moments when I felt excluded” and “how it felt to have others pick what [identities] they see as most important to you.” Some participants also indicated an increased awareness of identities they viewed as salient. After session 2 and the follow-up interview, several coaches similarly expressed that one activity helped them “identify why various aspects of identity were more important” and “discover much about yourself”. Another coach elaborated in their survey, “[the session] helped me focus on the priorities of who I identify myself as—meaning to put more effort into that and let go of worrying about the other things”. Related to specific identity characteristics, one coach wrote, “I put more value in my name that I previously realized”, whereas another (White) coach participant made mention to her ethnicity and race: “asking for an object that represented my race. I feel like I always lean on my Ethnic (heritage) but never really thought about what would represent race.” Interpersonal awareness. Participants articulated that they also developed more of an understanding of perspectives different from their own, notably their co-workers. Some participants commonly viewed that session 2 allowed them see their colleagues outside of the work context “in the identity that more clearly identifies who they are” and as “full, vibrant people”. One participant explained, “it was interesting to hear multiple perspectives about 92 [identity characteristics] as well as how people felt about other aspects of identity playing role in how they perceive and react to topics of race.” In follow-up interviews, a few coaches and administrators uniquely articulated that workshop session helped them develop a sense of relatedness among, and not just awareness of, their colleagues. One coach-administrator courageously spoke about sharing her own struggles as someone “who identifies on the LGBTQ spectrum”, and listening to others’ experiences in session 4 (on individual discrimination/oppression): “It was really cool is being able to have conversations with my colleagues that I wouldn't normally have in a regular day. Going into a harder conversation and really opening up to someone that you don't necessarily know all that well I think was a rewarding experience for me being able to share my experiences and thoughts and with someone who, I don't really know what they're thinking, or is kind of past my ‘friend zone’ or comfortability. Initially, it was not easy having those conversations with people who you may not have had those conversations with, but then also listening to someone being judged for their age and ability and what they can or can't do, and their decisions. That really opens your eyes in general to the people that I work with.” Another participant articulated that the program “provided a space where I could get to know [colleagues].” She uniquely went on to describe the benefits of the relationship-building that took place through the dialogue encounter for her as a new teacher-coach: “the dialogue has helped me identify people who I can go to if I have questions”. Taken together, qualitative results underscore the personal and interpersonal awareness that adult participants gained through their Dialogue in Athletics experience. These facets of awareness underpin a key sensitizing concept (and learning outcome) specific to this evaluation’s key priority purposes: critical awareness. Critical awareness. In order to assess participants’ critical awareness, the a priori outcome measure for ethnocultural empathy (i.e., Scale for Ethnocultural Empathy, SEE) was used to gauge participants’ understanding of (and beliefs about) the experiences of racial/ethnic 93 minorities.6 Quantitative results for this intergroup learning outcome are presented first and then integrated with qualitative data sources. Despite no statistically significant changes in mean scores, adult participants displayed improvements in their critical awareness through qualitative data sources in demonstrating a greater sensitivity to their racial/social identities and privilege along and marginalizing stereotypes and inequities in sports. Ethnocultural empathy (outcome measure)7. Paired samples t-tests were conducted to determine if there were changes in ethnocultural empathy from pre-to-post program. Coaches and administrators showed an increase in mean scores from 5.51 to 6.09 (Mdiff = .575, SD = .795) before relative to after the program that was statistically significant; t(12) = 2.609, p = .023. The observed change was also practically significant given the large effect size (Cohen’s d = .795, 95% CI .098-1.326) but should be interpreted with caution given poor reliability of subscales. Of the reliable subscales (see Table 5), adults showed statistically significant improvements in empathic feeling/expression (i.e., concern and affective responses toward the marginalization that racial/ethnic minorities experience). No statistically significant differences were observed for changes in empathic awareness (i.e., understanding the discrimination that racial/ethnic minorities may experience). Average pre-program levels of empathic awareness were high relative to other subscales, which may explain the lack of change after the program. (See Appendix G for a full summary of means and standard deviations.) 6 The SEE measures a person’s understanding (or awareness) and beliefs (attitudes) toward the experiences of racial/ethnic minorities. Results from this measure are organized under the sensitizing concept of critical awareness (as opposed to under affective outcomes) as the specific SEE subscale for empathic awareness held reliable across both adult and youth groups and allowed for a mixed methods comparison of this awareness-specific outcome. 7 All subscales indicated adequate reliability (above .70) for before and after program survey measures of ethnocultural empathy, expect after-program scores on acceptance of cultural differences, which was .344 and before-program scores for perspective taking, which was .674. As such, results were not interpreted for these subscales given the poor psychometric properties of this adapted measure for this small sample population. 94 Table 5. Pre/Post-Program Mean Differences in Ethnocultural Empathy Subscales for Coaches/Administrators Mean difference Standard Deviation Pre-Post Scores 5.79-6.44 4.57-5.04 6.16-6.74 5.65-6.26 Subscale Empathic Awareness Empathic Perspective Taking+ Acceptance of Cultural Differences+ Empathic Feeling and Expression +Indicates low reliability .654 .473 .569 .604 For Mdiff 1.54 1.05 1.05 .851 T(12) 1.531 3.723 p .152 .003* 1.952 .075 2.557 .025* Mixed methods results for critical awareness. In contrast with the lack of observed change on racial/ethnic empathic awareness, adult participants indicated that they developed critical awareness through qualitative data sources. In session-level surveys and follow-up interviews, coaches and administrators remarked that they became more aware of their racial/social identity and/or privilege, interrogated their own biases/stereotypes, and recognized inequities in sport through their program experience. A mixed methods comparison of integrated findings is depicted in Table 6, and explanation of divergent qualitative themes below. 95 Coaches/Admin. Before to After 5.79 - 6.44 Change = .654 p = .152 No statistically significant change from pre-to-post program empathic awareness scores. Table 6. Mixed Methods Comparison of Critical Awareness among Coaches and Administrators Quantitative Results Qualitative Results Empathic Awareness Subscale Mixed Methods Comparison and Interpretation Divergence Evidence of coach/administrator participants’ racial identity awareness, recognition of stereotypes specific to racial/ethnic minorities, and inequities in sport is incongruent with the lack of significant change found on the measure of racial/ethnic empathic awareness. Qualitative data sources evidenced change in adult participants’ critical awareness that were not captured as significant by quantitative results. Racial Identity Awareness Racial/Social Privilege Awareness Recognizing Stereotypes/ Biases as marginalizing Recognizing Structural inequities (in sport) “When was the first time like sort of you realized your racial identity… that was a fascinating discussion I saw so many light bulb faces. I saw so many people having never put that to themselves before and having never— and even for me again, I've been doing this for a little while. But every time I do it with a different group, I go a little deeper and it's fascinating. So that was really impactful to me to hear. Even if someone said, ‘oh, I don't remember that, that didn't happen to me’ when they would think for a few minutes they'd be like, ‘wait a minute yes it did.’” “Understanding that as a White person I have never really needed to think about race and my privilege unless I want to dig deeper or educate myself.” “I think being more aware of what I bring to a space as an administrator, teacher, coach, as someone who could potentially have power, and being aware of when I come to a space.” “So that's what all this is helping me with, recognizing— that exercise that Jill did with the pictures of different—a tennis star that was in this model-like pose. We wrote what we first thought…There was a student-athlete here. She was our basketball star. A black student, amazing basketball, amazing athlete, and I got to teach her up here in riding. In her senior speech she said ‘why does everybody want me to play basketball? It's not who I am”. I always remember that I was like, ‘My gosh, I too thought that: basketball star’ and she didn't want to be that.” “The riding coach was there, and it was interesting to then see her view. She brought up how costly it is, and how to bring down costs. And she brought up by herself, the hair thing of like, some students need to have multiple helmets. So it's just also interesting to just hear from different sports, what affects their individual sports.” 96 At the session-level, nine participants responded to the prompt following workshop 5 (on institutional oppression): “Identify a form of social privilege that you view as power/responsibility to help others in sport or society after having participated in today's session.” Eight participants listed various form of privileged identities such as “athletic director”, “education”, “a woman with strong, deep experiences in her sport”, their race, “religion and race”, “wealth”, and “physical/mental ability status”. One participant left the prompt blank. In the follow-up interview, one coach-administrator further elaborated about the impact of the program on her critical awareness regarding her unique professional roles: “I think just being more aware of what I bring to a space as an administrator, teacher, and coach, as someone who could potentially have power, and being aware of when I come to a space, I'm bringing that with me. If I'm in an athletic situation, I'm coming into that as the coach and not necessarily also thinking that I'm an AD, dorm parent, or whatever of a student-athlete on the team. I'm thinking that our interaction is coach-athlete versus what they may be thinking is, ‘shoot, I have her for math, and I didn't do my homework. She's mad at me today.’ Versus in my mind, I'm thinking we're on the field doing this drill. I wonder why she's acting weird today—and being oblivious about the different roles that I may play in a student's life and how I show up.” Thus, this coach-administrator recognized how her various social roles intersect and afford her power in ways that impact interactions with student-athletes. In session-level written responses, participants explicitly centered race and (to varying degrees) probed status quo racial dynamics. After session 3 (on perspective taking and social learning), many participants expressed centering race in their thinking. One participant wrote that it was meaningful to, “think about when the concept of race was introduced into my life,” and another individual offered, “I liked the breakout session where we discussed our experiences in/out home and sports and how those experiences have shaped us today. It was interesting to hear many perspectives and how people felt about identity playing role in how they perceive and react to race.” One administrator recalled a learning moment that she shared in her follow-up 97 interview specific to racial identity awareness (the first quotation in Table 6). Her unique observation offers evidence of racial identity awareness development at both the individual- and group-level through the dialogue encounter. Coaches and administrators not only centered race in their thinking but also critically probed their racial privilege through their program participation. In responding to how sessions deepened their understanding of social privilege, several White coaches demonstrated a greater sensitivity toward their whiteness. While one coach wrote “understanding that as a White person I have never really needed to think about race and my privilege unless I want to dig deeper or educate myself”, another responded, “how little we, as White people, have to think about our racial identity in our daily life. Socially, professionally, emotionally.” Along with centering race/racial dynamics, participants highlighted how the program helped shed light on their biases or sport-specific inequities. One coach offered a general commented in the post-program survey: “I learned where my biases play into my listening”. With more space in the follow-up interview, a coach spoke about how the program helped her interrogate their individual biases (displayed in Table 6). The program thus helped this participant deconstruct ablest beliefs and further critically reflect on racist stereotypes that she had held about a former student-athlete. Specific to sport inequities, one coach expressed in the follow-up interview previously “not knowing things that could impact our black and people of color students the same way” but that “having different coaches in their own fields, like dance, bring up things—like the color of tights, wouldn't have been something I'd ever thought about.” She went on to offer another edifying example of barriers to access/inclusion in riding given the cost and equipment needed. 98 These examples underscore that coaches and administrators sharpened their critical awareness through the dialogue encounter as they probed their racial/social identities and privilege, recognized their biases and stereotypes, and interrogated inequities in sports. These in- depth, nuanced findings reflect the ways in which Dialogue in Athletics supported coaches’ and administrators’ critical awareness development beyond what quantitative data could capture. Affective components. Analyses indicated shifts in affective components (attitudes) among coaches/administrators through their program participation. Subthemes that were generated from qualitative data sources evidenced that adult leaders adopted a ‘brave’ mindset, increased their valuing of and confidence to take dialogue-related actions, and improved their intentions to engage in intergroup action. Qualitative data corroborated increases in behavioral intentions on the a priori outcome measure (i.e., Behavioral Intentions for Intergroup Collaboration) and provided rich insight in the actions that adult leaders aimed to take up. Adopting a ‘brave’ mindset. Several coaches and administrators articulated that their program experience helped them embrace a ‘brave’ mindset: to view mistakes as a part of their learning process. One coach participant commented that a meaningful moment for them during session 2 was when one facilitator shared a personal story, which served as a “helpful reminder that it's okay to make mistakes.” Participants offered more in-depth examples through their follow-up interviews in talking about meaningful aspects of their program experience. One teacher-coach put forth: “I just got to be brave and not be afraid of trying to apply those things…It's funny to talk to this out loud. I'm like, ‘wow, I sound like myself in the classroom.’ You know, that's it. That's the same thing I tell my students.” She went on to reveal the value of the interview as an opportunity to reflect on her dialogue encounter: “talking this through has been helpful to reinforce what I want to do. There is a lot of advice that I need to take that I give 99 my students. That's been helpful to talk it out.” Another coach-administrator similarly articulated that the program helped her to, “just really be open to having conversations, but also not need to be reaffirmed that like, I’m doing a great job, like— ‘that [states her name], she’s great, doing exactly what she's supposed to do.’ No, I'm not going to be able to say the right thing every time...I'm still going to mess up, right? I'm still in this learning process and just again, being aware of that.” Thus, participants during and after Dialogue in Athletics came to view mistakes as an important and normal part of their learning process. Valuing of and confidence to take dialogue-related action. Participants’ responses to session-specific close-ended questions were used to assess their attitudes toward dialogue-related (social justice) action. In session 5, 8 participants selected “strongly agree” and 1 participant selected “somewhat agree” (out of 9 completed surveys) on the importance of interrupting derogatory comments because of their workshop participation. In session-level open-ended survey questions (not limited to session 5), many participants wrote that the program emboldened them to “take responsibility” to advocate for youth with marginalized identities. Follow-up interviews provided greater insight into favorable affective shifts toward taking responsibility that coaches experienced through the program. One coach expressed in her follow-up interview, “it's not our students of color that have to speak all the time, but we need to take a role and a responsibility and where before I felt like it's not my experience—but if my experience watching their experience is painful to me, I need to say something.” This coach then touched on intersections between race, class, and access to the equestrian program: “I may not say it, but I'm like, ‘that kid is on scholarship, what are they expecting?’ Do I think that they deserve any less than anybody else? Absolutely not. It was a bias for me to think they should be grateful. No, they shouldn't. We should provide opportunities for them.” Along with helping to 100 solidify the importance of taking responsibility to stand with and support minoritized student- athletes, another participant spoke to the importance of using dialogue in stating that the program: “Made me think of using it [dialogue] as a tool. More specifically in the dorm, more specifically in rehearsal. I can't really pinpoint a specific thing, but it broke it down a little bit from even for me into levels of that this isn't something that you do like, ‘check, did it, I’m out. That was great. I'm so this’. I know we were talking about sports, but it can be anywhere where the girls are in groups. It made it feel more like I had to be more responsible to bring this work into each one of those little factions.” In this way, the program strengthened coaches’/administrators’ attitudes toward the importance of regularly engaging in dialogue-related action to support all student-athletes and performers. Participants also showed increased levels of confidence to carry out specific dialogue- related behaviors from session-level surveys and at the follow up. After session 1 (dialogue foundations), participants’ respond with their level of agreement (strongly disagree to strongly agree) to the prompts: “I feel more confident actively listening” and “I feel more confident reframing debates as dialogue” relative to before the workshop. Of the completed surveys (n=10), 6 participants selected “strongly agree”, 4 selected “somewhat agree”, and 1 selected “neither agree/disagree” for actively listening. Adult participants showed slightly lower increases in their confidence to go beyond simply listening and reframe debates as dialogue. Three participants selected “strongly agree”, 6 participants selected “somewhat agree”, and 2 participants selected “neither agree/disagree” that they felt more confident dialoguing instead of debating after this first session. In the follow-up interview, however, one administrator remarked on how the program gave her (and others) confidence to engage (or dialogue) on diversity issues. She explained: “Basically, 4 or 5 people that were involved in Dialogue in Athletics are now on the DEI Director Search Committee so I feel like it really helped to educate and direct that—and in a weird way, take the fear out of it, and give you a direction. I think it helped 101 everybody be a little more confident in saying that they’re able to do this. It definitely helped with that for sure.” The program thus appeared to bolstered some adult participants’ confidence in their ability to speak about and engage on diversity-related issues outside of Dialogue in Athletics. Intentions to engage in intergroup action. Both quantitative (a priori outcome variable) and qualitative (open-ended surveys and follow-up interviews) data sources were used to gauge adult participants’ changes in intentions to take up intergroup action. Quantitative results specific to the a priori outcome measure are presented first. Integrated analyses that include results from qualitative data sources are then described. Mixed methods results showed favorable shifts in adults’ behavioral intentions overall alongside some ambiguity immediately after the program and around broader coalitional/structural forms of action. Intentions to engage in intergroup collaboration (outcome measure). Paired samples t- tests were carried out to determine if there were changes in behavioral intentions to engage in intergroup collaboration pre-to-post program. Coach and administrator participants improved their mean scores from 5.82 to 6.60 (Mdiff= .78, SD = .702) immediately following the dialogue encounter. This change was statistically significant; t(12)= 4.0, p=.002, and practically meaningful given the large effect size (Cohen’s d = .702, 95% CI .397-1.794). Mean differences in all subscales of behavioral intentions to engage in intergroup collaboration/action (i.e., self- directed, others-directed, and collaborative action) from pre-to-post program were also statistically significant (See Table 7). These results suggest that participants demonstrated stronger levels of behavioral intentions after relative to before dialogue programming. (See Appendix G for a full summary of means and standard deviations.) 102 Table 7. Pre/Post-Program Differences in Behavioral Intentions for Intergroup Collaboration among Coaches and Administrators Subscale Pre-Post Scores Standard Deviation T(12) p Self-directed action Others’-directed action Collaborative action 5.94-6.81 5.88-6.73 5.61-6.23 Mdiff .508 .689 .779 4.297 4.430 2.850 .001* .001* .015* Mean difference .865 .846 .627 Mixed methods results for intentions to engage in intergroup action. Through qualitative data sources, adult participants elaborated on their intentions to take up self, others, and collaborative dialogue-related actions alongside some evidence of uncertainty following the program. Result from qualitative data are described in greater depth below and integrated quantitative findings (see Table 8 which features a mixed methods comparison). Table 8. Mixed Methods Comparison of Behavioral Intentions for Intergroup Action among Coaches and Administrators Qualitative Results Mixed Methods comparison T(12) p Responses from final surveys and Subscale Behavioral Intentions Composite Self-directed action Quantitative Results Mean diff. .778 .865 4.0 4.297 .002* .001* Others’-directed action .846 4.430 .001* Collaborative action .127 2.850 .015* Ambivalence follow-up interviews “I want to challenge myself to be more engaged in workshops like this one. Growth happens when you engage.” “I’m excited when I coach again to put it onto the court to help my team members work together. And, my personal goal is to open my door wider for students.” “We have extra equipment, and organizing, taking stock, seeing what we have, and then making sure students know that we have it.” “Not at this time, I am still trying to figure that out.” 103 Mixed methods inferences Convergence Adult participants statistically and practically significant changes in scores on behavioral intentions for dialogue-related action are congruent with qualitative data. In particular, coaches often mentioned others’-directed action that they aimed to take up through qualitative data sources, which align with observed changes in quantitative scores. Divergence Some ambivalence or uncertainty was evident around how to take action in final program surveys among adult participants. Congruent with quantitative changes, adult participants listed specific behavioral intentions in response to the session-level question (following session 5), “How, if at all, do you plan to use your social privilege to help others?”. While 2 of 9 participants did not respond, others frequently listed others’-directed action in line with quantitative findings: “ensure all players have a voice in the way they play their sport”; “help inform and educate coaches/activity leaders”; “take initiative to interrupt derogatory comments”; “call in athletes who may not understand the privilege they have compared to others”, and, “make sure all students have the equipment they need to participate”. Participants also listed specific actions in final program surveys based on the prompt: “Are there any other actions you intended to take to promote diversity/inclusion in athletics or your community?”. Respondents wanted to: “continue to dialogue with peers”; “join/help run an affinity group”; and, “bring programming to interscholastic athletics to [the area]”. One coach uniquely wrote on the self-directed work she intended to continue to do: “I want to challenge myself to be more engaged in workshops like this one. Growth happens when you engage.” At the same time, 8 of 13 participants did not list an action in the final program survey and one coach wrote “not at this time, I am still trying to figure that out.” This ambivalence reflects a divergence in significant increases in quantitative scores, and provides a fuller representation of the complex, process-oriented nature of critical consciousness raising and (social justice) behavior change. That is, developing a critical awareness of social issues and identifying actions that one might take to address discrimination or injustice may be a gradual rather than immediate shift. Coaches and administrators’ in-depth responses in follow-up interviews (more and less explicitly) related to their social justice action plan (from session 6) helped to further concretized quantitative findings regarding the specific sport- and campus-related action adult leaders aimed 104 take up. Two participants did not recall their action plan; however, others described specific intentions to carry out this plan and other actions on campus and in sports such as “creating inclusive spaces for students” and “increasing riding scholarships”. One teacher-coach described, “it definitely hit home that I wasn't being the active listener that I needed to be for some of my students. I'm looking for opportunities to hear their voices more in my classroom…and I’m excited when I coach again to put it onto the court to help my team members work together. And, my personal goal is to open my door wider for students.” Though broader collaborative, coalitional actions were mentioned less frequently among coaches, two participants commented on the structural change they hoped to create within athletics. The riding instructor offered, “my challenge is to figure out how to get these riding scholarships up and running. I've already talked to the development office.” Another coach similarly expressed behavioral intentions to make sports more accessible: “We have this training room where we have extra equipment, and organizing, taking stock, seeing what we have, and then making sure students know that we have it. And then trying to do it in a way that the student can come pick up at any time so they don’t have to do it in front of everyone. Dialogues in Athletics definitely started the conversation and that I have to continue the conversation and to find out what other means the sport is not as open or frustrations with our black and people of color students and like try to preventively learn myself.” Thus—though less often expressed—some coaches indicated broader forms of collaborative action they aimed to take within athletics to promote equity. Altogether, integrated analyses of qualitative and quantitative data from adult participants indicated affective changes that occurred through their program experience. These favorable shifts included adopting a brave mindset and strengthening attitudes about the value of and confidence to engage in intergroup action. Results also evidenced promising increases in 105 behavioral intentions to promote social justice in sport- and non-sport campus spaces, along with some lingering uncertainty immediately follow the program about how to do so. Developing skills and skills transference. Analyses of session surveys and follow-up interviews showed that adult participants developed dialogue-related skills including active listening (asking questions instead of assuming), perspective sharing, and interrupting derogatory comments. To varying degrees, coaches and administrators transferred those skills to various campus spaces through their program participation. Session-level surveys revealed some instances when adult participants had applied their learning outside the program setting. When asked to recall a situation in which participants reframed a difficult situation as a dialogue instead of a debate after session 1 (dialogue foundations), three participants responded that they did not have an opportunity, five participants did not respond, and four participants offered concrete examples in which they used dialogue- related skills to navigate conflict outside of the program setting. One coach detailed in writing, “I have been dealing with some tension between two roommates that do the same sport. They are extremely competitive with one another. I listened, I didn't project my thoughts on the issue and let each of them talk in their individual meetings with me. Now I need to have a meeting with them together and will do a better job of listening to help them find common ground within one another in a sport that is so important to both of them.” When asked to describe how, if at all, they had used active listening or perspective taking strategies outside the program (after session 4), several participants generally noted (but did not offer a concrete example of transference) that they were “asking more questions instead of directly expressing my take or opinion”, “using clarifying questions like, ‘what do you mean by that?’; and, “giving a bit more pause, and continuing to listen rather than jump right in after they share”. Three of nine participants left the prompt blank. In follow-up interviews, one teacher- coach spoke about learning how to interrupt derogatory comments: “PALS was important. In my 106 everyday life you want to react, and be like, ‘you can't do that. You can't say that you can't’; but instead to be like—well, let me find out what they meant, what are they getting at and open the dialogue.” While coaches provided some evidence of their procedural understanding and general use of dialogue-related skills, participants also expressed uncertainty in this vein. Participants conveyed through session-level and end-of-program surveys that they were “still figuring it out”, “[couldn’t] come up with one at this time”, or “hadn’t had a difficult situation happen yet” to apply their learning. A (perceived) lack of opportunity was also noted at the follow up by one coach: “while [the program] started the conversation, I haven't had a chance to actually apply anything we talked about. I'm hoping to and that there will be a sport season next year.” However, coaches and administrators offered in-depth insight into their transference of dialogue-related skills to campus in follow-up interviews. Participants spoke to concrete instances in which they applied their program learning in the classroom, in sport-related settings (because sports did not formally occur due to the pandemic), or on campus. For example, one coach commented on how she started sharing her perspective by dialoguing with youth: “On trail walks in particular, I've seen an ability for me to push myself and really value my own story, and what pieces I can share of my own story to help another person open up.” One coach- administrator articulated how skills from the program helped her perspective take and support a student athlete’s needs: “Our all-school president is a basketball superstar like she is so good, hates basketball. Recently realized that she doesn't like it. It stresses her out. She doesn't want to do it and she doesn't want to play. And so, as AD I'm like, ‘how can you hate the sport that you're so good at?’. I'm like, ‘I have no idea how you're feeling right now.’ And ultimately, I can't help you in that sense, but I can be here to listen to why you're feeling so stressed about basketball. Why you want to do something else and trying to help you make a plan to do something that you enjoy, and that is actually stress relieving. And so, figuring out a plan to do something 107 different, even though I want you on my team, and I want you to be playing the sport, that doesn't matter, because I'm not important in this situation.” Outside of the sport-related setting, adult participants explained the ways in which they used dialogue-related skills (e.g., asking question rather than assuming, speaking up, and perspective sharing) in the classroom and on campus in their interactions with youth and colleagues. One administrator indicated: “I've seen those of us who were in these workshops with Jill be able to go a little to help take the larger group a little bit deeper so like I've seen that. That’s been very apparent.” A teacher-coach elaborated that in her classroom, “when we had the… Inauguration Day, I asked, like, ‘how, how do you feel? How does that make you feel?’, and just engaging and listening and actively listening. So, you know, I think that's important”. Outside of the classroom, another coach mentioned how her program learning had impacted her collaborative leadership role in shaping school policy: “I pushed myself to be vocal and I feel like this dialogue helped me have that confidence to do it. To say, we shouldn't say, ‘the girls here all feel’, we can say ‘students here’ because there are non-binary students here. This dialogue really pushed me to figure out not like where I stand, but how to articulate what I'm thinking.” In sum, coach/administrators offered some evidence of developing and using dialogue- related skills on campus. Perceived lack of opportunities to apply their skills may also indicate room for improvement in participants’ discernment of when/how to transfer their learning. Coach and Administrator Dialogue Group: Program Processes (Purpose 2) Results showed several program processes as germane to coach and administrators’ program experience. Quantitative (descriptive) analyses included participants’ ratings of the extent to which dialogic communication processes contributed to their learning. Abductive analyses of qualitative data sources offered further insight into the relevance of these types of 108 communication and other program features. Program process themes that were inductively generated from participants’ explicit responses included facilitative program features and challenging aspects of their program experience. Communication processes. Participants (n=9 to 13) rated dialogue-informed communication processes on the extent to which each communication type contributed to their learning (1= a great deal, 3 = moderately, 5 = not at all) across the first and last 3 sessions. Descriptive statistics for the first 3 sessions showed that ‘hearing others’ personal stories, ‘appreciating experiences different from my own’, and ‘learning from each other’ were rated as most contributing (or ‘a great deal’) to participants’ learning (with the lowest mean scores) while ‘being able to disagree’ was rated as contributing ‘moderately’ to ‘a little’ to their learning (with the highest mean score). Table 9 depicts mean ratings for communication processes. Descriptive statistics for the final 3 sessions showed that participants consistently rated ‘hearing others’ personal stories’, ‘appreciating different experiences’, and ‘learning from each other’ as most contributing to their learning. Mean scores were rated similarly for these processes relative to others from the first 3 sessions. ‘Understanding how privilege/oppression affects our lives’ and ‘examining sources of bias’ were likewise rated as contributing more to their learning relative to other processes observed in the first 3 sessions. 109 Table 9. Mean Scores for Communication Processes Contributing to Coaches’ and Administrators’ Learning Communication Process Sessions 1-3 Mean 1.44 1.44 1.44 2.0 1.67 Sessions 4-6 SD .492 Hearing others' personal stories .492 Appreciating experiences different from my own .670 Learning from each other .505 Examining sources of my biases & assumptions .577 Understanding how privilege/oppression affect our lives .577 *Feeling a sense of hope about being able to challenge injustices .669 Addressing difficult issues .669 Thinking about issues that I may not have thought about before .996 Hearing different points of view .669 Speaking openly without feeling judged .937 Sharing my views and experiences .982 *Understanding others’ passion for social justice .754 *Other peers' willingness to understand their own biases and assumptions ..866 *Talking about ways to take action on social issues .778 *Listening to others' commitments to work against injustice 1.15 Asking questions that I wasn't able to ask before .924 Making mistakes & reconsidering my opinions .905 *Sharing ways to collaborate with other groups to take action 1.23 *Working through disagreements and conflicts 1.055 Being able to disagree Note: Scores indicated the extent to which each process contributed to participants’ learning (1= a great deal, 3 = moderately, 5 = not at all). Lower scores demonstrate higher degrees of contribution and higher scores demonstrate lower degrees of contribution. Alliance-building processes denoted (*) were processes were added to the post-program survey list in line with the pedagogical sequencing of dialogue curriculum. SD Mean 1.33 .707 1.33 .527 1.58 .527 1.64 .707 .707 1.83 1.83 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 2.17 2.18 2.25 2.25 2.33 2.33 2.36 2.5 2.67 2.75 - 1.0 .707 .527 .866 .782 - 2.0 2.0 1.67 2.0 2.11 - - - - 2.56 2.0 - - 3.44 - - - - - - .707 .866 1.014 Mixed methods results for communication processes. Qualitative responses from surveys and follow-up interviews were congruent with quantitative results. Table 10 depicts a mixed methods comparison of communication process categories (i.e., engaging the self, appreciating difference, critical reflection, and alliance building) and corresponding items that adult participants most often reinforced as meaningful through qualitative data sources. Adult participants underscored appreciating difference (e.g., hearing others’ personal stories and learning from others) and critical reflection (e.g., examining individual biases and understanding how privilege/oppression affect our lives) as meaningful at the session- and program-levels. For example, one coach offered a comment in her follow-up interview that reflected her views toward the unique nature of the dialogue encounter: “I liked breakout room times and learning from my colleagues and with the prompts that Jill and Dalvida provided. I think we don't get to do that as often as we would like.” 110 Table 10. Mixed Methods Comparison of Communication Processes among Coaches and Administrators Quantitati ve Results Contribution to Learning Mean Scores Mid/End program Qualitative Results Mixed methods comparison Mixed Methods inference Convergence Quantitative scores indicated that dialogic communication processes contributed ‘a great deal’ to ‘a lot’ to adult participants’ learning. Qualitative data sources corroborated the beneficial nature of dialogic communication processes generally. Qualitative input from participants underscored the communication items and categories that were quantitatively rated most highly— or as contributing ‘a great deal’ or ‘a lot’ to participants’ learning. Confirmation Integrated analyses of communication processes lend support to the program’s de facto fidelity to a dialogic pedagogical approach. Engaging the Self Sharing my views and experiences 2.11/2.17 Addressing difficult issues 2.0/1.92 Appreciating difference Speaking openly without feeling judged Hearing different points of view Hearing others’ personal stories Learning from each other 2.0/1.92 1.67/1.92 1.44/1.33 1.44/1.58 1.44/1.33 Appreciating experiences different from my own Critical reflection 2.0/1.64 Examining the sources of my biases and assumptions Understanding how privilege/oppress ion affect our lives Other students’ willingness to understand their own biases and assumptions Alliance Building 1.67/1.83 2.25 “Just kind of being able to share my experiences and my thoughts and with someone who, I don't really know what they're thinking, or kind of past my friend zone of, like comfortability of, ‘we have this conversation all the time, this is what I think you're thinking, and we're probably on the same page’. That was pretty cool.” “I think what was really cool is being able to have conversations with my colleagues that I wouldn't normally have in a regular day. Going into a harder conversation and really opening up to someone that you don't necessarily know all that well.” “They [facilitators] listened without judgement. That was the most important.” “It has helped me see my colleagues outside of work and in the identity that more clearly identifies who they are in their lives.” “Yeah and it was cool because… at the end the dialogue, the riding coach was there, and so it was interesting to then see her point of view and one of the things she brought up was the pricing of things the hair thing of, some students need to have multiple helmets, and it just so costly, so like how to bring down costs. So it's just also interesting to just hear from different sports, what affects their individual sports” “Identity is so varied from person to person and amazing to discover different priorities.” “I learned where my biases play into my listening.” “I really liked the 7 images and the immediate reaction. I didn't always like my initial bias and immediate thoughts but I was also pleasantly surprised with some of them” “Which I think like what all these dialogues are all about: it [sports coaching and addressing social issues] shouldn't be two separate things. It should be merged and the program helped me stop thinking that as it two different things.” “When was the first time you realized your racial identity…and that was such a fascinating discussion with everybody. It was really cool. I saw so many light bulb faces. I saw so many people having never put that to themselves before and having never— and even for me again, I've been doing this for a little while. But every time I do it with a different group, I feel like I go a little further back and deeper and it's fascinating. So that was really impactful to me to hear. Even if someone said, ‘oh, I don't remember that didn't happen to me’ when they’d think for a few minutes they'd be like, ‘wait, yes it did.’ Note: Scores indicated the extent to which each process contributed to participants’ learning (1= a great deal, 3 = moderately, 5 = not at all). Lower scores signify higher degrees of contribution and higher scores signify lower degrees of contribution. 111 Taken together, the convergence observed in this mixed methods comparison offers evidence of fidelity to a dialogic pedagogical approach in that adult participants viewed these components as central to their program learning and experience. These results also underscore how the experiential nature of the program—namely the process and practice of dialoguing with others—as having meaningfully contributed to participants’ learning. Facilitative program features. Participants identified other program aspects as relevant to their learning experience through session-level and follow-up data sources. These process- related components included features of the dialogue encounter and facilitator behaviors. Features of the dialogue encounter that participants conveyed as a beneficial part of their experience were the smaller group setting, practical focus, and curriculum layout. While two participants uniquely commented on select activities as having “too much information” and that the “flow was slow” in session 3, one administrator reflected on the program as whole in at the follow up: “I really appreciated the way it was laid out and the information was brought to us because I felt like everybody could absorb it easily and apply it no matter what your position is—in teaching, coaching, or dorm parenting. People could find something to do that was actionable, like quickly. That was that's my favorite thing. Like ‘sure, statistics, blah, blah, what can I do?” One representative quotation, this comment highlights the practical meaningful, action-oriented qualities of the dialogue encounter and curriculum as an aspect of the program that adult leaders saw as helpful. In session-level surveys, adult leaders noted specific facilitator actions that supported their program experience such as, “listening without judgment”; “positive reinforcement”; “giving us the language and framework to have a conversation”; “modeling” dialogue-related skills (i.e., intervening, listening actively, creating a space to dialogue, showing vulnerability); 112 and, building trust. One coach wrote at the program mid-point, “I like that [Dalvida] shared something that she misunderstood in the past, but that became something important to her. It reminded me that it’s okay to make mistakes.” Along with remarking on how facilitators’ modeled vulnerability (i.e., mistakes as ok), two participants spoke to the role facilitators played in creating a sense of belonging and trust. One administrator offered, “People really felt a part of the program, so I thought it was really beneficial to the school.” Another coach elaborated and offered her perspective on the importance of building trust and providing outside support: “Her [the facilitator’s] availability outside of the larger dialogue was really helpful for me personally. There were some questions where I was like ‘I don't really feel like I can ask this with the large group but like I feel like I can trust you’ and she really created a space where, I mean, I never met her before and so, even people who, because she used to work here so, even people who didn't know her felt comfortable talking with her so I appreciated the space she created.” In sum, several participants underlined a sense of belonging, support, and trust as important to their overall program experience. And, they explicated on the impact that facilitators had on fostering a group space/relations characteristic of these qualities. Challenging aspects of adult participants’ learning experiences. Along with bringing to light program processes that facilitated their learning through the dialogue encounter, abductive analyses of session-specific and interview data helped uncover challenging aspects of participants’ learning experience. Challenging aspects related to feelings of general discomfort and racial discomfort. General discomfort. Session-level survey prompts gave participants space to describe a meaningful/transformative and challenging (i.e., when you felt ignored/excluded or that sharing a personal experience was a mistake) moment during the dialogue encounter. Participants indicated that they experienced discomfort when sharing personal information, especially when they did not feel validated. For example, one administrator conveyed at the program mid-point 113 survey that she, “felt that one personal story may have been a mistake. I felt slightly excluded or judged by the experience and my response to that experience.” Another participant offered a more nuanced perspective in writing about feeling both discomfort and enjoyment following session 2: “I liked the cards activity, although as a private person what upset me was realizing how my colleagues might see me since I don’t share a lot. It was nice being able to sit and listen to others I may not have the personal relationship with to develop a better understanding of each other.” One coach commented on the trajectory of their feelings of discomfort sharing after session 4 and put forth, “I like that we have been able to share with, and have become more comfortable sharing with, the larger group.” Through Dialogue in Athletics, participants experienced general discomfort in contributing personal information to group sessions and, to varying degrees, perceived their discomfort as meaningful. Racial discomfort. Coaches and administrators also articulated experiencing discomfort specific to race. Participants identified that they experienced uncomfortable feelings as they worked through unlearning long-held colorblind beliefs; recognizing personal biases and breaking down stereotypes; focusing on race and White privilege; and, bearing the burden of educating White colleagues as the only Black participant. For example, after the first session a White coach noted the difficulty of unlearning long-held colorblind beliefs and centering race: “it will be very difficult for me to bring something that identifies with my racial identity. My parents always taught us to look at the individual, never at the race.” Following a later session, one White coach conveyed feeling ignored because of the way that the conversation was centered on race: “my thoughts about the difference/expectations of how to behave as a woman were brushed aside as the conversation was centered on race; it did not seem to be a discussion open to exploring other ways our identity impacted how we approach difficult 114 conversations/topics.” In contrast, the only Black participant in the group expressed experiencing a different, distinct form of racial discomfort. He courageously commented: “I felt sharing generally was difficult because I was the only black person (not facilitator) sharing personal stories that brings up a lot of different feelings when revisited. I selfishly wish I didn't share anything and shouldn't have had to but was willing because I want to help my colleagues.” Remarks from this Black participant importantly point to the painful emotional burden that he experienced in feeling compelled to educate his White colleagues. This result makes apparent the possible harm that may stems from a less balanced racial representation characteristics of an intercultural group format. Participant-Context Considerations (Purpose 1 and 2) Participant-context considerations emerged as an inductive theme that was generated from open-ended survey and follow-up interview data with coaches/administrators and consisted of individual and institutional barriers to apply learning, sources of support, and suggestions to improve the program. Individual barriers to apply learning. Individual barriers regard personal challenges that participants described as a part of their learning process. Barriers included (1) integrating critical (dialogue-related) skills in sports as a new coach; (2) fearing mistakes; and (3) recognizing personal biases. One coach commented: “Because I'm going to be such a new coach like trying to navigate both being in charge of students in this capacity for the first time but also trying to be aware of how I'm interacting with students with a DEI lens, I think will be challenging for me to do both.” Relatedly, while another coach spoke to the difficulty of “getting the courage to start those dialogues. To start them and not have fear. Just being learning to be brave is hard and worrying about saying the wrong thing, ‘am I saying it right?’, another coach 115 mentioned the on-going, arduous nature of her critical learning process: “It's gonna be a long grueling road, no matter what we do. We are now recognizing what implicit bias is, and where our blind spots are. We’ve done all this training, and why is it still happening on this campus?’ You know there’s so much more to do.” These personal challenges may represent barriers that the 6-session dialogue encounter did not help coaches/administrators fully overcome and areas in which adult participants could continue to improve. Institutional barriers and sources of support. Coaches/administrators also spoke on institutional barriers to implement the program generally and take up intergroup (dialogic) action (i.e., financial resources to support equity in riding, faculty leadership buy-in, and finding/prioritizing time for programming) in follow-up interviews. The athletic director spoke specifically to challenges related to program implementation—namely, “finding time in the schedule” and getting buy-in from other faculty to prioritize the training. She elaborated: “There are so many things that we feel are the ‘most’ important. Prioritizing is probably the hardest. We were trying to figure out a schedule for coaches and the only time that everyone could meet was at lunch. So at that point, some of the faculty members are like, ‘this is taking planning time away; it's 90 minutes that we could be doing something else’. Where it's like, ‘this is important, and this is work that we need to do…But it got to a point where some coaches were reaching out to our Academic Dean and were like, ‘do we have to finish the last week, and do we need to do this”, and he reached out to me…and just really being taken seriously. The importance and seriousness of what we're learning and that needs to happen. ‘Because athletics are just sports’… Nothing happens besides sports there. But it's like, “no, it does”. This coach-administrator gave voice to the lack of support for dialogic action from other adult leaders. She attributes this resistance to prevailing beliefs that sport is separate from social justice issues and the practical difficulties of finding a time for programming given the limited availability of teacher-coaches. Alongside these challenges, participants also noted sources of institutional support. Several coaches/administrators commented on the strong support from campus leadership, and 116 others mentioned the supplemental diversity-related initiatives that were taking place in the campus community as beneficial and complementary to Dialogue in Athletics. One coach stated, “we're doing some other training, and that added on to what we were working with Jill and Dalvida.” Relatedly, an administrator echoed this stance and summed up that, “our Head of School is so supportive that if I did [have challenges], I’d have somewhere to go. I could work it out with all the tools that Jill and the Wells Collective and with all the different tools brought to us.” Altogether, while some participants indicated institutional barriers taking dialogue-informed (social justice) action on campus, including program delivery itself, they also perceived campus leadership and supplemental diversity-related initiatives as supportive of their development. Suggestions to improve the program. Coach and administrators put forth suggestions for improving the program in surveys and follow-up interviews. Following each workshop, participants responded to the prompt, “What, if anything would you change about today’s session?” Common feedback that participants offered across all sessions was for “more time” to dialogue generally to engage in breakout groups or activities. After select sessions, coaches commented, “I like the breakout sessions, but we never have quite enough time” and “breakout rooms go so quickly”. One coach responded that they “wish we had more time to share out about the identity activity” and another participant indicated that they want to devote more time to conversations about sports coaching. Adult leaders also indicated that the program was challenging to fit into their already busy schedules. An administrator wrote: “I wish I hadn't had to miss a small chunk to help a student”, and two teacher-coaches echoed that sessions were “tough to balance initially”, “all of it during the pandemic” in follow-up interviews. In light of this feedback, selecting a least disruptive time that allows for small-group dialogue among adult leaders could improve the program. In a related vein, one coach suggested: “It would be cool to 117 have season check-ins. As a coach I’d, with knowing names, want to know what's discussed in student groups too, because that could help us improve knowing how the kids see things.” On- going check-ins beyond the 6-session dialogue and alongside youth programming might help coaches work through issues that arise with student-athletes in light of this recommendation. 118 Summary of Results for Student-Athletes To guide the reader through this in-depth overview of evaluation results for student- athletes, I offer key takeaways related to priority purposes: program impact and processes. Specific to program impact, student-athletes were satisfied with the program experience and evidenced some, though less robust, gains in critical awareness (and facets of personal/interpersonal awareness that underpin this critical construct). Youth participants showed affective shifts including stronger attitudes toward the value of dialogue-related behaviors generally and utility of dialogic action in sports. Results indicated improvements alongside some ambivalence in student-athletes’ confidence and intentions to engage in intergroup action; and, they offered some, though less concrete, examples of skills transference. Related to program processes, integrated analyses showed dialogic communication categories as salient to participants’ learning with emphasis placed on the value of appreciating differences (e.g., hearing others’ personal stories) and engaging the self (e.g., sharing their views). Other related facilitative processes included the interactive, supportive small group setting, which helped participants work through sources of discomfort (i.e., sharing personal experiences and examining/confronting stereotypes). Last, participant-context considerations emerged as an inductive theme and consisted of individual barriers to apply their learning, sources of support, and suggestions to improve the program. Student-Athlete Participant Demographics Eleven student-athletes participated in at least 1 of 6 program sessions. Of those 11 participants, 7 student-athletes attended 3 or more sessions and completed the final program survey. These participants identified as women and were in 9th, 10th or 11th grade. Two participants identified as White, 1 as African/Black American, 1 as Black American/multiracial, 119 2 as Latina/x, and 1 as South East Asian. Youth played multiple sports at Sowers (i.e., softball, basketball, lacrosse, equestrian, volleyball, soccer, and dance). Student-Athlete Participants Group 1: Program Impact (Purpose 1) Evaluation of the impact of Dialogue in Athletics on student-athletes consisted of analyses of quantitative and qualitative measures of program satisfaction, awareness, affect, and skills development and transference at multiple time-points. Program satisfaction. Student-athletes responded to the prompt “Overall, I liked the session” using a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 4 = neither agree or disagree, 7= strongly disagree) to assess program satisfaction at the session level. Most participants indicated that they were satisfied with individual workshops. Youth “strongly agreed” that they liked each of the 6 sessions, with 100% of participants selecting “strongly agree” that they liked sessions 2, 3, 4, and 6. There were no sessions for which participants rated that they were neutral (“neither agree or disagree”) or dissatisfied (“somewhat” or “strongly disagree”). Figure 6 depicts session- specific ratings of program satisfaction. In post-program surveys, when asked to provide comments to better understand their experience only 3 youth offered their input, and expressed favorable remarks (e.g., “thank you – loved it!”; “it was really good”; and “I really enjoyed the sessions”). 120 Figure 6. Student-Athlete Participants’ Session-level Program Satisfaction g n i t a R n o i t c a f s i t a S " n o i s s e s e h t d e k i l I l l a r e v O " ' s t n a p i c i t r a P 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 Session Number Strongly agree Somewhat agree Awareness. Open-ended survey responses and follow-up interviews from participants provided insight into the program impact on personal awareness (i.e., understanding one’s own identities, values, thoughts/feelings and behaviors), interpersonal awareness (i.e., understanding aspects of others’ experience, perspective, and background), and critical awareness (i.e., understanding individual and/or systemic oppression and privilege). Less apparent shifts in critical awareness are partially convergent with quantitative results, which showed no changes in student-athletes’ critical awareness from pre-to-post program based on the a priori (intergroup understanding and relationships) outcome measure: ethnocultural empathy (i.e., Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy). Mixed method comparison of all data sources and a joint comparison with adult participants’ results specific to critical awareness conclude this section to help foreground the less pronounced change on this learning outcome that was observed among student-athletes. Personal awareness. In follow-up interviews and session-level surveys, participants expressed that they gained a greater awareness of factors that have influenced who they are, salient aspects of their identity, and their actions. Following session 3 on social learning, a 121 student-athlete wrote that she learned, “identity is a product of the influences I’ve had around me and that I can always grow and learn from these experiences to become a better person.” This view was reiterated in the follow-up interview when she described a meaningful moment that had stuck with her: “We talked about one item that represents our identity, and I think that was a really powerful. Because you don't stop to think about the things that make you who you are; you just do them. I think that taking the time to reflect on who you are, memories, and experiences that have shaped you was a good reminder.” Regarding salient identity characteristics, one participant wrote that a key takeaway from session 2 (exploring identities) was: “that my name doesn’t define me.” In the same session, another student-athlete made a general comment about becoming aware of her emotions when someone makes assumptions about her, or “how it feels when someone chooses my identity for me”. And, one participant provided additional explanation on her emotional experience and awareness that resulted from the session in her follow-up interview. She reflected, “I really liked that, and something that really stuck out was identifying our identity. And, I got my permit this winter break and what really bothered me was how there was a split into different ethnic groups, and you had to choose your group. I hate having to put people in a group. So, I really got to notice that type of stuff and see what bothers you and how you can change that and make it better.” She went on to describe her experience becoming aware of her ethnicity and elaborated: “I think I removed Hispanic because as I said, I don't like titles, but it's still part of my identity: I am Hispanic. So, I think it is, again, it is important to note your identity and where you stand.” While her response does not reflect an understanding of how stereotyping may relate to the complex feelings she has about her ethnicity, her response suggests an awareness of her identity as multifaceted and descriptors that are important to her from participating the session. 122 Specific to personal actions, one participant spoke about the impact of the program in her follow-up interview: “I definitely think more about stuff that I say—like I honestly didn't think it would impact me at all; I’d walk away and be like, ‘okay, that happened’. But I actually think more about what I say and what I hear than I did before.” Uniquely another student-athlete spoke about how completing the final program survey made her more aware of her favorable views toward interacting with diverse groups, which others do not always share: “When I saw the survey questions, ‘you are with a bunch of people are speaking a language that you don't know, do you feel mad or uncomfortable?’. It's not something I've ever thought about because when that happens, I'm interested but there are people who don't feel comfortable when they walk into a room and someone is speaking a language they don't understand.” Altogether, Dialogue in Athletics helped student-athletes strengthen their awareness of their identities and related emotions, and their actions with others. Interpersonal awareness. In their follow-up interviews, all student-athletes indicated that the program helped them broaden their perspective of others as they developed a greater sense of awareness of their own thoughts/behaviors. One individual offered an illustrative comment that was commonly expressed by others: “[the program] made me think a lot more about certain topics and using my mind more and thinking before I say things, and thinking about other people's life and what's going on inside of their head and not trying to speak out. And thinking before I speak because before, I was aware of things, but I don't think I sat down and thought about ways to say certain things. If we're talking about a topic that's serious. But I think it really helped me overall— it like broaden my perspective.” Others echoed that the program helped them “open my eyes to see other people’s sort of preference on things and think about how they approach things”, and “talk to others who come from a different cultural background as me and how to coincide with them.” One participant clarified that without the program she wouldn’t have realized that “everything does not have to 123 be what I see, but in reality other people have opinions, and everyone has something different to say or even see.” Session-specific surveys corroborated insights that student-athletes vocalized at the 1-month follow up. While one participant wrote that session 2 “really made [them] think about everything others value”, another student-athlete put forth in the final survey that she become aware of her peers in the program: “the most meaningful experience would have to be the part where everyone shared personal stories because it showed me a new side of their identity and I don't think I would have seen that if they did not participate in this program”. In sum, qualitative result underscore the personal and interpersonal awareness that youth participants gained through their Dialogue in Athletics experience. These facets of awareness underpin a key sensitizing concept (and learning outcome) specific to this evaluation’s priority purposes: critical awareness. Critical awareness. In order to assess participants’ critical awareness, the a priori outcome measure for ethnocultural empathy (i.e., Scale for Ethnocultural Empathy, SEE) was used to gauge participants’ understanding of (and views toward) the experiences of racial/ethnic minorities.8 Quantitative results for this intergroup outcome measure are presented and then integrated with qualitative data sources, which exhibited some convergence given their less clear articulation of systemic oppression and a person’s relationship to those systems following the dialogue encounter. 8 The SEE measures a person’s understanding (or awareness) and beliefs (attitudes) toward the experiences of racial/ethnic minorities. Results from this measure are organized under the sensitizing concept of critical awareness (as opposed to under affective outcomes) as the specific SEE subscale for empathic awareness held reliable across both adult and youth groups, and allowed for a mixed methods comparison of this awareness-specific learning outcome. 124 Ethnocultural empathy (outcome measure).9 Paired samples t-tests were conducted to determine if there were changes in ethnocultural empathy from pre-to-post program. Student- athlete participants showed an increase in mean scores from 5.75 to 6.03 (Mdiff = .271 SD = .709) pre-to-post program that was not statistically significant; t(6) = 1.013, p = .350. Of the subscales (see Table 11) that demonstrated reliability, participants showed significant improvements in acceptance of cultural difference (i.e., understanding and valuing of diverse/different cultures). No statistically significant differences were observed for empathic awareness (i.e., an understanding of the discrimination that racial/ethnic minorities may experience). Average pre- program levels across subscales were relatively high, including for empathic awareness and may explain the insignificant change post-program. (See Appendix F for a full summary of means and standard deviations). Table 11. Pre/Post-Program Mean Differences in Ethnocultural Empathy Subscales among Student-Athletes Mean difference Standard Deviation Mixed methods results for critical awareness. The insignificant change in racial/ethnic empathic awareness among student-athletes was partially convergent with qualitative results. In session-level and follow-up interviews, student-athlete participants less explicitly (critically) 9 All subscales indicated adequate reliability (above .70) for before and after program survey measures of ethnocultural empathy; however, after-program scores on empathic perspective taking and empathic feeling and expression were negative (+). As such, results for these subscales were not interpreted given the poor psychometric properties of this adapted measure with this small sample population. 125 Pre– Post Scores 6.14 - 6.54 4.80 – 5.35 6.17 - 6.60 5.80 – 6.15 Subscale Empathic Awareness Empathic Perspective Taking+ Acceptance of Cultural Differences Empathic Feeling and Expression+ +Notes low reliability .393 .551 .429 .342 for Mdiff .453 .814 .407 .337 T(6) 2.294 1.791 2.785 2.687 p .062 .124 .032* .036 probed systemic privilege/oppression and their relationship to those systems—though youth indicated some development in their critical understanding of racial/social privilege and recognition of social stereotypes as marginalizing. A mixed methods comparison of findings is depicted in Table 11, and greater depth of explanation on qualitative themes provided below. Uniquely, these results are compared to adult participants. Joint comparison of this particular section of data was necessary to adequately elucidate observed variation in their critical awareness development through the program. 126 Table 12. Mixed Methods Joint Comparison of Critical Awareness among Student-Athletes Relative to Coaches/Administrators Quantitative Results Qualitative Results Empathic Awareness Subscale Student-Athlete Responses Coach and Administrator Responses Coaches/Admin. Before to After 5.79-6.44 Change = .654 p = .152 No statistically significant change from pre-to-post program on empathic awareness scores Youth Before to After 6.14-6.54 Change = .393 p = .062 No statistically significant change from pre-to-post program on empathic awareness scores Racial Identity Awareness Racial/Social Privilege Awareness Recognizing Stereotypes/ Biases as marginalizing Or structural inequities (in sport) Less centered on race and/or ethnicity. “We talked about one item that represents our identity, and I think that was a really powerful. Because you don't stop to think about the things that make you who you are; you just do them. I think that taking the time to reflect on who you are, memories, and experiences that have shaped you was a good reminder.” – Latina/x participant Less critically probing of racial privilege “I think it’s understanding my privilege in that, I have more things than other people or I have less things than other people. And taking account of what I have: I think that's knowing who I am.” –White participant Critically probing of stereotypes as marginalizing. “We were talking and it really stood out to me how there's so many things in media and pop culture that have been ingrained in our minds that aren’t okay. We somehow think that stereotypes that we put on people are okay.” – White participant Less critically probing of stereotypes as marginalizing. “How wrong [stereotypes] are, even some stereotypes that might sound good. It still affects others in the way that they think and perceive someone.” – Latinx/a participant More centered on race and/or ethnicity. “When was the first time like sort of you realized your racial identity… that was a fascinating discussion I saw so many light bulb faces. I saw so many people having never put that to themselves before and having never— and even for me again, I've been doing this for a little while. But every time I do it with a different group, I go a little deeper and it's fascinating. So that was really impactful to me to hear. Even if someone said, ‘oh, I don't remember, that didn't happen to me’, they would think for a few minutes they'd be like, ‘wait yes it did.’” White female administrator Critically probing of racial/social privilege “Understanding that as a White person I have never really needed to think about race and my privilege unless I want to dig deeper or educate myself.” Critically probing of stereotypes as marginalizing. “So that's what all this is helping me with, recognizing— that exercise that Jill did with the pictures of different—a tennis star that was in this model-like pose. We wrote what we first thought…There was a student-athlete here. She was our basketball star. A black student, amazing basketball, amazing athlete, and I got to teach her up here in riding. In her senior speech she said ‘why does everybody want me to play basketball? It's not who I am”. I always remember that I was like, ‘My gosh, I too thought that: basketball star’ and she didn't want to be that.” - White female coach Critical recognition of structural inequities “The riding coach was there, and it was interesting to see her view. She brought up how costly it is. And…the hair thing of— some students need to have multiple helmets. It's interesting to hear what affects their individual sports.” - White female coach 127 Mixed Methods Comparison and Interpretation Congruence Youth participants showed some critical awareness of social privilege and stereotypes through qualitative data, but responses lacked explicit mention of structural facets of oppression and how they are implicated in those systems. Qualitative results among youth are partially congruent with insignificant quantitative changes in racial/ethnic empathic awareness. Integrated findings may reflect a possible area for continued growth among youth participants following the program. At the session-level when participants offered a “key takeaway message or learning aspect”, or “meaningful moment” following the first few workshops, youth responses reflected a less robust awareness of systemic oppression and its connection to their personal/interpersonal experiences. For example, no responses provided by student-athletes reflected critical awareness following the first two sessions. Their comments more often evidenced personal or interpersonal awareness (described above), were vague, or less sharply interrogated oppression and privilege at the structural level. In later sessions, however, some youth offered responses that were approaching critical in nature. After session 3 (on social learning), a student-athlete put forth that “discussing stereotypes and what’s ‘normal’” was a key takeaway. In session 4 (on individual discrimination), participants’ responses hinted at a recognition of derogatory statements brought up in the workshop. A few individuals wrote that an aspect of their learning was “addressing some of the things you’ve said in the past and owning up to it, and accepting that it was wrong”, or “talking about what you’ve done and not blaming yourself but taking responsibility for it.” After session 5 (on institutional discrimination), student-athletes were slightly more incisive. Four participants answered the prompt: “Identify a form of social privilege that you view as power/responsibility to help others after participating in today's session.” Two participants identified their White racial identity, one participant noted her religion; and, 1 participant listed, “I am not sure”. Another student-athlete wrote that a key take-away for her was “it depends on how you use privilege whether it’s good or bad. Coming here to a private school is a privilege compared to others and we can use it to help others.” Mixed responses reflect possible gaps in student-athletes’ critical awareness development following the program, namely in their ability 128 to communicate an understanding of structural oppression/privilege and how they are implicated in those structures. In follow-up interviews, participants offered additional insights that evidenced some critical awareness of social privilege and stereotypes—though often still at the individual (rather than systemic) level. Student-athletes specifically described meaningful program moments that helped them recognize their social privilege (i.e., gender, class, and race) and personal biases. Two student-athlete spoke specific to their class-based privilege, with one individual recounting: “One activity I do remember, we had a list and we had to think if that's something we've had to worry about or not, and sitting there thinking if I've ever had to worry about having books on my shelf or having to worry about a meal—because I don't really think about that during the day. But now, I actually do a lot, and how grateful I am and that really stuck out to me. Like that activity. I think it is understanding my privilege in that, I have more things than other people or I have less things than other people also some days. And just taking account of what I have: I think that's knowing who I am.” Youth also commented on their heightened awareness of stereotypes. Some participants made general comments about recognizing stereotypic beliefs as harmful. For example, one student- athlete expressed that she learned, “how wrong [stereotypes] are, even some stereotypes that might sound good. It still affects others in the way that they think and perceive someone.” Less often, youth named the broader social norms/forces that underpin our individual beliefs; however, one (White) participant provided a sharper sport-relevant perspective: “We were talking and it really stood out to me how there's so many things in media and pop culture that have been ingrained in our minds that aren’t okay. We somehow think that stereotypes that we put on people are okay. And it was kind of like really weird, because everyone in the group was like, ‘Hey, you know, I didn't even realize that was a bad stereotype until now you're reading it to me’. And I think that was a moment that really stood out, because —wow, it's everywhere, even women in sports. And I thought, ‘wow—what rock was I living under’.” Another (Black American/multiracial) participant offered critical comments on problematic stereotypes in sport. She recalled, “we were shown pictures and you wrote down the first thing 129 you thought about the person, and so there was the stereotype that men who do ballet are they're always gay, which is not true. Because for me, I've been doing ballet at Sowers because it was part of the dance curriculum. But like, it's become a stereotype that men who do ballet are gay. No, that's not true.” She went on to comment on racialized stereotypes, “if you're black, and if you're tall, you must play basketball, which is not true. A lot of people I know, it's like, ‘oh, they're tall, they look muscular.’ They might play a different sport, or they might not like sports at all, but they look like they'd be able to play basketball—but I'm not going to assume that just because of the way they look.” She then turned this critical lens onto her own experiences and at the unique intersection of her identities: “I liked that [identity] activity because society has a tendency just to label everything. It's just its thing. It's kind of its purpose. All my life I've been told I'm just a Black girl who had the privilege of going to a private school, but I'm much more.” While youth participants showed some critical awareness of social privilege and stereotypes overall pre/post- and session-level data reflected some lack of incisiveness in their awareness of structural oppression/privilege following the program. This finding is made better evident when comparing their qualitative response to those of adult participants who were more explicit in naming race/racial privilege and social inequities (See Table 12). Qualitative results among student-athletes are, at least in part, congruent with the statistically insignificant quantitative changes in racial/ethnic empathic awareness. These results may reveal a possible area for continued growth among youth participants following the program. Affective components. Analyses indicated shifts in affective components (attitudes) among student-athletes through their program participation. Through qualitative data sources, youth participants expressed that the program strengthened their views about the value of dialogue-related actions and their confidence to engage in such actions (along with some 130 hesitancy to engage their peers). Qualitative data also provided evidence that the program helped youth cultivate a view of dialogic skills as useful in sports. Last, youth participants demonstrated stronger intentions to engage in intergroup action overall: qualitative data sources corroborated increases in behavioral intentions on the a priori outcome measure (i.e., Behavioral Intentions for Intergroup Collaboration), and provided more nuanced insight in the actions that youth wanted to carry out. Valuing of and confidence to take dialogue-related action. Youth participants’ responses to session-level close-ended questions reflected their attitudes toward dialogue-related action (e.g., perspective taking, having a voice, and interrupting derogatory remarks). After session 3, several participants conveyed that their key takeaway related to the importance of active listening “with an open heart” to consider different viewpoints. One student-athlete wrote: “changing people can be hard so listening with an open heart is important,” and another participant reinforced “listening is your best friend and that you have to have an open mind and put yourself in someone else’s shoes.” In their follow-up interviews, all youth echoed how the program strengthened their views about the importance of perspective taking through active listening. One (Black/multiracial) participant articulated: “Just little things that I feel like the program touched on but didn't at the same time. We didn't straight up say, ‘Are you a Trump supporter? We don't like you’. It was, ‘Oh, we all have different views. And I'd like to know why you'd have those views instead of having views similar towards mine’”. A (Hispanic/Latina/x) student-athlete uniquely pointed out how active listening was important to her as an adolescent: “It's impacted me—it gave me a deeper understanding, to hear people and listen to what they have to say. And then you can learn from what they say. So, I think it's very important to learn and share especially with students my age and grade, because it's hard to just like listen to someone and not budge in and it's important to listen to people's opinions, and what do they have to say and why they see views like this.” 131 White youth participants similarly described the attitudinal impact of the program on them. For example, one young woman elaborated on the significance of perspective taking to inform action: “I don't think I thought about it as in depth because I was like, ‘Oh, I don't deal with it. So why does it concern me’. And I think that's kind of an awful way to approach things. Because there’s always going to be something we don't know how to deal with, and I think learning what other people have to go through really helps open your eyes to be like, ‘Hey, I can help that’.” While she does not explicitly call attention to her (privileged) racial identity and role as a White ally/accomplice, this student-athlete (like others in the program) underlined that the dialogic encounter reinforced the value of perspective taking and active listening. Session-level surveys and follow-up interviews also reflected how the program contributed to youth participants’ confidence to take some types of dialogic action (e.g., actively listening and using their voice). Youth participants responded with their level of agreement (strongly disagree to strongly agree) to the prompts: “I feel more confident actively listening” and “I feel more confident reframing debates as dialogue” after session 1 (dialogue foundations). Of the 7 completed surveys, 4 participants selected “strongly agree”, 2 selected “somewhat agree”, and 1 selected “neither agree/disagree” for actively listening. Youth participants showed similar increases in their confidence to go beyond listening and reframe debates as dialogue, with four participants selecting “strongly agree”, 3 participants selecting “somewhat agree” in appraising their reframing ability. Later in follow-up interviews, student-athletes offered more extensive elaboration on how the program supported their beliefs in their ability to listen to others and also use their voice. One (White) student-athlete commented, “I think I'm a lot stronger with sharing my opinions only because now I know how to talk about it more freely. Before I was like, ‘where'd you get that’. 132 So, I think it's important to look at all sides of the box instead of just looking inside of it.” Another (Latina/x) participant conveyed that her program involvement “resulted in me being more patient and understanding of others, instead of quick to judge and also made me more confident and not doubt myself anymore.” In contrast to feeling emboldened to share their perspective, some student-athletes referenced being less sure about using their voice to invite dialogue or intervene among peers. One (White) student-athlete articulated that her lack of confidence stemmed from her fears about peer judgment: “I'm scared to speak up, because they'll judge me if what I say is not correct. So, I think it's having enough confidence.” Thus, while Dialogue in Athletics supported student-athletes’ beliefs in their ability to use dialogic skills overall, fear of making mistakes in front of peers was a barrier to their confidence that the program did not help youth fully overcome. Viewing dialogue-related skills as useful to sports. In follow-up interviews, student- athletes were asked to offer their input on how, if at all, program concepts/skills might apply to their sports experience following the pandemic. Student-athletes indicated that their program learning could help with trust building and teamwork, inclusive leadership, and the management of difficult emotions. Participants often remarked on the utility of their program learning to build team trust and cohesion. One participant explained: “We really talked about how we approach teamwork too. I mean, we said, it all involves trusting other people. For me, that's a big thing. And being willing to be like, ‘Hey, I got your back if you got mine’, and willing to put that trust in people. Even whenever we were on the call to, it was all centered around like us trusting ourselves and other people on the call to either share our personal stories or stuff that we needed to feel. It was a very trusting community because there was only eight of us in the group. That can be put onto the field too because you have to be willing to trust your teammates will get things done.” 133 While this student-athlete focused on how dialogic communication and group norms could enhance teamwork and performance, another participant articulated the benefit of valuing diversity as reinforced through the program: “There are different identities and views and ideas people have in teams— it's important to see were we're coming from, or maybe it's such a great idea this person came up with and you can add on. It's pretty cool: everyone has something different to share and it's not the same thing all the time.” Relatedly, one participant elaborated on how her program learning could help her as a teammate: “I think it can help me in sport by creating a bond with my teammates, and creating a better understanding and using that on the field in order to make our plays better. And the way that our team functions, because every team has a different personality.” Another (White) student-athlete more verbalized how her learning could serve her as an inclusive leader: “If you are a leader, you have to learn about other people and be aware of everyone around you and not excluding people if they're not, if they're culture doesn't, or if anything, like whatever it is—if they can't do something, trying to find something that is the same and including them. You know trying your best or just trying not to leave someone out because they aren't comfortable or they can't do it.” These responses underline that student-athletes viewed dialogic skills/concepts learned through the program as beneficial for them to be supportive teammates and inclusive leaders when sports resume after the pandemic. Other aspects of dialogue that student-athletes viewed as useful related to managing emotions to resolve conflict or positively contribute to their teams. One (White) participant recalled that “we talked about your self-care: you're in a good place to help other people be positive. I do think that taking away that learning to make sure you're okay before you go into another space.” Alongside using self-care to manage emotions, another participant mentioned the value of keeping an open-mind to work through mistakes or difficult feelings, “‘Oh, I could have 134 done this differently”. Or ‘oh, I need to have a conversation with this person about this stuff’. I think approaching it with an open mind and being levelheaded, even if you are frustrated.” One (African/Black American) student-athlete summed up how she could manage difficult emotions and dialogue when conflict arises on her sports team: “There are going to be times when you don't agree with what somebody said or did on teams in general. But I know that when I think back to what I was talking about in Dialogue in Athletics, I could think of how to respond back to that situation, in the correct manner to be respectful towards everyone, and also put my opinion out and also listen … I could see it either in a moment or after because in the program, we learned to just take a step back, take a breather, collect yourself and process. So, in that moment if I'm able to or afterwards to and come back to the situation.” Taken together, student-athletes developed favorable views toward the application of dialogic concepts/skills in sports. Qualitative results underline that youth recognized that they could use their learning from the program in their roles as sport teammates and leaders to promote supportive, inclusive sport (team) experiences. Intentions to engage in intergroup action. Quantitative (a priori outcome variable) and qualitative (open-ended surveys and follow-up interviews) data sources were used to assess student-athlete participants’ changes in intentions toward taking intergroup action. Quantitative results specific to the a priori outcome measure are presented first. Integrated analyses that include results from qualitative data sources are then described. Mixed methods results showed favorable shifts in their behavioral intentions overall alongside some ambivalence to take engage peers (i.e., others’-directed action). Intentions to engage in intergroup collaboration (outcome measure). Paired samples t- tests were conducted to assess changes in behavioral intentions for intergroup collaboration from pre-to-post program. Youth participants showed an increase in mean scores from 5.676 to 6.468 (Mdiff= .793, SD = .733) pre-to-post program that was statistically significant; t(6)= 2.86, p=.029. 135 The observed change was practically significant with a large effect size (Cohen’s d = .733, 95% CI .104-2.006). Mean differences in all subscales of behavioral intentions including self-directed, others-directed, and collaborative action were also statistically significant (See Table 13). These results suggest that youth showed stronger behavioral intentions for intergroup action after relative to before the dialogue encounter. (See Appendix F for a full summary of means and standard deviations). Table 13. Pre/Post-Program Mean Differences in Behavioral Intentions for Intergroup Collaboration among Student-Athletes Subscale Pre-Post Scores Standard Deviation T(6) p Mean difference .857 .857 .667 Self-directed action Others’-directed action Collaborative action 5.79-6.64 5.57-6.42 5.67-6.33 .827 .748 .720 2.741 3.032 2.448 .034* .023* .050* Mixed methods results for behavioral intentions to engage in intergroup action. Through qualitative data sources, youth participants elaborated on their intentions to take up self-directed, others’-directed, and collaborative actions alongside evidencing some uncertainty—particularly around engaging in others’-directed action— following the program. Result from qualitative data sources are described in greater depth below alongside quantitative findings. Table 14 depicts these integrated results including a mixed methods comparison. 136 .793 2.86 .029 .857 2.74 .034* .857 3.03 .023* Behavioral Intentions Composite Self-directed action Others’- directed action Collaborative action .667 2.45 .050* follow-up interviews “I think that [recent instances of anti- Asian hate] really added to reflecting a lot about how I am to that community, and what things I can do better to not only be an ally, but also be active, and stand up for them when they're not there. So, I feel like I also made a lot of progress, and a lot of reflection within myself, and trying to educate my not only my school community, but in my personal life with my family and friends.” “Take on more leadership roles to guide people who also want to know more about diversity and educate themselves on all culture.” Ambivalence - “I could do better getting involved in using my voice more and trying to be there for other people. I do think I have learned from the program how to set myself up to be able to be in those positions I just haven't used them yet. It's not really something I personally go around bringing up topics. I'm more a chilled-back person. I don't try to bring up events if it's not the time or place.” Participants indicated in final program surveys that they wanted to participate in existing collaborative initiatives: “open forum” or “DEI program”, and “the DEI committee next year”. Mixed Methods comparison Convergence Youth participants practically significant changes in scores on behavioral intentions for dialogue-related action were in alignment with session-level and follow-up qualitative data— especially in relation to self-directed and collaborative action. Divergence Some ambivalence expressed among student- athletes around initiating others’-directed related to intervening or inviting dialogue in their (informal) interactions with others. Table 14. Mixed Methods Comparison of Behavioral Intentions for Intergroup Action among Student-Athletes Quantitative Results Qualitative Results Subscale Mdiff T(6) p Responses from final surveys and Mixed methods inferences Congruent with quantitative results, youth participants listed specific intentions in response to the session-level question (following session 5), “How, if at all, do you plan to use your social privilege to help others?”. While one student-athlete indicated that she “was not sure”, two (White) participants put forth that they planned to use their privilege to take others’- directed action—to “defend people” or “stand up for others, teach others the right thing, and be conscientious of others”. Participants explicitly drew on other social identities (i.e., religion, 137 gender) in their comments. While one student-athlete expressed self-directed intentions to “understand others’ religions and be more mindful of my words/actions”, another participant commented on her agency to engage in collaborative action: “Because we are women we can support each other a bit more; we can have energy to do better and lift each other up”. Final program surveys were also in alignment with quantitative findings as most (5 of 7) youth participants noted intentions to carry out self-directed, others’-directed, and collaborative actions in responding to the prompt: “Are there any other actions you intended to take to promote diversity/inclusion in athletics or your community?”. While two participants left the question blank, youth commonly indicated a desire to participant in existing collaborative initiatives on campus: they planned to participate in the school’s “open forum” or “DEI program”, “apply to the DEI committee next year” and “visit more clubs and listen to others to hear their input”. One student-athlete uniquely commented on her intentions take others’-directed action by “tak[ing] on more leadership roles to guide people who also want to know more about diversity and educate themselves on all cultures.” Follow-up interviews both corroborated youth participants’ results on close- and open- ended survey questions alongside reflecting some ambivalence around taking others’-directed action. Although only a few participants specifically recalled and referenced the action planning activity from the final session, student-athletes described actions that they aimed to take up in light of their program involvement. For example, one (Latina/x) participant talked about her intentions take self- and others’-directed action: “I think that [recent instances of anti-Asian hate] really added to reflecting a lot about how I am to that community, and what things I can do better to not only be an ally, but also be active, and stand up for them when they're not there. So, I feel like I also made a lot of progress, and a lot of reflection within myself, and trying to educate my 138 not only my school community, but in my personal life with my family and friends.” In contrast, one (White) student-athlete verbalized her ambivalence around engaging her peers on diversity- related topics: “I could do better getting involved in using my voice more and trying to be there for other people. I do think I have learned from the program how to set myself up to be able to be in those positions I just haven't used them yet. It's not really something I personally go around bringing up topics. I'm more a chilled-back person. I don't try to bring up events if it's not the time or place.” This hesitation around bringing up social justice issues with peers was expressed by two other student-athletes in their follow-up interviews. Though Dialogue in Athletics appears to have supported youth participants’ behavioral intentions for various types of intergroup action, these findings shed light on the ambivalence toward engaging their peers that student-athletes felt following the program. In sum, integrated analyses of data from student-athletes indicated favorable affective changes through their program experience. These shifts included increases in their valuing and confidence to take dialogue-related action and views about the utility of applying dialogic skills to sports. While student-athletes’ behavioral intentions to engage in intergroup action were improved through their program participation overall, qualitative results also evidenced some ambivalence— in particular related to others’-directed action. Developing skills and skills transference. Results from session-level surveys and follow-up interviews showed that youth participants developed dialogue-related skills including active listening, perspective sharing, and interrupting derogatory comments. While youth— relative to adult participants—were less concrete in drawing on specific instances of transference and evidencing clear retention of skill-related components (i.e., steps to dialogue and/or 139 interrupt), they did describe some moments in which they had applied their learning to their community because of participating in the program. Session-level surveys revealed instances when student-athlete participants had applied their learning outside the dialogue encounter. When asked to recall a situation in which they reframed a difficult situation as a dialogue instead of a debate after session 1 (dialogue foundations), only two student-athletes described a specific instance. One participant commented, “instead of arguing with someone who had different views from me, I decided to be the bigger person and have a conversation with her about it. Finally, she and I came to a meeting point, and I am happy this did not turn into a debate.” Three student-athletes provided general comments about the session being “helpful” and “how to focus on what’s really important”, with one student-athlete clarifying: “nothing has happened to me personally recently, but when an argument is getting heated to just reframe, stop, and think”. Three participants did not provide responses. And, when asked to describe how, if at all, they had used active listening or perspective taking strategies outside the program (after session 4 on individual discrimination), two participants recounted more concrete situations (e.g., “when a situation came up with my friend, I actively listened to her as I heard her side and where she was coming from”). Other youth (n=3) offered less detailed examples but described being more “attentive” in listening to “what people say” and “aware of situations around [them]” in session-level surveys. General use of skills. In follow-up interviews, student-athlete participants often indicated general use and—to varying degrees—clear retention of dialogue-related skills. One participant conveyed her strong grasp of the qualities of active listening and her effort to improve this skill: “One of the skills also stuck to me, was the listening to what other people have to say, because the group we had, we were all different, and we all share different opinions and I thought that was important because they’d split us into groups and we hear each other out and see how are skills are and how we can better them. That really stuck with me because 140 everyone shared their stories, and we got to see how we thought and how without interrupting you can listen and add on after they finish talking. After the first few sessions, I started to add on those lessons that I've been learning: listening to what people have to say, to different opinions even if I don't agree to them, just being respectful and listening to what they have to say because everyone sees things differently.” Along with active listening, participants made mention of the program process (or tool) to help them interrupt derogatory comments. Several (n=5) youth recalled this process and how they had used this strategy since the program—albeit with some ambiguity in remembering specific components. One participant explained, “something that we did address, I don't know if I'm wording this right. It’s some kind of acronym. For example, someone who's blatantly being racist to somebody you know or don't know, but you feel it's not right. We learned there are different ways to approach it. Instead of barging in and yelling, ‘you're wrong,’ you ask ‘why do you think this way?’”. Another student-athlete elaborated: “Okay, I’m going to clarify what you said, ‘this is what you said’ so. And then you'll go on to the next letter. But it'll be, I’m trying to remember. It was a gradual process was basically saying, ‘okay, I either agree with you, or I don't agree with you, and this is why,’ but saying it in a respectful way, but also bringing your point across.” And, one young woman uniquely commented on how she had (without drawing on a specific example) used her learning in her own life and interactions with peers: “I think there was a specific phrase that I used in order to de-escalate issues when things were getting serious. And I think that it was one of the most effective techniques that the dialogue sessions taught me. It was very productive, and I think that I got the results that I wanted. It also not only helped me, but it helped others around me. When I, it came time for me to teach others about what I had learned and I think that in that way—the I don't really remember it—but there were certain steps in the letters that you had to take when de-escalating issues. And I think that it was really effective, and that you can use it in the workplace, in the classroom on the field.” Thus, though several youth participants recalled aspects of the tool (or acronym) to intervene/invite dialogue, they also showed a lack of clear retention around specific steps in the process after Dialogue in Athletics. 141 Skills transference. Alongside general use of dialogue-related skills, student-athletes offered insight into learning transference at the follow up. In some cases, youth articulated concrete examples in which they applied their program learning to their community. One student-athlete drew on how she was using dialogue-related skills on campus when another student held a different view about protesting racial injustice: “So, it was kind of awkward, but I just thought to myself, ‘Hey, we just have to, respect what they see in this day. And just not move on from it. But just respect her and not start anything’. Or maybe if you do feel bothered that she did this, just calmly talk to her and listen to what she has to say not budge out what you have to say…Especially with this girl. For example, she has a different identity, she has a different perspective. So, it's just easier to just respect and listen to what she has to say and vice versa.” While this student-athlete recognized the benefit of perspective taking, she did not go beyond internal reflection to take action and dialogue—though she eludes to the possibility of doing so. Several student-athlete went beyond internal reflection to invite dialogue at school and home. For example, one (Latina/x) youth participant elaborated, “in my class, there is as a person who has different beliefs than I do, so I used dialogue. And it taught me to not only not judge very quickly on but to instead, try to understand this person's viewpoint and understand their background, and their home life, which is different from what I was taught.” One (African/Black American) student-athlete drew on the benefit of dialogue-related skills when discussing social issues in her morning advisory group: “they give us topics and everybody gives their opinion. Sometimes, it could go into a deep discussion and you might not agree with somebody and it could get tense. But in those situations, I thought, ‘Oh, I could go back and think about the processes, like the process [described earlier as clarifying what was said and also brining your point across] and that has really helped me and in those discussions.” Off campus, two student- athlete mentioned using dialogic skills with family members (e.g., brother and grandfather). As 142 an example, one (White) participant described applying her learning in an interaction with her grandfather: “And I said, just because you make more money doesn't mean that their life is any less valuable than yours. And he was going on about how he doesn't want to pay any more taxes. And it's just frustrating…I was able to pause a lot and say, ‘okay, I see where you're coming from.’ But you have to realize that other people have different stories. And, it was a shutdown thing. At one point, I realized he wasn’t willing to listen and maybe whenever he's ready we can have a conversation. But until he's ready to listen, I don't think I'm going to be willing to talk to any more brick walls.” Youth thus offered some evidence of developing and using dialogue-related skills in (non-sport related) school and home settings. In contrast, a few student-athletes expressed that they had “not yet” used skills in their interactions with others due to a perceived lack of opportunity. Two youth indicated that had yet to have the opportunity to engage peers because of social distancing guidelines during the coronavirus pandemic. One student-athlete spoke to this reality, which others also echoed: “I personally haven't. We never were back on campus. And I think especially with COVID we've all distanced ourselves from each other. So, it's hard to gauge interactions that you'd have that wouldn't be like ‘hey, pass me that apple juice’.” Altogether, student-athlete participants offered some evidence of developing and using dialogue-related skills on campus and at home. Findings also revealed a lack of robust evidence of skills transference regarding instances in which youth did not engage others to invite dialogue/intervene or due to a perceived a lack of opportunity to use their skills because of the pandemic. These mixed results point to possible areas of continued improvement among youth participants after the program. 143 Student-Athlete Dialogue Group: Program Processes (Purpose 2) Results showed several program processes as germane to student-athletes’ program experience. Quantitative (descriptive) analyses included youth participants’ ratings of the extent to which dialogue-informed communication processes contributed to their learning. Abductive analyses of qualitative data offered further insight into the relevance of these communication processes and other program features. Program process themes that were inductively generated from participants’ explicit responses were facilitative program features and challenging yet meaningful aspects of their experience. Communication processes. Participants (n=7) rated communication processes characteristics of a dialogue pedagogy on the extent to which each processes contributed to their learning (1= a great deal, 3 = moderately, 5 = not at all) across the first 3 sessions and last 3 sessions. Descriptive statistics for the first 3 sessions showed that ‘appreciating experiences different from my own’, ‘learning from each other’, and ‘understanding how privilege/oppression affects our lives’ were rated as most contributing (or “a great deal”) to participants’ learning (with the lowest mean scores). Other processes were rated as contributing to their learning ‘a great deal’ or ‘a lot’: ‘sharing my perspective/experiences’, ‘asking questions I wasn’t able to ask before’, hearing ‘different views’ and ‘others’ personal stories’. Table 15 144 depicts mean scores for these process, noting that lower scores demonstrate higher degrees of contribution and higher scores demonstrate lower degrees of contribution. Table 15. Mean Scores for Communication Processes Contributing to Student-Athletes’ Learning - - - Communication Process Sessions 4-6 SD .38 Hearing other participants' personal stories .38 *Listening to other students’ commitment to work against injustices .38 *Understanding other students’ passion about social issues .38 *Feeling a sense of hope about being able to challenge injustices .70 Addressing difficult issues .49 Speaking openly without feeling judged .49 Learning from each other .76 Appreciating experiences different from my own .49 Understanding how privilege and oppression affect our lives .49 *Other students’ willingness to understand their biases/assumptions .49 Sharing my views and experiences .79 Hearing different points of view .79 Examining sources of my biases and assumptions 1.05 Thinking about issues that I may not have thought about before .73 *Talking about ways to take action on social issues .73 *Sharing ways to collaborate with other groups to take action 1.05 Making mistakes and reconsidering my opinions .90 *Working through disagreements and conflicts 1.07 Asking questions that I felt I wasn't able to ask before Being able to disagree .639 Note: Scores indicated the extent to which each processes contributed to participants’ learning (1= a great deal, 3 = moderately, 5 = not at all). Lower scores demonstrate higher degrees of contribution and higher scores demonstrate lower degrees of contribution. Alliance-building processes denoted (*) were processes were added to the post-program survey list in line with the sequential design of dialogue curriculum. SD Mean 1.13 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.57 1.57 2.00 2.14 .976 1.07 - .951 .951 .787 .756 .787 Sessions 1-3 Mean 1.57 - - - 1.71 1.71 1.43 1.29 1.43 - 1.57 1.57 1.57 - - - 2.00 - 1.57 1.86 .976 .787 .976 1.29 - - - - Descriptive statistics for the final 3 sessions showed that youth consistently rated ‘hearing others’ personal stories’; and intergroup alliance-building processes of ‘listening to other students’ commitment to work against injustices’; ‘understanding other students’ passion about social issues’; and, ‘feeling a sense of hope about being able to challenge injustices’ as most contributing to their learning. ‘Appreciating experiences different from my own’, ‘learning from each other’; and, ‘understanding how privilege/oppression affect our lives’ were likewise rated as meaningfully contributing (‘a great deal’ to ‘a lot’) to their learning along with other processes observed in the first 3 sessions. ‘Being able to disagree” and ‘ask questions I was not able to ask before’ were rated as contributing ‘a lot’ to ‘moderately’ to participants’ learning (with higher relative scores). 145 Mixed methods results for communication processes. Qualitative surveys and follow-up interview data corroborated quantitative results on the relevance of communication processes to student-athletes’ experiences. Table 16 depicts a mixed methods comparison of communication process categories and corresponding items that youth reinforced as meaningful through qualitative data sources. Youth underscored the communication categories of engaging the self and appreciating differences as salient at the session- and program-levels. Specific to engaging the self, several participants valued “all having a chance to speak” and “talk as a group without being judged” after the first session. They offered similar input in mid-point and final program surveys, indicating that the most meaningful aspect of the program was “having a voice”, “[getting] together to share stories and all agree”, and “talking about a story that affected us and we all listened”, and “talking about our own experiences because it brings up feelings”. Two student-athlete further commented on the greater understanding and acceptance of others that they gained through story sharing. One participant wrote, “The most meaningful experience was when everyone shared personal stories because it showed me a new side of their identity and I don’t think I’d have seen that if they didn’t participate in this program”. At the follow up, the two Black student-athletes uniquely offered insight into how feeling heard was facilitative of their learning and a positive aspect of their overall experience. One (Black American/multiracial) participant explained in her follow-up interview, “I think that the things that we went over—even though I wasn't in every single session—still had a pretty big impact on me because I've been trying with some of my friends who just didn't necessarily understand what I was saying about equality and stuff, especially when it comes to sports. It felt better to be in an environment where there are people who understand what I'm talking about.” Another (African/Black American) student-athlete pointed to the psychological relief she felt in 146 having her perspective validated: “sharing things with other people was really relieving—just being able to let it out.” For these Black young women, engaging in a space where they felt heard was cathartic or psychologically beneficial. 147 Quantitative Results Engaging the Self Sharing my views and experiences Contribution to Learn Mean Scores Mid/End Program 1.57/1.43 Addressing difficult issues 1.71/1.29 Speaking openly without feeling judged Appreciating difference Hearing different points of view Hearing others’ personal stories Learning from each other 1.71/1.29 1.57/1.43 1.57/1.14 1.43/1.29 1.29/1.29 1.57/1.43 Appreciating experiences different from my own Critical reflection Examining the sources of my biases and assumptions Understanding how privilege and oppression affect our lives 1.43/1.29 1.29 Alliance Building Other students’ willingness to understand their own biases and assumptions “All having a chance to speak”; “having a voice” “Sharing things with other people was really relieving—just being able to let it out.” “They were all kind of difficult because we had to dig deeper into stuff—like topics that you normally talk about from the surface. Because you do it so often, you don't think about digging deep into it.” “Sometimes I felt that I couldn't say something because I was too scared of being judge but at the end of the sessions I have grown and feel more open and better.” “The most meaningful experience was when everyone shared personal stories because it showed me a new side of their identity and I don’t think I would have seen that if they didn’t participate in this program” “It gave me a deeper understanding, to hear people and listen to what they have to say and different perspectives. And then you can learn from what they say.” “I really liked how close we all became and how accepting we became of each other’s experiences. “I don't think I thought about it as in depth because I was like, ‘Oh, I don't deal with it. So why does it concern me’. And I think that's kind of an awful way to approach things. Because there’s always going to be something we don't know how to deal with, and I think learning what other people have to go through really helps open your eyes to be like, ‘Hey, I can help that.’ “And sitting there thinking if I've ever had to worry about having books on my shelf or having to worry about a meal—because I don't really think about that during the day. But now, I actually do a lot, and how grateful I am and that really stuck out to me. Like that activity. I think it is understanding my privilege in that, I have more things than other people or I have less things than other people also some days. And just taking account of what I have: I think that's knowing who I am.” “Being able to go through a process and relate to what we all went through in a way. It’s like ‘oh, what, at least we know, we’re not the only ones now.’ And, now we’re getting a different perspective when I look at people, you might be like ‘oh, they are this’, but now I don't know them so I can't assume that of them.” Convergence Quantitative scores indicated that dialogic communication processes contributed ‘a great deal’ to ‘a lot’ to their learning. Qualitative data sources corroborated the beneficial nature of dialogic communication processes generally. Qualitative input from participants underscored the communication items and categories that were rated most highly—or as contributing ‘a great deal’ or ‘a lot’ to participants learning. Confirmation Integrated analyses of communication processes lend support to the program’s de facto fidelity to a dialogic pedagogical approach. Table 16. Mixed Methods Comparison of Communication Processes among Student-Athletes Mixed Methods Comparison Qualitative Results Mixed Methods Inferences Note: Scores indicated the extent to which each processes contributed to participants’ learning (1= a great deal, 3 = moderately, 5 = not at all). Lower scores denote higher degrees of contribution and higher scores denote lower degrees of contribution. 148 In sum, the convergence observed in this mixed methods comparison offers evidence of fidelity to a dialogic pedagogical approach in that youth participants viewed these components as central to their program experience. These results also underscore how the experiential nature of the program—namely engaging in the process and practice of dialogue—was supportive of participants’ learning. And, for Black participants, the opportunity to feel heard that the dialogic encounter provided was a uniquely positive aspect of the intergroup dialogue encounter. Facilitative program features. Participants identified the interactive nature of the program as distinctly supportive to their learning through session-level and follow-up data sources. One student-athlete described in her follow-up interview, “it wasn’t more of a talk, talk, talk, all the time. It was more of us interacting with each other so when it got to the second session, it didn’t even feel long because of our deep conversations.” Another participant spoke to the benefit of sessions being interactive: “what I really liked, it was very interactive. You can start a program and people will not like it. It's important to make it interactive, especially my age group because I have a low attention span and making it interactive helps a lot.” Student-athletes commonly remarked that meaningful moments happened during specific activities (i.e., identity toss, privilege walk, and implicit bias). One (Black/multiracial) young woman uniquely spoke about the value of experiencing an activity on implicit bias with others: “Being able to go through a process and relate to what we all went through in a way. It’s like ‘oh, what, at least we know, we’re not the only ones now.’ And, now we’re getting a different perspective when I look at people, you might be like ‘oh, they are this’, but now I don't know them so I can't assume that of them.” Alongside an emphasis on interactive activities, youth also commented that “PowerPoints and examples were powerful” and guidance from facilitators as helpful to their learning. For example, one (Latina/x) student-athlete wrote: “they helped guide the conversation 149 and make it flow smoothly. I'm glad they were there to help guide us along the way.” Thus, the interactive quality of the dialogue alongside helpful content and facilitators’ guidance supported youth participants’ program experience. Challenging aspects of youths’ learning experiences. Along with bringing to light program processes that facilitated their learning through the dialogue encounter, abductive analyses of session-specific and interview data underlined challenging aspects of youth participants’ learning experience related to their feelings of discomfort sharing personal stories/views; considering different perspectives; and, confronting stereotypes. Overall, participants described the “uncomfortable” “difficult” and “rough” nature of “deep conversations” in follow-up interviews—with several youth adding that the challenge was meaningful. One (Black American/multiracial) participant commented on the difficulty of considering different perspectives: “They were all kind of difficult because we had to dig deeper into stuff—like topics that you normally talk about from the surface. Because you do it so often, you don't think about digging deep into it. I think the challenging part was digging deep into subjects you knew, and explaining it to everybody so they had a different perspective and you had their perspective.” At the mid-point, student-athletes expressed feeling uncomfortable sharing their point of view, and noted being afraid that they “might be judged” in general, or were “scared to speak up and not use the correct words”. And, one student-athlete wrote about the trajectory of her discomfort in her final program survey: “Sometimes I felt that I couldn't say something because I was too scared of being judge but at the end of the sessions I have grown and feel more open and better able to use my voice.” This response reflects how the initial feelings of discomfort may lessen as program participants with increased exposure to the dialogue encounter. 150 In mid-point and final program surveys, participants were given space to describe negative moments that they experienced during the dialogue. Student-athletes frequently listed “none”, “nothing”, “this hasn’t happened to me yet” or “I didn’t feel this way”. Negative moments that youth did put forth related to confronting (their own and social) stereotypical/derogatory comments. Initially in their session-level surveys, youth wrote that it was hard to share “insults or things we might have done wrong in the past”; “address some of the things you said in the past and own up to it, and not ‘blame’ yourself but take responsibility in the right way”; and, admit “when I didn’t step in to protect someone when I should have”. These young women later elaborated on this source of discomfort at the follow up. For example, in her interview one (South East Asian) student-athlete named the discomfort she experienced in a session on interrupting derogatory remarks: “I mean, it was good. But sometimes it was a little rough. Because it was uncomfortable on some people at some points. We were talking about stereotypes, for example. We had to just say it and then figure out how to move away from it and tell the person that it's not okay. So, obviously we weren't really saying it to each other, but it was a little uncomfortable because I’d never say that to anyone.” Related to the topic of stereotypes, one student-athlete used her follow-up interview to uniquely speak to a challenging moment that she experienced during workshop 2 (exploring identity) regarding her ethnicity: “And then you have to start removing papers from your identity and I thought that was very hard because your identity is very important. It was hard. You had to explain why you're removing it and why, for my first one—I don't remember—but I think I removed Hispanic because I don't like titles, but it's still part of my identity. I am Hispanic.” In sum, youth participants experienced challenging moments during Dialogue in Athletics—and to varying degrees—perceived these feelings of discomfort characteristic of “deep” dialogue as meaningful to their learning. 151 Participant-Context Considerations (Purpose 1 and 2) Participant-context considerations emerged as an inductive theme that was generated from open-ended survey and follow-up interview data specific to youth and consisted of barriers and sources of support and suggestions to improve the program. Barriers to apply learning and sources of support. Youth reflected on individual barriers and institutional barriers/sources of support to apply their program learning in follow-up interviews. Individual barriers. Individual barriers regard personal challenges that participants described as a part of their learning process including a lack of confidence to intervene among peers and difficulties with perspective taking. Two participants spoke to their lack of confidence in confronting peers as a barrier to taking dialogic action. One (White) student-athlete expressed how her fears around peer judgment undermined confidence in her ability to take a stand: “Going up to people who I'm not close friends with or that I know they have a different view than me. That's what I'm scared of…I think it's just my voice and being scared that other people will judge me for saying that, and using my voice. Because people definitely, at my school, there's a couple people who I'm scared to speak up, because they'll judge me and what I say is not correct. So, I think it's having enough confidence to be like, ‘who cares?’ You're entitled to your own opinion. Your valid in your own opinion. That's what I need to work on, just trusting myself.” This quotation suggests that this young woman may need additional support beyond what the program provided in order to help them work through their preoccupations around peer judgement to embolden her as a (White) ally/accomplice. Student-athletes also mentioned experiencing challenges to practice perspective taking following the program. Youth emphasized how “difficult it is to understand other people’s side of things” or “listen to someone and their different opinion on a tough subject”. One student- athlete acknowledged her tendency to default to debating rather than dialoguing: “I start maybe 152 yelling or getting in people’s faces if they don’t agree. I'm one of those people that if I'm passionate about something, I need to prove my point.” Another student-athlete elaborated on the need to practice to improve her perspective taking capacity: “Maybe your opinion is not the same. So, I think that's very hard for people. At the beginning, it was hard for me but you educate yourself, and practice it in a way where you just get in a way used to it.” Institutional barriers and sources of support. Participants conveyed that the campus community (i.e., peers and adults) were willing to engage on social justice issues. Student-athlete indicated that “everyone’s pretty open to it” and that “there would be a lot of adults on campus that [they] can go to and feel comfortable talking to about what's been happening”. While one (Latina/x) student-athletes commented that some of her peers “might feel uncomfortable and avoid conversations that need to be had” she remarked that adults had made improvements: “faculty have taken a lot of steps to make themselves better, and acknowledge things that maybe would have been brushed over in the past. They've done a really good job confronting their own biases or their past. I think that they're making great strides. But of course, we still have a long way to go.” Other participants shared the view that adults were supportive, and two student- athlete expressed that they found it meaningful when adults shared more about themselves and their perspectives. One youth participant wanted to know “are they comfortable with certain topics. If you were confused about your identity as LGBTQ, are they open to really talking to you and helping you understand…Because you see them but don't know who they are. They know that about us, but we don't know about them, and I definitely think that would help older girls become a tighter family and better community.” 153 Student-athletes also commented on supplemental campus initiatives as complementary and beneficial to Dialogue in Athletics. For example, one (Hispanic/Latina) student-athlete explained that these mutually reinforcing opportunities strengthened her attitudes: “The DEI committee is helping because after the movie and after all of our sessions and Dialogue in Athletics, people start seeing like this change—or even not even change because people already knew this—but they are just making it even better. So I think it is important to talk about this and create programs that kids like me to know what's going on and know that being respectful and listening are important.” Other youth participants explain that these spaces helped “put us in a different mindset to understand”, and provided opportunities for them to use dialogue-related skills: “When we're in those conversations, it always brings me back to remembering things that I learned from Dialogue in Athletics. And, when discussions do happen that get tense we can all find peace at the end, because we do understand each other and our opinions.” Altogether, while youth participants acknowledged some individual barriers to their use of dialogic skills, they verbalized feeling support from adult leaders and viewed supplemental diversity-related initiatives as complementary of their dialogue-specific learning. Suggestions to improve the program. Student-athletes offered suggestions to improve the program at the session-specific and follow-up time points concern program features and future involvement. They answered the prompt, “What, if anything, would you change about today’s session?”. While most student-athletes indicated that there was “nothing” they would change after sessions 1 through 4, and wrote “helpful”, “none” and “it was all good” in the final survey, some youth noted: “more activities”, “more time in breakout rooms”, “more people”, and “making more people talk”. In contrast, following session 1, two student-athletes suggested shortening the session length, and one participant indicated that she had “zoom fatigue”. 154 In follow-up interviews, student-athletes put forth other recommendations related to program features. Youth emphasized the importance of ensuring the space is “safe” through small groups, outside support and more (in-person) activities. One (White) student-athlete stated, “my only suggestion would be to keep it small because that helps a lot. It allows us all to be like, ‘This is a safe space’ versus 20 people on a zoom call, it feels not like a conversation but a lecture. It's important to keep the group small so you're all willing to converse.” Another (Hispanic/Latina) student-athlete echoed the need to for a nonjudgmental atmosphere and put forth a suggestion to more explicitly communicate the availability of outside support: “I really like how it is now but to make something better, maybe so if someone isn't comfortable with sharing, [facilitators] can talk to them personally, and know what's going on, but that's it. I really liked it and the format.” Youth also underlined the value of interactive activities—with one participant suggesting more activities/strategies on self-care and another participant suggesting the possible benefit of an in-person dialogue format. Student-athlete also made reference to future involvement in their suggestions to enhance the program. Most youth stated an interest in continuing the program in follow-up interviews. In speaking about possible future programming, one (White) participant expressed how she wanted to “spread word” and promote involvement among her peers. She also articulated a desire to engage in dialogue with adults on campus: “I think if there's a program where we all talked, not teaching opening up a little more. Because I definitely think it's like hard talk about certain things with my teachers.” Suggestions that youth made to maintain or enhance the quality of their dialogic experience, and their expressed desire to continue Dialogue in Athletics and involve more of their peers, are valuable to considerations for future program delivery. 155 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION Distinct from the discussion typical of a conventional research study, this section addresses the key evaluation purposes co-determined with Sowers School intended users. I first offer a contextually relevant discussion of impact and process outcomes and then provide formative judgments and recommendations based on these findings. Next, I put forth limitations and future directions for Oldfield School. I conclude with a general discussion of future considerations for youth development through sport research, and practical implications for both sport and intergroup dialogue decision-makers and practitioners. Evaluation Purposes This evaluation was carried out with two overarching priority purposes: (1) to assess program impact (purpose 1) and relevant processes a part of program participants’ learning experience (purpose 2). An underlying purpose was to ensure that evaluation findings are useful to key stakeholders and can inform future decision-making on program delivery/refinement at Sowers. As such, this discussion of overarching purposes is tailored to the specific informational interests that intended users expressed throughout the evaluation project. Program impact. The first purpose was to assess the impact of Dialogue in Athletics related to changes in coaches’/administrators’ and student-athletes’ satisfaction, critical awareness, affect, and skills development and transference. Because of the preliminary nature of this evaluation, the interpretation of program efficacy put forth is contributory rather than causal. Program satisfaction. This evaluation showed that coaches/administrators and student- athletes were satisfied with their Dialogue in Athletics experience. Most adult and youth participants indicated strong to moderate levels of agreement on ‘liking the session’ following each workshop. And, no (adult or youth) participants expressed that they were dissatisfied with 156 any program sessions. Feedback at the end-of-program and follow-up time points corroborated these positive perceptions (e.g., “thank you – loved it!”, “I really enjoyed the sessions”). Additionally, adult and youth participants showed positive feelings toward the sense of relatedness that they cultivated through dialoguing with peers (work colleagues or schoolmates). Coaches and administrators made apparent that they rarely got the chance to engage in with colleagues in this way. One concern for the evaluation that came out of conversations with intended users regarded youth “buy in” or satisfaction toward the program. While youth voluntarily signed up to participate (and thus had some degree of interest), their favorable views, desire to get their peers involved, and interest in future programming show that, at a minimum, Dialogue in Athletics supported their initial motivations. Critical awareness. An impact outcome about which intended users wanted insight was whether (White) adult and youth participants developed critical awareness (i.e., understanding of individual/systemic oppression and privilege). Dialogue in Athletics appeared to support some facets of participants’ critical awareness development. Quantitative data on this intergroup outcome (or sensitizing concept) was limited given poor psychometric properties of a priori measures for this sample population. However, qualitative data at post-program and follow-up time points evidenced improvements in critical awareness among both participant groups along with relevant variation between coaches/administrators and student-athletes. Specific to the a priori outcome measure gauging participants’ critical (intergroup) awareness/beliefs (Scale for Ethnocultural Empathy [SEE]), coaches and administrators showed statistically significant increases in their mean composite scores from pre-to-post program while student-athletes did not. Findings are interpreted with caution given the inconsistent reliability for instrument subscales. For the subscales that demonstrated adequate reliability, no significant 157 changes in empathic awareness (i.e., awareness of discrimination that racially/ethnically minoritized individuals may experience) were found. Average pre-program scores on empathic awareness for both participant groups were high (5.79 and 6.14 on a 7-point Likert scale for youth and adults respectively) in general and relative to other subscales. A possible explanation for the lack of observed change is a ceiling effect in relation to the program length. A 6-session dialogue encounter may not be enough to support increases in empathic (critical) awareness given participants’ already high scores on this subscale. Previous intergroup dialogue research has revealed similar results for this construct and measure (e.g., Muller & Miles, 2017). Researchers also suggested that subscales (such as empathic awareness) that reflect more basic knowledge about diversity may be less likely to show a positive change. However, qualitative data offered in-depth insight into participants’ consciousness raising beyond what a priori measures showed. Qualitative results indicated that coaches/administrators and (to a lesser extent) student- athletes became more critically aware of racism and other forms of oppression at the individual and systemic levels. A common finding across all participants were gains in personal and interpersonal awareness (i.e., identity engagement) supportive of critical awareness development, in line with the four-stage sequential process of intergroup dialogue approach (Gurin et al., 2013; Nagda et al., 2011). Participants developed a greater sensitivity toward important aspects of their own and others’ (social) identities along with a heightened awareness of their emotions and actions (e.g., active listening, suspending judgment) when dialoguing about social justice issues. Despite these general improvements in awareness, student-athletes less incisively probed aspects of structural oppression and their relationship to those systems relative to coaches/administrators. The previously mentioned joint comparison (see Table 12) of all participants’ critical awareness 158 helpfully depicts how adults more sharply interrogated racism at both the individual and structural levels (e.g., awareness of racial identity/privilege, personal biases, and sport inequities) through Dialogue in Athletics. While student-athletes evidenced some understanding of racial/social privilege and social stereotypes as marginalizing through program involvement, this evaluation made visible where Dialogue in Athletics—as de facto delivered—may have fallen short for student-athletes. Several reasons might explain where Dialogue in Athletics less optimally supported youth’s critical awareness development. A first explanation regards the dosage of program participation. Different from the adult dialogue, student-athlete group sessions tended to be shorter (by about 10 minutes) in duration, and youth were less consistent with their program participation (2 of 8 individuals missed at least 2 workshops). The shorter, less consistent nature of student-athletes’ involvement may have been insufficient to markedly change their critical awareness. Another explanation could be developmental differences between adults and youth. As program facilitator, I—along with my co-facilitator in session debriefs—noticed that youth participants were less familiar with concepts related to systemic racism and less easily grasped these broader structural dynamics. Youth more often verbalized an understanding of racial/social oppression on at the individual level (e.g., stereotypes as harmful). Furthermore, because of the racially/ethnically diverse composition of the student-athlete group, the dialogue that organically emerged less exclusively centered on interrogating Whiteness, and explored other aspects of privilege/oppression. This dynamic was distinct from the dialogic encounters that took place with coaches as this group of (mostly White) adult were coming to terms with their White racial identity and had rich lived experiences on which to draw. Although intergroup dialogue has largely been delivered among college students, some studies have explored the impact of 159 programs among high school-aged youth (e.g., Aldana et al., 2012; Griffin, Brown, & warren, 2012). Researchers have offered similar conclusions from their study findings and note that this holds true for social privileged and disadvantaged students (Griffin et al., 2012). They conclude that adolescent participants may need additional support to understand institutional inequalities and link (inter)personal experiences to those systems due to their lack of baseline knowledge, fairly limited life experiences, and cognitive maturity. The less robust gains in critical awareness observed among student-athletes have implications for Sowers School. A content-related facet of intergroup dialogue pedagogy is its gradual progression from focusing on one’s individual experiences and social learning to larger institutional dynamics (i.e., personal-to-sequential design; Zúñiga et al., 2007). Additional program resources (e.g., time, content, and activities) may be needed to help student-athletes’ increase their capacity to understand structural oppression/privilege and their relationship to those structures. Critical consciousness raising is an on-going process that requires significant time for any individual (Kochanek, 2020; Lee et al., 2020). While (White) adult participants may likewise benefit from continued engagement in this process, added support may better address youth’s unique developmental needs. Affective components. This evaluation evidenced affective shifts in favor of dialogue- related action among coach/administrators and student-athletes. Areas of similarity and difference between adult and youth participants specific to these attitudinal changes are relevant to further explicate to understand the impact of the program. Valuing and confidence to take dialogue-related action. A common finding across both groups was that Dialogue in Athletics strengthen participants’ views toward the value of dialogue-related behaviors (e.g., perspective taking/sharing, active listening, and intervening) 160 and perceptions of confidence to carry out these actions. This positive result aligns with the intergroup dialogue literature (e.g., Gurin et al., 2013; Lopez-Humphreys & Dawson, 2015). Results may be explained by experiential, ‘learning by doing’, nature of the dialogue encounter as reflected in adult and youth participants’ feedback (e.g., “people could find something that was actionable”; “giving us a framework to have a conversation”) and intergroup dialogue theory (Gurin-Sands et al., 2011). Participants became better versed on topics of identity, privilege/oppression, and justice through active engagement in the process of dialogue instead of as passive recipients of didactic techniques and information. One quotation from a student- athlete is illustrative of how the program’s encounter-oriented format impacted her attitudes towards dialogue: “It opened up a lot of thoughtful discussion in our group. And we got to know each other a little bit better and I feel like if I use that same technique or skill with others who weren't part of the dialogue group, I feel like I'd still get the same results.” Thus, as adults and student-athletes experienced the benefits of dialogue for themselves, the dialogic encounter may have bolstered their views about the value of taking social justice action outside of the program. Along with fomenting participants’ valuing of dialogue-related action, the practicing dialogue through the program also seemed to support participants’ confidence in their ability to take action—namely, to address or speak up on social justice issues. Coaches/administrators and student-athletes elaborated on how Dialogue in Athletics helped them work through their fear of making mistakes in front of others (i.e., students and/or peers) to bolster their confidence act. Adults uniquely spoke about how the program encouraged them embrace a ‘brave’ mindset and normalize their mistakes as they critically probed their own biases and strove to engage others (especially youth) in conversations around diversity and social justice. Recall that one (White female) coach explained how her program and interview experience allowed her to recognize 161 that she needed to follow the advice she gives to her students to “be brave in trying to apply” her learning. Adult participants pointed to other program features that helped them adopt a brave mindset as well (e.g., facilitators/peers modeling vulnerability and suspending judgment). Extant intergroup dialogue literature has underscored these pedagogical elements as facilitative of a supportive learning climate (e.g., Kaplowitz et al., 2019). The way that Dialogue in Athletics helped adults overcome a fear of mistakes in their professional role is noteworthy. Previous research has shown that high school sports coaches may avoid navigating broader social issues in their work with student-athletes because they assume that they cannot make mistakes in their professional role (Kochanek & Erickson, 2019, 2020). Ensuring that future programming enhances, or at least maintains, these facilitative components can help adult leaders embrace a brave mindset and hone the confidence to take action in their unique professional role and context. Student-athletes also expressed that the program strengthened their confidence in their ability to act along with some ambivalence. While some student-athletes responded that the program improved these self-beliefs (e.g., “I think I'm a lot stronger with sharing my opinions only because now I know how to talk about it more freely”), others indicated that they had yet to fully overcome their fear of making mistakes. This was notably the case among one (White) student-athlete who acknowledged her lack of confidence and underlying fear of judgment (e.g., “I'm scared to speak up, because they'll judge me if what I say is not correct. So, I think it's having enough confidence”). This less favorable result may highlight where Dialogue in Athletics fell short of empowering youth. Scholarship on social justice behavior change using the transtheoretical model has recognized ambivalence as a part of the process of change among sport science students (Lee et al. 2020). Researchers posit that individuals may experience 162 ambivalence as they recognize the costs of behavior change or lack confidence in their abilities to carry out new actions. They put forth strategies to help students overcome their hesitation to act including self-evaluation (i.e., identifying core values and value-aligned actions) and peer modeling (i.e., observing others who they view as similar successfully perform skills). In particular, individuals with more social privilege may benefit from identifying core values that conflict with their critical awareness (e.g., the discrepancy between valuing friendship and ignoring comments that harm friends with marginalized identities). This dissonance can motivate students to adopt value-driven behaviors. Youth can also increase their confidence to take action by learning from those who they perceive as similar to them. Incorporating activities that apply these practical insights could be a way to improve Dialogue in Athletics in the future at Sowers. Value-driven action planning and problem-based scenarios that simulate challenging situations with peers might help youth work through their ambivalence and problem solve how to take action. Viewing dialogue-related skills as useful to sports. A unique outcome of their program participation that youth spoke about was their attitudes on the utility of dialogue concepts/skills in their role as teammates and leaders when sports resume. This finding is of particular interest to intended users who wanted to glean more information regarding the extent to which youth viewed the dialogue curriculum as applicable to their role as student-athletes. Specifically, youth indicated that their program learning could help with trust building and teamwork, inclusive leadership, and management of difficult emotions. Evidence of these favorable views may be all the more relevant given that popular beliefs often purport sports as separate from broader social issues and conversations that center such matters as developmentally inappropriate for youth (Kochanek & Erickson, 2019b, 2021). Findings from this evaluation contest these views. 163 Dialogue in Athletics seemed to provide student-athletes with a developmentally appropriate experience that helped them cultivate a belief in the value of using dialogic skills as teammates and leaders in sports. Intentions to take social justice action. Evaluative results suggest that adult and youth strengthened their intentions to engage in social justice action in several respects through the program. Results showed a practically significant change in the intergroup action outcome variable among both participant groups. Interestingly, a greater increase in mean scores on self- and others’-directed action was observed relative to collaborative action for both participant groups. This slight difference aligned with qualitative findings regarding the actions that participants intended to take up as a result of the program. This result could reflect that the program supported participants’ intentions toward individual/interpersonal more than coalitional/structural forms of action. While a few coaches mentioned collaborative actions that they aimed to take in athletics (e.g., promoting equity through used equipment distribution and equestrian scholarships), both adults and youth less often conveyed that they had intentions to engage in collaborative action beyond their involvement in existing diversity initiatives. Possible explanations for this finding might be that participants are less sure about what this form of action looks like in practice or may view undertaking action that spearheads coalition-building or institutional change as lofty. From a curriculum design standpoint, reflection and conversation around institutional action-oriented change was only explored in the last session given the sequential process of dialogue pedagogy. Experiential activities throughout the dialogue encounter, however, provide participants with opportunities to more regularly engage in critical (self-directed) reflection, perspective sharing (others’-directed), and collaboration (specific to dialogue; Zúñiga et al., 2007). Thus, more pronounced shifts in self- and others’-directed action 164 may be due to the programmatic design in theory and practice. Additional guidance on how participants might create, engage, or seek out opportunities to take up broader collaborative action could be a consideration for future program delivery. Ambiguity/ambivalence toward social justice action. Another interesting finding concerns the expressed uncertainty around taking dialogue-related action that occurred alongside participants’ general improvements in their behavioral intentions. Some ambiguous intentions around how to engage in dialogue-related action emerged at the session level (e.g., “I am still trying to figure it out”) among coaches/administrators. Insofar as (White) adults were in the initial stages of their critical consciousness raising process during the program, cultivating stronger intentions to engage in specific forms of social justice action likely required time to unlearn cultural- and color-blind ways of thinking (awareness) and hone their critical capacities. These results align with previous scholarship, which identifies behavioral change for social justice as a complex process (Lee et al., 2020). Favorable results regarding behavioral intentions at post-program surveys and follow-up interviews, however, evidence the program’s positive overall impact in helping adults identify actionable steps. On the other hand, student-athletes articulated less robust intentions around others’- directed action that involved intervening/inviting dialogue among their peers after the program. One framework that may be useful in explaining this result specific to behavioral intentions is Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior, a model that Mac Intosh et al. (2020) recently applied to (social justice) education in athletics. Ajzen (1991) posited that individuals who hold high intentions to engage in a behavior have a higher likelihood of subsequent action. Ajzen (1991) identifies three antecedent factors predict a person’s intention to carry out a behavior: personal attitudes, perceived subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. An individual 165 is more likely to hold high behavioral intentions if they have positive beliefs toward the behavior and desired outcome (personal attitude), perceive that significant others hold positive views toward the behavior (subjective norms), and hold high levels of confidence in their ability to perform the behavior (behavioral control). Given student-athletes’ favorable views toward dialogic action, their lack of perceived behavioral control (or confidence) around using their voice to engage peers may underpin their less robust behavioral intentions. One further explanation might relate to perceived subjective norms. Student-athletes emphasized through qualitative data sources that a meaningful aspect of the program was the opportunity to have a voice. Even though youth felt that they could go to adult on campus regarding diversity-related issues, it may be that youth viewed the dialogic space as meaningful because it was unique setting in which they could show agency. Outside this space, they may not necessarily perceive adults (or peers) as actively encouraging their role as change agents. Thus, while Dialogue in Athletics supported youth’s behavioral intentions in key respects, a lack of confidence to engage peers and lower perceptions of support in their role as change agents may be tempering their behavioral intentions. A future consideration for dialogue programming and Sowers generally may be to ensure youth feel confident and supported in their agentic capacities. Skills development and skills transference. A final concern related to program impact was the extent to which adult and youth participants developed and transferred their learning to the Sowers community. Dialogue in Athletics appeared to have a favorable impact on coaches’ and student-athletes’ development and transference of dialogue-related skills. Explicating adult and youth participants’ unique learning experiences can offer a more nuanced understanding of program efficacy. 166 Skills transference among coaches/administrators. Results showed some examples of skills transference to sport- and non-sport related campus spaces among coaches and administrators. While the coronavirus pandemic made gauging transference to the in-season sport context impossible in this project, adults conveyed that they applied their learning in their interactions with student-athletes in informal sport/physical activities (e.g., trail walks), in the dorm (e.g., dealing with roommates from the same sport), in the classroom, and in their other school leadership roles (e.g., on the school’s diversity committee). Thus, (mostly White) coaches and administrators successfully implement dialogic skills (e.g., active listening, perspective taking, and intervening) learned through the program to advocate for/stand with minoritized student-athletes despite the pause on sports. One specific area of interest to intended users was whether youth could “see” adults making efforts to invite dialogue or intervene when needed. Several youth participants commented at the follow up that they could tell that adults leaders had made strides to address social justice issues rather than “brush over” these matters as they had previously. While youth did not explicitly name coaches/administrators who participated in the Dialogues in Athletics as allies, their favorable views are noteworthy as student-athletes observed behavioral changes supportive of social justice among adults. Dialogue in Athletics may be contributing to this behavior change—though examination of student-athletes’ perceptions of coaches/administrators when sports resume would offer a stronger assessment of program impact. Following up with adults may also be important because of the unique challenges that sport coaches—with more and less experience— may face. One (White) novice coach stated that trying to integrate two new practices (i.e., using dialogue-related skills and coaching her sport) would be difficult. Unique to veteran coaches, transferring dialogic skills may be hard as these behaviors may 167 require changing their habitual practice. As one veteran (White) coach admitted, to “be brave” and embrace her fear of mistakes by engaging student-athletes when/if issues arise is challenging to do in the moment. Such courage and critical action may be even more difficult when sports return given assumptions about coach effectiveness (i.e., coach as expert) that the dominant sport coaching discourse reinforces (Kochanek & Erickson, 2019b, 2021). Skills transference among student-athletes. Results showed some examples of dialogue- related skills development and transference among student-athletes. While youth expressed using skills (e.g., active listening, perspective taking, and using their voice) on campus and at home, student-athletes less concretely drew on specific instances of transference and less robustly demonstrated retention of skill-related components (i.e., steps to dialogue/interrupt) relative to coaches. Youth participants evidenced some procedural understanding of interrupting/inviting dialogue (i.e., asking for clarification, listening, and speaking your truth) but also ambiguity around specific steps in the process after the program. This may reflect a lack of clear retention of guiding strategies to effectively invite dialogue/intervene outside dialogue sessions, and be a reason that youth showed lower levels of confidence and behavioral intentions to initiate dialogue among their peers. Youth may need opportunities beyond the 6 program sessions to sharpen their perceived and actual competence to ensure transference. While a promising finding was that student-athletes’ viewed dialogue-related skills as useful for them promote diversity/inclusion on their sport teams, positive beliefs toward a behavior and desired outcome are only one factor that predicts a person’s intentions and actual action (Ajzen, 1991). Future evaluation efforts could inquire into whether student-athletes are able to act on their attitudes and actually transfer their skills to their sport context and what barriers they experience (e.g., confidence and subjective norms) when athletics start back. 168 Program processes. This evaluation showed several processes as salient to adult and youth participants’ learning through Dialogue in Athletics. These processes included dialogue- informed communication (i.e., engaging the self, appreciating difference, critical reflection, and building alliances; Nagda, 2006) along with program features and supplemental initiatives outside the dialogue encounter that were a part of participants’ learning process. Communication processes. Both groups rated most dialogic communication processes as contributing ‘a great deal’ or ‘a lot’ their learning. Converging results from qualitative data suggests fidelity to intergroup dialogue pedagogy as participants viewed these communication components as central to their learning through the dialogic encounter (Nagda, 2006; Gurin et al., 2013). These findings are aligned with extant research (e.g., Dressel, 2010; Gurin et al., 2013; Frantell et al., 2019). One communication category that participants reinforced as significantly contributing to the learning across data sources was appreciating difference (e.g., hearing others’ personal stories, learning from others, and appreciating experiences different from my own). While a few participants noted that some conceptual information was helpful, they more often commented that they learned most from listening to others’ perspectives and personal stories (e.g., “the most meaningful experience was when everyone shared personal stories”). Intergroup dialogue pedagogy is different from traditional didactic approaches in its emphasis on active learning through the intergroup encounter and process of dialogue (Gurin et al., 2011; Lopez & Domingue, 2014; Zúñiga et al., 2007). While knowledge of foundational concepts may help individuals critically reflect and collaborate, evaluative findings make visible the learning that occurs through the practical experience. Acknowledging the learning that happens through the process of hearing others’ experiences/perspectives is relevant to emphasize because conventional (didactic) approaches that may be commonplace in mainstream educational 169 settings may assume that learning occurs through the strict coverage of concepts/information. Findings suggest that protected time and space for the process of dialogue in general and in a given session is an important consideration for future program delivery at Sowers. Program features a part of participants’ learning process. This evaluation revealed other relevant pedagogical program features as supportive of adult and youths’ learning process. A meaningful component of the program that supported participants’ experience was the intimate engagement in a nonjudgmental climate. An intergroup dialogue approach relies on this design aspect to structure the facilitated conversations (Zúñiga, Lopez, & Ford, 2014). Many Sowers coaches and student-athletes described that the psychologically safe group atmosphere helped them work through their initial discomfort sharing personal information/views (i.e., “open up”, “go deep”) and considering perspectives different from their own. Previous intergroup dialogue scholarship has corroborated a similar trajectory of discomfort (e.g., Kaplowitz et al., 2019; Khuri, 2004; Lopez & Domingue, 2015; Miles et al., 2015). Participants attributed their feelings of psychological safety to the small group structure, supportive engagement with peers, and facilitators’ behaviors. Interestingly, while one (White) coach participant conveyed that outside support from facilitators was beneficial to her learning process, youth participants may not have perceived outside support as available. This divergence emerged at the follow up when one student-athlete offered a future suggestion (i.e., “if someone isn’t comfortable with sharing, talk to them personally and know what’s going on”). Findings from this evaluation spotlight the importance of creating a brave dialogue space and the role that facilitators can play in fostering this type of climate. The salience of these process components and significant role of facilitators are in line with intergroup dialogue theory and practice (Kaplowitz et al., 2019; Lopez & Domingue, 2014; Zúñiga et al., 2007). As such, ensuring all program participants perceive the 170 dialogue space as supportive through the use of a small group size and facilitators’ guidance is vital so that critical reflection and interaction that contests status quo assumptions can occur. Along with general feelings of discomfort that adult and youth participants experienced in sharing their personal stories and perspectives, they spoke to other sources of discomfort. These unique moments are important to understand in terms of whether working through that discomfort was actually meaningful to their learning. In the more intergroup dialogue format (i.e., racially/ethnically balanced group composition), student-athlete participants conveyed that considering other perspectives and examining/confronting stereotypes was difficult yet beneficial. These program experiences helped them recognize their biases and past mistakes, and practice responding to harmful stereotypic remarks. However, the discomfort that coaches/administrators experienced in their intercultural format (i.e., less balanced racial group composition) varied. White adult participants spoke to the racial discomfort they felt in interrogating and centering their White identities. This discomfort aligns with scholarship on (White) racial identity development (e.g., Helms, 1995; Lee at al., 2020; Todd et al., 2011). As White individuals come to terms with their distorted (colorblind) view of reality and relationship to oppressive systems, they can experience emotional consequences (e.g., guilt, sadness, or defensiveness). Thus, a key takeaway from this evaluation regards the value of supporting individuals with more (racial) privilege to anticipate and work through that discomfort. Facilitators can help socially privileged participants anticipate the possible discomfort they may feel and validate these emotions as normal rather than feelings that they should avoid or feel lesser for having. An awareness and understanding that these difficult feelings are necessary to grow can help participants (namely those with more social privilege) move from them to stand with minoritized individuals. 171 Distinct from the racial discomfort that White (adult) participants articulated was the distress that the only Black male coach experienced. Though his participation was voluntary, this Black participant communicated how he felt responsible for “helping” to educate his White colleagues by sharing personal stories, which brought up negative emotions. In contrast, Black student-athlete participants did not verbalize similar forms of distress. They indicated that their program participation was validating and cathartic. Two factors may help to explain what supported their distinctly positive views in keeping with the structured interaction core to an intergroup dialogue theoretical frame (Zúñiga et al., 2007). First, the student-athlete group consisted of a more racially/ethnically balanced intergroup format. This group structure may have safeguard against replicating racialized power imbalances and status quo dynamics that operate in society and thus supported their perceptions of psychological safety (e.g., Frantell et al., 2019; Kaplowitz et al., 2019). Additionally, these Black young women may have perceived support because youth participants were self-motivated to join the dialogue and were likely already oriented toward a social justice perspective. Structuring groups in an intergroup or affinity (i.e., single social identity) fashion may support White participants in the early stages of their critical consciousness. Such a format may be needed to prevent the possible harm done to Black participants or persons of color to the educational benefit of White participants. While intergroup dialogue practitioners have more often used an intergroup structure, they have used an intragroup format with promising results more recently (Ford, 2012; Zúñiga et. al., 2014). Supplemental initiatives as supportive of participants’ learning process. A final important and unexpected evaluation finding was the complementary relationship that supplemental campus initiatives had on youth and adult participants’ learning process. Adult and youth participants commonly mentioned the additional diversity-related initiatives that were 172 taking place on campus alongside and after their dialogue encounter. They offered favorable remarks about how these supplemental spaces afforded them opportunities to apply their dialogue-specific learning (e.g., “when we're in those conversations, it always brings me back to remembering things that I learned from Dialogue in Athletics”). This unexpected finding further underlines the contributory rather than causal nature of the impact of Dialogue in Athletics as these other initiatives may have contributed to student-athletes’ and coaches’ learning process beyond the program alone. A meaningful takeaway from these results, however, is the added benefit of an embedded approach to social justice education at Sowers. Supplemental initiatives aided participants by reinforcing their attitudes toward diversity/inclusion and providing them with contextually relevant opportunities to hone their critical awareness/skills outside the dialogue encounter. And, a multiple-initiative approach may have an additional advantage as widespread action taken by school leadership to create these spaces may communicate social justice education/action as a community value. Given the role that perceived subjective norms have on behavioral intentions and actions (Ajzen, 1991), this embedded approach may have enhanced the impact of Dialogue in Athletics. Supporting use through the evaluation process. An overarching goal of this U-FE project was to support utility of the evaluation among Sowers School stakeholders. Meeting the informational needs of intended users through fulfillment of this project’s priority purposes was one way to accomplish this aim. Alongside evaluation results, Patton (2011) identified that the process of evaluation can also benefit program participants and intended users (i.e., process use). Findings from this evaluation evidenced two types of process use that occurred through this project: instrumental effects and development of evaluation thinking/strategizing. 173 Specific to instrumentation effects, two program participants spoke about the added benefit that survey and interview instruments had on their learning. One teacher-coach articulated that her participation in the follow-up interview helped her realize that she needed to adopt a ‘brave’ mindset to engage on social issues—advice she had given her students. Distinctly, one youth participant noted becoming more aware of her own favorable attitudes toward diversity—and that other people may not hold these views—through completing pre/post survey measures. These two examples underscore how survey and follow-up instruments employed in this evaluation enhanced participants’ program learning through additional critical reflection about themselves and others. Related to evaluative thinking and strategizing, intended users indicated an increased capacity to adopt an evaluation lens through individual and group meetings with me (as evaluator). Several intended users put forth that the preview of evaluative findings at the interim helped them “see”, in concrete terms, that concepts (i.e., learning outcomes) that we had previously spoken about could be measured. One intended users (DEI liaison) described that the ability to “systematically, scientifically track what we are doing” and show small favorable shifts was reassuring and would be valuable going forward. Another intended user (Head of School) echoed this perspective and disclosed that Sowers had struggled to effectively use data to inform decision-making and make improvements in the past. These comments reflect intended users emergent understanding of and favorable reactions toward evaluative thinking/strategizing. Uniquely, another intended user demonstrated a better grasp of program evaluation when she recognized the benefit of triangulation. When asked whether she found the preliminary results to be surprising, the Assistant Head of School asked me why her observations mattered as she was less involved as a program participant. After I (the evaluator) explained that her perspective was 174 another form of gathering information about what was happening on campus, she analogized this triangulation to the accreditation process that the school was currently carrying out (i.e., “It’s kind of like our 10-year accreditation process, with the committee visiting and making observation around campus.”). In offering this analogy, this school leader showed her newfound understanding of the process and purpose of an evaluation: to make a judgment on the merits of a program (or school) through the comprehensive data collection and analysis. Instrumentation effects and evaluative thinking/strategizing emerged as two types of process use that enhanced the practical utility of this project among community stakeholders. A final meeting with intended users will take place on June 8th to discuss evaluation findings. This conversation will serve as a final collaborative moment to safeguard use of the evaluation through a user-friendly presentation of results and dialogue with intended users in this culminating stage of the evaluation process. Formative Judgments and Recommendations In this section, I offer formative judgements of Dialogue in Athletics at Sowers School in keeping with a UF-E framework. Rendering a judgment involves delivering a statement on the merit on the evaluation results and interpretation of the findings (Patton, 2011). The preliminary nature of this project makes issuing a summative judgement of the program’s value inappropriate. However, a formative weighing of the efficacy of Dialogue in Athletics can address this project’s priority purposes and whether the program made a difference. As such, I (as evaluator) put forth formative judgments with the caveat that they represent progress toward understanding the program’s ultimate worth. I conclude with recommendations for Sowers School to enhance and improve Dialogue in Athletics in the future. 175 Formative judgments. Dialogue in Athletics is significant in that student-athletes and coaches/administrators strengthened their critical awareness and attitudes (i.e., valuing, self- confidence, intentions) toward taking dialogue-related action. The program, at least in part, also helped participants develop skills to promote social justice, with some evidence of skills transference to sport- and non-sport related campus spaces. Table 16 comprehensively depicts the formative judgments (e.g., ‘what do we know?’) for intended outcomes and relevant processes and justification based on evidence sources (i.e., ‘how do we know it?’)10 and grade of certainty (e.g., ‘how certain are we?) upon which I base this statement of worth. 10Criteria used to offer a grade of certainty (i.e., more, moderately, or less certain) included the strength, or rigor, of the data, number of data types (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed), and possible triangulation of data across source and time. For example, I graded intentions to take intergroup action as ‘more certain’ in that a complete mixed methods comparison was possible with data analyzed at the session- pre/post-program, and follow-up time points. In contrast, the lack of robust quantitative data on critical awareness (a priori outcome measures) detracted from its grade and was thus given a grade of ‘moderately certain’. 176 Table 16. Formative Judgments and Justifications of Dialogue in Athletics Intended Outcomes What do you know? Formative judgment How do you know it? Source(s) of Evidence Coaches/Administrators Student-Athletes *Facilitator/evaluator notes Satisfaction Critical awareness Participants were strongly to moderately satisfied with program sessions. No change in empathic awareness may be due to a ceiling effect relative to the program length. Developed a greater critical understanding of their social/racial privilege and identity, personal biases, and (sport) institutional inequities. Valuing dialogue concepts/skills Confidence to take dialogue-related action Intentions to take intergroup action Skills Transference Relevant Processes Communication processes Experiential dialogue encounter and brave space Challenging and more/less meaningful Strengthened beliefs about the value of dialogue- related behaviors (e.g., perspective taking, active listening, interrupting derogatory comments). Increased their confidence to carry out dialogue- related actions with some evidence of adopting a brave mindset to engage youth on social justice- related issues. Strengthened their intentions to engage in dialogue-related action, with some ambiguity around institutional (collaborative) action. Used dialogue-related skills in sport- and non- sport campus spaces. Inquiry into skills transference when sports resume would offer a more comprehensive assessment. Contributed to participants learning to suggest fidelity to this pedagogical approach. Hearing personal stories and others’ perspectives through the process/practice of dialogue was most meaningful to adults. The small group, nonjudgmental climate was valuable to learning. The only Black participant experienced the burden of having to educating his White colleagues in this less racially balanced racial intercultural format. Participants were strongly to moderately satisfied with program sessions. No change in empathic awareness may be due to a ceiling effect relative to the program length. Developed some understanding racial/social privilege and recognition of social stereotypes as marginalizing. Lacked robust development in critical awareness (at the systemic level) to suggest a program shortcoming and need for additional support. Strengthened beliefs about the value of dialogue-related behaviors. Perceived their learning as useful to athletics as teammates and inclusive leaders. Increased their confidence to carry out dialogue-related actions, with some lack of confidence to engage peers. Session-level surveys & qualitative data sources Quantitative data (empathic awareness subscale) & qualitative data sources, noting the low reliability of a priori instruments *Facilitator observational notes and session debriefs with co-facilitator Qualitative data from sessions, pre/post program, and follow-up interviews Session-level surveys and follow-up interviews Quantitative (dialogue-specific) & qualitative data sources at multiple time points Qualitative session-level data & follow-up interviews at 1-3 months, though not in-season Qualitative session-level and follow-up interviews *Evaluator observations and interactions with stakeholders Strengthened their intentions to engage in dialogue- related action, with some ambivalence in their intentions to engage peers and ambiguity around institutional (collaborative) action. Offered some examples of transference at home and school but less robust evidence of application. Inquiry into skills transference when sports resume would offer a more comprehensive assessment. Contributed to participants learning to suggest fidelity to this pedagogical approach. Interactive activities were most meaningful to youths’ learning process as a way to share their perspective (have a voice) and perspective take. The small group, nonjudgmental climate was valuable to learning. Youth (Black) participants who were in a more intergroup format expressed that the program was cathartic, and challenging moments as meaningful. 177 How certain are you? Grade of Evidence [More, Moderately, or Less Certain] More Certain Moderately Certain Moderately Certain Moderately Certain More Certain Moderately Certain Moderately Certain While this evaluation shed light on areas of continued learning among youth (e.g., understanding systemic oppression and having the confidence/intentions to engage their peers) and adult (e.g., recognizing personal bias and having confidence to engage youth) after the program, the observed shifts in intended outcomes (i.e., critical awareness, attitudes, and action) are meaningful. These contributions to participants’ learning are what are to be reasonably expected given the (6-session) program length, virtual format, and process-oriented nature of behavior change. Of equal importance to note is that coaches/administrators and student-athletes held satisfactory views toward their participation and expressed interest in being involved in the future. Participants favorable attitudes toward the program are salient because critical consciousness raising and social justice behavior change processes require an on-going commitment (e.g., Lee et al., 2020). As this evaluation made evident, these processes can be difficult and uncomfortable. Thus, the way that Dialogue in Athletics supported youth and adults’ desire to further engage in these difficult learning processes is an encouraging result— and vital to their continued growth. The divergence related to the challenging, uncomfortable nature of participants’ program experience as de facto delivered among adults and youth is a significant finding. The racial distress that the only Black coach experienced in his group’s intercultural format is a problematic result. This finding may point to the need for a balanced intergroup (or racial affinity) format to protect against individuals with privileged (White) identities learning at the expense of socially marginalized Black participants and other persons of color—given the adaptive experience that (Black) student-athletes had in their more balanced intergroup format. A crucial finding from this evaluation that accurately clarifies the impact of Dialogue in Athletics as contributory rather than strictly causal was the supplemental, mutually beneficial 178 contribution of other diversity-related initiatives at Sowers. Patton (2011) indicated that contribution analysis is suitable when there are “multiple projects/initiatives working toward the same outcomes and where the ultimate impacts occur over long periods of time” (p. 355). Youth and adult participants’ indicated that these other learning spaces reinforced their attitudes toward diversity/inclusion and afforded them opportunities to apply dialogue-specific concepts/skills following their program participation and before their follow-up interview. This multi-initiative approach seems to have enhanced the impact of Dialogue in Athletics beyond what the program alone could have contributed. Future recommendations and considerations. I offer recommendations for Sowers School to consider to improve Dialogue in Athletics for future delivery in this section. Programmatic recommendations include to promote ease of participation; maintain an experiential and small group setting; ensure a brave space; and, provide enhanced support for adult and youth participants’ (continued) learning. I follow these recommendations with limitations of the evaluation and conclude by offering considerations for future evaluation (i.e., “measuring success”) at the informational request of intended users. A first recommendation for Dialogue in Athletics at Sowers is to promote ease of participation. Selecting the most convenient time for adult and youth participants is important to ensure the feasibility and ease of program delivery. Scheduling was particularly challenging among adults (e.g., teacher-coaches, coach-administrators) who had busy schedules because of their many leadership roles on campus. Despite proactive efforts to find a least disruptive time, the only available option for adult participants was during their lunch hour. This made a timely start of program sessions and ease of being fully present difficult for participants. Furthermore, while the virtual format was a convenient delivery method as youth and adult sport leaders could 179 attend session from their personal classroom or office space (and only possibility due to coronavirus social distancing guidelines), adding virtual sessions onto an already zoom-laden school day was taxing for adult and youth alike. Easing the barriers to participation by creating protected blocks of time or shorter but more frequent session (as some participants suggested) has potential to help community members get the most out of a program that requires active, deep engagement. A second recommendation is to maintain the program’s experiential and small group components. A suggestion that adult and youth participants voiced through this evaluation was the desire for more time to dialogue and experiential activities to maximize the interactive nature of sessions. Prioritizing time for participants to engage in the practice and process of dialogue through the integration of other activities may further enhance the program. Participants also echoed that the small group setting supported their willingness to fully engage and be vulnerable. For this reason, future programming should ensure that a small group size is maintained—a feature which may likewise support participants’ ability to foster deeper interpersonal connections and critical inquiry about the self, others, and society. Another possible strategy that might strengthen the quality and depth of participant interactions is to carry out programming in person. Intergroup dialogue programs within higher education (e.g., MSU Dialogues) have pivoted to the online platform in response to the pandemic. However, practitioners have typically used this pedagogical approach in an in-person format given its theoretical grounding in intergroup contact theory that emphasizes the value of a face-to-face encounter (Allport, 1954). While the virtual setting may support participants’ ease of involvement, access may be less of an issue in at small boarding school such as Sowers and in-person delivery worthwhile to consider as more facilitative of intended learning outcomes. 180 A third recommendation for the delivery of Dialogue in Athletics at Sowers Schools concerns ensuring that the dialogue space is brave: a nonjudgmental climate in which participants feel psychological safe to share their view, consider (non-dominant) viewpoints, and embrace mistakes as a part of learning. Facilitators can set an expectation that the critical consciousness raising process is uncomfortable, gradual, and sometimes nonlinear. As individuals recognize their varying degrees of social privilege and possible ways in which they have internalized oppression or superiority, challenging thoughts/feelings can arise as made evident in this evaluation. Facilitators can support participants by validating their experience as normal and encourage them to acknowledging previous (or current) mistakes as necessary to learn. Facilitators can establish group norms and use verbal/non-verbal communication to help participants adopt a brave mindset and (where appropriate) work through their discomfort rather than avoid/feel lesser for their experience so that participants can stay on their learning edge. One additional recommendation to better ensure that the dialogue space is psychologically safe for individuals with (racial or other social) minoritized identities relates to group structure. This evaluation showed the unique burden that the one Black male coach experienced while dialoguing with his (White) colleagues. This racial distress was not evidenced in the intergroup setting among (Black) student-athletes—perhaps due to their balanced group composition. Where possible, the Sowers community could benefit from a combination of affinity and intergroup dialogue spaces. An affinity group structure for individuals with more privileged (White) identities—especially those who may be less far along in their critical consciousness raising process—can benefit from a dialogue space that allows them to do the foundational work of interrogating their Whiteness without burdening participants of color to 181 educate them. A traditional intergroup format may also better safeguard the psychological safety of minority participants and adaptive learning experience of all group members. A final recommendation regards enhanced support for adult and youth participants’ (continued) learning. For student-athletes, Dialogue in Athletics could provide additional support during (and beyond) the 6-session program to further develop participants’ critical awareness (of systemic oppression and its relationship to the individual) and actual/perceived competence to take initiative among their peers. For coaches, on-going check-ins—in particular through the sports season—could aid (mostly White) adult leaders on how to effectively navigate social justice-related issues that arise. One female coach suggested regular check-ins in her follow-up interview as a helpful way to have an awareness of what student-athlete groups discuss and get their perspective. And, check-ins beyond the 6 program sessions may have added benefit as a way to, when competitive seasons resume, help Sowers youth and adult leaders work through the sport-related issues and barriers to social justice promotion as they happen. A dialogic space could valuably serve to help leaders problem solve these sport-specific challenges, hold one another accountable, and celebrate actions that promote inclusivity and social justice. Limitations of the Evaluation Several limitations specific to this evaluation should be considered when interpreting the findings including the contributory rather than causal nature of this inquiry, poor psychometric property of a priori quantitative measures, external challenges and barriers to stakeholder engagement, and my bias as program evaluator (and facilitator). A chief limitation (and also strength) of a U-FE evaluation is its emphasis on balancing scientific rigor with practical feasibility and use. While this approach allows the evaluator to be responsive to intended users’ informational needs and (unexpected) situational factors that can 182 arise during a project, ensuring use may prevent the evaluator from carrying out a controlled experimental design and causal analysis of program effectiveness. This quasi-experimental evaluation design was appropriate to serve the needs of intended users at this exploratory stage of program delivery at Sowers; yet, the analysis provided through this evaluation of the impact of Dialogue in Athletics is contributory and not causal. As made evident through qualitative results, student-athlete and coaches/administrators commented on the supplemental diversity-related initiatives that took place alongside delivery and evaluation phases of this inquiry. While participants indicated that these additional initiatives presented opportunities for them to apply dialogue-related concepts and skills to reinforce their program learning, to determine the effect(s) of Dialogue in Athletics controlling for these confounding factors was not possible in this project. A more nuanced understanding how, if at all, Dialogue in Athletics uniquely impacted youth and adult participants and how supplemental initiatives were mutually (or distinctly) informed social justice learning outcomes would require further examination. Issues with reliability of quantitative (a priori) outcomes measures used were a second limitation of this evaluation project. While the evaluator selected and adapted validated measures relevant to social justice behavior change in an effort to address the evaluation priority purposes, poor psychometric properties of the CoBRAS and, in part, the SEE instruments within this sample population prevented a full quantitative analysis of program impact specific to participants’ critical awareness/beliefs as intended. While the mixed methods design and collection of data at multiple time points (i.e., session-specific, program-level, and follow up) allowed for information-rich insight into program impact and processes, poor reliability of quantitative measures limited the amount of data generated for this mixed methods project. Use of validated, dialogue- and contextually appropriate measures for youth and adults in the future is necessary to 183 offer a more comprehensive assessment. A third limitation of this evaluation regards the external challenges to engagement with key stakeholders (including program participants and intended users). Unexpected issues and occurrences are common place within a secondary educational setting during a typical school year. This ‘normal’ chaos was compounded as the school year took place during a global pandemic. The flexibility that a U-FE approach afforded was crucial in allowing me (the evaluator) to ensure the completion of this project at a critical developmental juncture for Sowers School amidst—not despite—these unprecedented circumstances. Nevertheless, several logistical challenges emerged as the coronavirus pandemic developed that restricted the scope and initially proposed aims of this evaluation. First, the pandemic halted interscholastic sports so coaches and student-athletes did not participate in formally structured competition or training. As such, assessing the program’s impact on skills transference to sports was not possible—despite initial attempts to adjust the timetable of this project with the hope that sports would resume. Through collaboration with intended users, follow-up interviews questions were adjusted to gauge coaches’ behavioral intentions to use and student-athletes’ perceptions of the utility of dialogue-related concepts/skills to athletics to examine program impact and support use of findings. team-specific program involvement. The athletic director, in communication with school leadership, decided to run one dialogue group of student-athlete leaders who were interested in participating in place of carrying out multiple dialogue groups by individual sports teams. This resulted in a fewer number of youth who participated in the evaluation than initially planned and prevented inquiry into how student-athlete participants’ program experience might have been The lack of a formally structured sports season also created challenges to individual- and 184 different in-season on their respective teams. A more comprehensive assessment of program efficacy would benefit from a greater youth involvement—in particular with student-athletes who have lower levels of interest, knowledge, and favorable attitudes around diversity issues. Along with constraining student-athletes’ program participation, the uncertainty and holistic stress experienced through the pandemic made the ease of engagement challenging for adult participants and intended users. The shift to online learning created additional work for adults (i.e., teacher-coaches and campus leaders) who had to pivot to online/hybrid platforms and address campus emergencies (i.e., positive cases and mental health issues) as they arose. One specific instance in which stress from the pandemic impacted stakeholder involvement was in carrying out follow-up interviews. While I (with the help of a research team member) sought interviews with every coach/administrator to get all perspectives (including those from the only White and Black male participants), only half of adult participants agreed to interviews. Some coaches indicated that they were “stretched too thin” in responding to my interview inquires. Follow-up data from all adult participants would have afforded a more complete evaluation of Dialogue in Athletics—including disconfirming evidence that may have emerged from individuals who were less able/inclined to be interviewed. This information would have supported priority purposes and strengthen use of evaluation findings. A final limitation of this project lies in my biases as both program facilitator and evaluator. As a dialogue scholar and practitioners, I come into this praxis with particular assumptions and favorable views toward the efficacy of intergroup dialogue pedagogy and is applicability to athletics. Making transparent and mitigating my biases through data collection/analysis phases and engagement with intended users required that I engage in reflexive processes. Specific to data collection and analyses, I engaged in several critical strategies 185 (outlined in chapter 3) to help surface my biases about program efficacy and gather disconfirming evidence. I also strove to capture such evidence and counterfactual information with the assistance of a research team member who probed for this information with open-ended questions in follow-up interviews with program participants. Through the data analysis process, two critical debriefers aided my efforts to expose my biases and consider alternative interpretations of the data. A consideration for future evaluation efforts might be to involve a second research team member as co-evaluator (and not program facilitator) who was equally immersed in data analyses. An additional evaluator was not possible given the resources available for this project but could have strengthened this evaluative inquiry. As evaluator, I also recognize that what I perceive as useful information for intended users may not actually have been of interest to them. I regularly communicated with the athletic director (AD) and intended users at crucial points during the project to check my assumptions about use and clarify what information was most useful to Sowers. In particular, the AD was an intended user (and community insider) who was instrumental to my ability to get a pulse on the community and coordinate logistics for this project. The stress and chaos due to the pandemic, however, made the ease of arranging group conversations with all intended users difficult. Additional group meetings with intended users might have facilitated more in-depth conversation in response to the interim report and better supported process use. Future Evaluation Directions for Sowers School Sowers key stakeholders expressed an interested in recommendations for “measuring the success” of Dialogue in Athletics in the future. As such, I offer future evaluation directions for the school that would involve current and possible future program participants and emanate from the limitations of this project. The restrictive circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic during 186 which this project to place made assessing current participants’ skills transference to the in- season sport setting not possible. Future evaluation efforts involving extant participants could qualitatively follow up with Sowers student-athletes and coaches/administrators to gauge the extent to which individuals apply dialogue-related skills to athletics and elucidate barriers to transference. One fruitful way to carry out this qualitative inquiry that is in line with intended users’ interest in examining whether student-athletes “see” coaches (and other adult leaders) making improvements in the behavior change process would be to center student-athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ willingness to address broader social issues as they come up. Another possible approach would be to use other sources of data for triangulation alongside coaches’ self-reported behaviors such as observational methods. Future evaluation efforts could also explore the impact of Dialogue in Athletics among new student-athlete (or coach) participants. Given that student-athletes self-selected into the dialogue encounter, the inclusion of individuals who may have varied levels interest and/or readiness could provide a more comprehensive examination of program efficacy. Evaluation of larger number of student-athletes and coaches could allow for an examination of how Dialogue in Athletics may differently impact specific clusters of individuals based on similar baseline levels on intergroup outcomes measures (e.g., awareness/understanding and attitudes). This evaluation effort could also further explore the mutually beneficial relationship between supplemental diversity-related campus initiatives and participants’ dialogue-specific experience. Exploring how these supplemental initiatives might be distinctly supportive of social justice behavior change can help elucidate what works (learning outcomes), for whom (given participants’ developmental stage and readiness), under what circumstances (within program features and broader school context). This evaluative effort could be carried out using a more 187 experimental design. One approach might be to examine dialogue groups (organized by sports teams) that first go through the program against subsequent other teams who serve as waitlist control groups. Finding and selecting dialogue- and context-specific, validated instruments to assess intergroup learning outcomes of interest to Sowers school leaders would also be needed to support the rigor of this line of inquiry. Contributions to the Youth Development through Sport Literature Though bounded within the context of one interscholastic sports community, this evaluation offers a scholarly contribution beyond serving the informational needs of key stakeholders at Sowers School. This evaluation helps to advance the knowledge base on youth development through sport in its unique effort to deliver and assess the efficacy of social justice education programming within the high school sports setting. Given the paucity of developmental initiatives and their scientific evaluation (e.g., Kochanek, 2020; Mac Intosh & Martin, 2018), this project serves as an initial step to address this identified gap in youth sport research and practice. Notably, this evaluation showed intergroup dialogue as one promising educational approach to help youth sport coaches and participants develop the critical capacities to navigate social issues inextricable to sports in line with a more transformational vision of youth development. prevalent (culture-blind) perspectives of youth development through sport tend to undertreats these matters (Coakley, 2016; Kochanek & Erickson, 2019a, 2019b, 2021), this evaluation Though popular beliefs designate sport as separate from sociopolitical issues and project contests these dominant views in both scholarship and practice (i.e., praxis). This dissertation further extends sport research that has only pointed to the possible benefit of social justice education initiatives among coaches/administrators and student-athletes (Kochanek & 188 Erickson, 2019a, 2019b, 2021) and actually examined what, if any, practical difference a developmental initiative might make. Evaluation findings corroborate previous empirical work that has shown that sport adult leaders’ critical praxis (e.g., non-dominant awareness and action) varies along a continuum (Kochanek & Erickson, 2019b). Results from this evaluation revealed that coaches/administrators held similar color- and culture-blind assumptions a part of the extant sport discourse (e.g., quality coach/teaching requires expertise) and reservations around engaging student-athletes on broader social issues (e.g., racism). Uniquely, however, this evaluation provided a process-oriented perspective into how coaches (and administrators) came to terms with these normative assumptions and worked through these beliefs to through the dialogue encounter (e.g., structured interaction, facilitative guidance, and active learning). That is, the process of dialogue (e.g., critical reflection and sharing/hearing others’ stories or perspectives) helped them move along the continuum and engage in a more robust critical praxis. The evaluation highlighted some of the (dialogue-related) skills and critical action that coaches can carry out to effectively navigate broader social issues in their work with student-athletes. Importantly, findings explicated the personal and (sport-specific) situational barriers that might get in the way of novice and veteran coaches’ critical praxis. Future practical initiatives and evaluation efforts need to attend to these barriers (e.g., recognizing biases, embracing a brave mindset, adopting new practices, prioritizing resources to promote equity, and recognizing how to take up collaborative action) to support coaches’ continued development. This evaluation also extends youth development through sport scholarship. In response to calls from critical sport scholars to adopt a more transformative vision of youth development, this programmatic effort went beyond functional conceptions of developmental assets and life skills, which risk encouraging that youth acquiesce to status quo (oppressive) social systems 189 (e.g., Kochanek & Erickson, 2019a; Rauscher & Cooky, 2016). Instead, this dissertation explored the efficacy of a critical yet practical approach to youth development through sport that holds critical competencies (e.g., critical awareness/reflection, active listening, perspective taking, and intervening) as adaptive outcomes and processes. Evaluative findings importantly showed that equipping youth with such assets as both developmentally feasible and salient to the context (and mission) of educational athletics. While positive youth development through sport theory and research have overlooked this critical component, such a broader developmental vision is in line with recent conceptual and empirical work on student-athlete activism and youth development. Research on activism in the intercollegiate setting has shed light on student- athletes’ views toward using their platform (e.g., mentorship, authenticity, intervention, and public acts of resistance; Kluch, 2020). Outside of sports, Gonzales et al. (2020) recently proposed a Critical Positive Youth Development model (CPYD) that expanded Lerner’s (2005) Five Cs—a theoretical frame often applied to youth sport. Scholars integrate an additional C, critical consciousness, as a developmental outcome that has three components: critical reflection, political efficacy, and critical action. They posit that the development of critical reflection and political efficacy in a strength-based/supportive environment paves the way for critical action, which is required for youth to effectively challenge oppressive social conditions. Though a preliminary effort, this evaluation is one programmatic example of how adult leaders might support this conceptual vision in practice, and highlights facets of student-athletes’ critical capacity-building process (i.e., developmental assets, processes that facilitate their learning, and areas of continued growth). This program evaluation also meaningfully adds to the intergroup dialogue research literature as among the first efforts to employ this pedagogical approach in interscholastic sports. 190 Inquiry through the use of a priori and exploratory measures at the session- program- and follow- up time points went beyond a strict examination intended outcomes. This process-oriented nature of this examination is a unique departure from the intergroup dialogue scholarship, which has more often focused on outcomes (e.g., Frantell et al., 2019; Miles et al., 2015; Muller & Miles, 2017). In general, this program evaluation evidenced fidelity to pedagogical components and processes characteristic an intergroup dialogue pedagogy (i.e., Gurin et al., 2011, 2013; Nagda, 2006) and reinforced key design features (e.g., experiential/active learning, structured interaction, facilitator guidance) and processes (e.g., dialogue-informed communication) as supportive of participants’ learning. A unique contribution of this project regards its use of alternative dialogue formats to meet the practical realities of an interscholastic sports community. Scholars have advocated for the assessment of new methods when the traditional balanced group composition is not possible (Frantell et al., 2019)—as was the case at Sowers School among the (predominately White) sport coach/administrative staff. This situation presented the possibility of observing areas of commonality and contrast between these different formats. Keeping in mind that dialogue groups also differed by age/role (i.e., coaches/administrators in an intercultural format and student-athletes in an intergroup format respectively), findings seem to lend support for the use of a traditional intergroup dialogue approach (Gurin et al., 2013; Kaplowitz et al., 2019; Nagda et al., 2009). This finding is in keeping with extant intergroup dialogue theory, which identifies that facilitative guidance along with the structured intergroup interaction play a central role in mitigating the reproduction of sociopolitical processes and power inequities (e.g., when White participants learn/benefit from Black participants sharing their experiences). Last, this dissertation advances the science of program evaluation within the youth sport 191 context. Driska (2014) shed light on the wanting of theory-driven evaluation research on youth sport programs. He found researchers often carried out a more conventional research rather than evaluation approach that—while scientifically rigorous—may have fallen short of meeting the informational needs of the youth sport decision makers to have a practically meaningful impact. Against this backdrop, the utilization-focused evaluation carried out through this dissertation sought to meet the complex practical realities and informational needs of one interscholastic sports community. This project demonstrated the viability and benefit of evaluation research within the youth sport setting—and serves as an example of how researchers (or evaluators) can strive to carry out rigorous that also responds to the often messy practically realities of youth sport communities and organizations. As Patton (2011) suggested, program evaluation balances between the scientific and pragmatic to assess whether, and how, interventions make a difference. Hopefully, the practical challenges spotlighted in this evaluation along with its strengths and limitations offers other youth sport scholar-practitioners information that they can use in their future praxis. Implications for Youth Development through Sport Theory and Research There are several future directions that stem from this evaluation which could be useful to positive youth development through sport theory and research. This evaluation offered support or the feasibility and efficacy of social justice educational programming within the youth sports context. A first direction for youth development through sport scholars is to extend prevalent theoretical frameworks by integrating critical rather than strictly functional understandings of youth development. Leaning on the youth development scholarship outside of sport that has adopted a non-dominant, transformational view and identified critical developmental assets (i.e., 192 critical reflection, political efficacy, and critical action/contribution; e.g., Gonzales et al., 2020) is a fruitful next step. In research, youth development through sport scholars can extend this programmatic effort by assessing the efficacy of social justice education initiatives in sport more broadly. Additional evaluation studies that examine the efficacy of using an intergroup dialogue approach in other interscholastic and intercollegiate sport settings would be a valuable way to extend this project. Given the unique boarding school context in which this project took place, impact and process evaluations of programming in other sport organization and school community spaces among coaches and athletes can better contribute to our understanding of how social justice education programming is taken up. In different community contexts, varying demographics and social, contextual norms may uniquely impact how programming is received by and impacts participants (e.g., coaches, student-athletes) and stakeholders (e.g., parents). A related future research direction is to further explore how coach and student-athlete participants with varying levels of critical awareness, attitudes, and intentions for social justice action may be differently affected by an initial educational experience. A longitudinal approach could be taken to further examine how on-going dialogic initiatives further support their learning and growth. Practical Implications for Decision-makers and Leaders in Sports This evaluation evidenced intergroup dialogue as a promising approach to social justice education in youth sports. Although this project was cased within a single interscholastic community setting, findings can be valuable for other interscholastic sport communities (e.g., high school and college/universities) and governing bodies (e.g., state high school sport and collegiate associations). Leaders within interscholastic and intercollegiate associations and athletic departments (e.g., coaches and administrators) can advocate for providing developmental 193 opportunities for coaches and student-athletes to develop their critical capacities. Given the myriad of existing intergroup dialogue programs at universities and colleges across the country, established initiatives and/or resources (e.g., facilitators) may be more readily accessible than sport leaders and decision-makers realize. Just as well, extant intergroup dialogue program leaders can consider pursuing possible partnerships with athletic departments in their higher education (and local) communities. As this evaluation made evident, social justice behavior change is an on-going process that requires long-term commitment and institutional/social support. These community-based collaborations may allow for an embedded, sustained approach. Relatedly, training coaches as facilitators and student-athletes as peer facilitators who can serve as mentors for younger youth sport participants would not only provide them with a salient leadership role but also build a community’s programmatic capacity. Finding ways to adopt, build, and sustain programming is necessary so that educational institutions can deliver on sport’s unifying, transformative potential. 194 APPENDICES 195 Appendix A Instrument 1: Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS) Below is a set of questions that deal with social issues in the U.S. Please rate the following statements thinking about how you were BEFORE participating in Dialogue in Athletics and how you are NOW. Respond to the questions based upon your race dialogue. Use the left column for your answers about how felt before the program and the right column for your answers about how you feel now (1 = Strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree). 1. Everyone who works hard, no matter what race they are, has an equal chance to become rich. 2. Race plays a major role in the type of social services (such as health care or day care) that people receive in the U.S.* 3. It is important that people begin to think of themselves as American and not African American, Mexican American or Italian American. 4. Due to racial discrimination, programs such as affirmative action are necessary to help create equality.* 5. Racism is a major problem in the U.S.* 6. Race is very important in determining who is successful and who is not.* 7. Racism may have been a problem in the past, but it is not an important problem today. 8. Racial and ethnic minorities do not have the same opportunities as White people in the U.S.* 9. White people in the U.S. are discriminated against because of the color their skin. 10. Talking about racial issues causes unnecessary tension. 11. It is important for political leaders to talk about racism to help work through or solve society’s problems.* 12. White people in the U.S. have certain advantages because of the color of their skin.* 13. Immigrants should try to fit into the culture and adopt the values of the U.S. 14. English should be the only official language in the U.S. 15. White people are more to blame for racial discrimination in the U.S. than racial and ethnic minorities.* 16. Social policies, such as affirmative action, discriminate unfairly against White people. 17. It is important for public schools to teach about the history and contributions of racial and ethnic minorities.* 18. Racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. have certain advantages because of the color of their skin. 19. Racial problems in the U.S. are rare, isolated situations. 20. Race plays an important role in who gets sent to prison.* Adapted from Neville et al. (2000) 196 Appendix B Instrument 2: Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy (SEE) Directions: Please rate the following statements thinking about how you were BEFORE participating in Dialogue in Athletics and how you are NOW. Respond to the questions based upon your race dialogue. Use the left column for your answers about how felt before the program and the right column for your answers about how you feel now (1 = Strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree). 1. I feel annoyed when people do not speak standard English. 2. I don’t know a lot of information about important social and political events of racial and ethnic groups other than my own. 3. I am touched by movies or books about discrimination issues faced by racial or ethnic groups other than my own. 4. I know what it feels like to be the only person of a certain race or ethnicity in a group of people. 5. I get impatient when communicating with people from other racial or ethnic backgrounds, regardless of how well they speak English. 6. I can related to the frustration that some people feel about having fewer opportunities due to their racial or ethnic backgrounds. 7. I am aware of institutional barriers (e.g., restricted opportunities for job promotion) that discriminate against racial or ethnic groups other than my own. 8. I don’t understand why people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds enjoy wearing traditional clothing. 9. I seek opportunities to speak with individuals of other racial or ethnic backgrounds about their experiences. 10. I feel irritated when people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds speak their language around me. 11. When I know my friends are treated unfairly because of their racial or ethnic backgrounds, I speak up for them. 12. I share the anger of those who face injustice because of their racial and ethnic backgrounds. 13. When I interact with people from other racial and ethnic backgrounds, I show my appreciation of their cultural norms. 14. I feel supportive of people of other racial and ethnic groups, if I think they are being taken advantage of. 15. I get disturbed when other people experience misfortunes due to their racial or ethnic background. 16. I rarely think about the impact of a racist or ethnic joke or the feelings of people who are targeted. 17. I am not likely to participate in events that promote equal rights for people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. 197 18. I express my concern about discrimination to people from other racial or ethnic groups. 19. It is easy for me to understand what it would feel like to be a person of another racial or ethnic background other than my own. 20. I can see how other racial or ethnic groups are systematically oppressed in our society. 21. I don’t care if people make racist statements against other racial or ethnic groups. 22. When I see people who come from a different racial or ethnic background succeed in the public arena, I share their pride. 23. When other people struggle with racial or ethnic oppression, I share their frustration. 24. I recognize that the media often portrays people based on racial or ethnic stereotypes. 25. I am aware of how society differentially treats racial or ethnic groups other than my own. 26. I share the anger of people who are victims of hate crimes (e.g., intentional violence because of race or ethnicity). 27. I do not understand why people want to keep their indigenous racial or ethnic cultural traditions instead of trying to fit into the mainstream. 28. It is difficult for me to put myself in the shoes of someone who is racially and/or ethnically different from me. 29. I feel uncomfortable when I am around a significant number of people who are racially/ethnically different than me. 30. When I hear people make racist jokes, I tell them I am offended even though they are not referring to my racial or ethnic group. 31. It is difficult for me to relate to stories in which people talk about racial or ethnic discrimination they experience in their day to day lives. Adapted from Wang et al. (2003) 198 Appendix C Instrument 3: Behavioral Intentions for Intergroup Collaboration Directions: People can take a variety of actions to address issues of prejudice, discrimination, and injustices. Listed below are different actions. Please rate the following statements thinking about how you were BEFORE participating in Dialogue in Athletics and how you are NOW. Use the left column for your answers about how felt before the program and the right column for your answers about how you feel now (1= extremely unlikely, 7 = extremely likely) 1. Recognize and challenge the biases that affect my own thinking (self) 2. Avoid using language that reinforces negative stereotypes (self) 3. Make efforts to educate myself about other groups (self) 4. Make efforts to get to know people from diverse backgrounds (self) 5. Challenge others on derogatory comments (other) 6. Reinforce others for behaviors that support cultural diversity (other) 7. Join a community group/organization that promotes diversity (collaboration) 8. Get together with others to challenge discrimination (collaboration) 9. Participate in a coalition of different groups to address some social issues (collaboration) Additional open-ended response: Is there any other actions you intended to take to promote social justice? Adapted from Gurin et al. (2013) 199 Appendix D Instrument 4: Communication Processes Note: Processes 1-3 will be assessed after session 3 and 6 based on the 4-stage sequential model and Process 4 (Alliance Building) will only be assessed after session 6 Directions. A variety of communication processes are found in programs involving group discussions. Below are several processes. For each item, indicate the extent to which each of the communication processes has contributed to your learning over the last 3 sessions (1= a great deal, 5 = not at all) Engaging self 200 • Being able to disagree • Sharing my views and experiences • Asking questions that I felt I wasn’t able to ask before • Addressing difficult issues • Speaking openly without feeling judged Appreciating difference • Hearing different points of view • Learning from each other • Hearing other students’ personal stories • Appreciating experiences different from my own Critical reflection Alliance building • Examining the sources of my biases and assumptions • Making mistakes and reconsidering my opinions • Thinking about issues that I may not have before • Understanding how privilege and oppression affect our lives • Working through disagreements and conflicts • Other students’ willingness to understand their own biases and assumptions • Listening to other students’ commitment to work against injustices • Understanding other students’ passion about social issues • Talking about ways to take action on social issues • Sharing ways to collaborate with other groups to take action • Feeling a sense of hope about being able to challenge injustices Appendix E SESSION 1 Session-specific Assessment Items Satisfaction 1) Overall, I liked this session (7-point Likert scale strongly agree to strongly disagree) • Strongly agree • Agree • Somewhat agree • Neither agree or disagree • Somewhat disagree • Disagree • Strongly disagree 2. What activity or content in this session did you like? Why? 3. What would you change about this session? Knowledge/Awareness 4. Of the following statements, check all that apply that are true about dialogue. In dialogue, some conflict is expected and necessary to learn and grow • Dialogue is about discovering a shared truth by combining our different perspectives • • Dialogue is about proving someone else wrong • Dialogue is about deeply listening to others to discover new perspectives and ideas Affect 5. Compared to before today’s meeting I feel more confident in my ability to… • Actively listen to others • Reframe debates into dialogues in interactions with others SESSION 2 Satisfaction 1. Overall, I liked this session. (7-point Likert scale strongly agree to strongly disagree) 2. What activity or content in this session did you like? Why? 3. What would you change about this session? Knowledge/Awareness 201 4. What is a key-take message about identity for you from today’s workshop, such as related to your understanding of your own and others’ identities? Skill Transference – Follow-up (week 2) 5. Recall, if any, time during/since you’ve participated in dialogue that you have reframed a difficult situation as a dialogue instead of a debate. How, if at all, was this helpful to you? SESSION 3 – MID-POINT SURVEY Satisfaction 1. Overall, I liked this session (7-point Likert scale strongly agree to strongly disagree) 2. What activity or content in this session did you like? Why? 3. What would you change about this session? Knowledge/Awareness 4. Indicate true/false: Perspective taking regards our ability to see a situation from the viewpoint of another and understand another person’s feelings, intentions, thoughts. 5. What is a key take-home message that you learned today about perspective taking and our social learning process? Mid-point survey of communication processes and experience Instrument 4 – Communication Processes Additional short-response items 6. What has been, if any, a meaningful moment for you during a dialogue session/sessions. 7. What was, if any, a negative moment for you—perhaps one in which you felt that sharing a personal experience was a mistake, that others were not genuinely interested in what you thought/felt, or that you were excluded during a dialogue session/sessions. 8. What would like facilitators to know in order to improve your dialogue experience? SESSION 4 Satisfaction 1. Overall, I liked this session (7-point Likert scale strongly agree to strongly disagree) 2. What activity or content in this session did you like? Why? 202 3. What would you change about this session? Affect 4. Compared to before today’s meeting (5-point Likert scale strongly disagree to strongly agree) • • Skill Transference – Follow-up session 3 5. How, if at all, have you used active listening (ACT) or perspective taking skills as a student- athlete/coach in athletics or in other spaces since participating in dialogues? I have a process to go to interrupt derogatory comments I feel it is important to interrupt derogatory comments (e.g., stereotypes) SESSION 5 Satisfaction 1. Overall, I liked this session (7-point Likert scale strongly agree to strongly disagree) 2. What activity or content in this session did you like? Why? 3. What would you change about this session? Critical Awareness and Affect 5. Privilege Acceptance: _____________ is a form of privilege that I have, which I view as a power/responsibility to help others in athletics/society. How I plan to use my _______________ privilege to help others is by…. ____________________ . Skills Transference - Follow-up session 4 6. Describe a situation, if any, in which you used PALS to interrupt an instance of individual discrimination (stereotyping, microaggression, and/or joke) in/outside of athletics since participating in dialogues. SESSION 6 Satisfaction 1. I found action planning/spheres of influence useful? (7-point Likert scale strongly agree to strongly disagree) Intergroup Outcomes and Processes Full Battery of Instruments (1-3) and Instrument 4 – Communication Processes Additional Process Questions 203 During the dialogue sessions, we covered a lot of material including, but not limited to the following list. Please check 3 aspects of content/activity that was most meaningful to you in dialogue. What activities above, if any, do you think we should eliminate in the future? Why? What did facilitator(s) do that was helpful to your experience? What was less helpful, or undermined, your participation experience? Can you describe a transformative moment for you during a dialogue session/sessions? If you did not experience an ah-ha moment, explain why you think this is the case. What was, if any, a challenging moment for you, perhaps one in which you felt that sharing a personal experience was a mistake, that others were not genuinely interested in what you thought/felt, or that you were excluded during a dialogue session/sessions. Please provide any comments that would help us understand your experience or anything else you want us to know. Demographic Information Indicate whether you are a student-athlete, coach, or administrator. What racial or ethnic group best describes you? Select as many as apply to you. Which gender identity best describes you? Select as many as apply to you. 204 Appendix F Participant (Student-Athlete/Coach) Follow-up Interview Guide Semi-structured individual interviews focused on 3 thematic categories: (1) program experience and impact; (2) skills transference; and (3) challenges/barriers to implement learning. Impact of experience 1. Stepping back from your experience, how—if at all—has the program impacted you? a. Probe: Were their meaningful and/or challenging moments that have stuck with you? Skill Transference 2. What specific concepts or skills do you use because of participating in dialogues? 3. What impact has the program experience had on you in your work with students—in (after school sports/performance settings) or on campus? In your life generally? Do you have a specific example? a. Probe: For coaches – how, if at all, has dialogues helped you develop a greater understanding of your (BIPOC) students’ (athletes and performers) experience; For student-athletes - how, if at all, has dialogues helped you better understand the experience of your teammates with identities different from your own? b. Probe for student-athletes: How, if at all, do you think the program might have an impact on you once sports start again and you are working with others on a team? 4. How have you continued to learn and act to promote diversity and inclusion beyond the program on campus since participating in Dialogues? a. Do you recall your action plan/spheres of influence actions from session 6—how has this unfolded for you? Barriers and Challenges Final Thoughts 5. What, if any, concepts or skills have been challenging to use as a coach/student-athlete leader or community leader on campus? Can you elaborate on why these have been a challenge? b. Probe for student-athletes: To what extent do you feel comfortable and supported by adults and peers on campus in dialoguing about diversity and inclusion? 6. Is there anything else you’d like to share that might be helpful for future programming— or any last insights you’d like to share and haven’t had the chance to? a. Probe: Do you have any suggestions you have to make the program better based on this you liked less or disliked about the program? 205 Appendix G Means and Standard Deviations for Intergroup Learning Outcome Measures Table 18. Means and Standard Deviations for Coaches and Administrators on Intergroup Learning Outcome Measures Ethnocultural Empathy Composite Score Empathic Awareness Pre-program mean 5.51 5.79 Empathic Perspective Taking+ Acceptance of Cultural Differences+ Empathic Feeling/Expression Behavioral Intentions for Intergroup Collaboration Composite Score Self-directed action Others’-directed action Collaborative action 4.57 6.16 5.65 Pre-program mean 5.82 5.94 5.88 5.61 Post-program mean 6.09 6.44 5.04 6.74 6.26 Standard Deviation .46 .542 1.02 .263 .499 Post-program mean Standard Deviation 6.60 6.81 6.73 6.23 .330 .291 .388 .810 Table 19. Means and Standard Deviations for Student-Athletes on Intergroup Learning Outcome Measures Ethnocultural Empathy Pre-program Standard Deviation Standard Deviation .908 1.39 1.03 1.23 .974 Standard Deviation .795. .830 .820 1.12 .757 .827 1.17 1.07 .521 Composite Score Empathic Awareness Empathic Perspective Taking+ Acceptance of Cultural Differences+ Empathic Feeling/Expression Behavioral Intentions for Intergroup Collaboration Composite Score Self-directed action Others’-directed action Collaborative action mean 5.75 6.14 4.80 6.17 5.80 Post-program mean 6.03 6.54 5.35 6.60 6.15 Pre-program mean Standard Deviation Post-program mean 5.66 5.79 5.57 5.67 1.04 .537 1.01 1.07 206 6.47 6.64 6.42 6.33 Standard Deviation .418 .480 .582 .405 .279 Standard Deviation .562 .537 .607 .694 REFERENCES 207 Processes, 50(2), 179–211. http://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=103. Agyemang, K., Singer, J. N., & DeLorme, J. (2010). An exploratory study of Black male college athletes’ perceptions of race and athlete activism. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 45, 419–435. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Aldana, A., Rowley, S., Checkoway, b., & Richards-Shuster, K. (2012). “Raising racial-ethnic consciousness: The relationship between intergroup dialogues and adolescents’ ethnic racial identity and racial awareness.” Equity & Excellence in Education, 36, 120-137. Allport, G. W. (1954) The nature of prejudice. Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley. American Evaluation Association. (2014). The program evaluation standards. Retrieved from Anderson, E. (2005). In the game: Gay athletes and the cult of masculinity. Albany, NY: State Benson, P. L. (2006). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., & Syvertsen, A. K. (2011). The contribution of the developmental assets framework to positive youth development theory and practice. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 41, 197-230. Bruening, J. E., Armstrong, K. L., & Pastore, D. L. (2005). Listening to the voices: The experiences of African American female student athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 82-100. Cassidy, T., Jones, R., & Potrac, P. (Eds.). (2008). Understanding sports coaching: The social, Coakley, J. (2016). Positive youth development through sport: Myths, beliefs, and realities. In N. Coakley, J. (2011). Youth sports: What counts as “positive development?”. Journal of Sport and L. Holt (Ed.) Positive youth development through sport (2nd ed., pp. 21-33). New York, NY: Routledge. cultural and pedagogical foundations of coaching practice. London, UK: Routledge. responsible children and adolescents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. University of New York Press. REFERENCES Social Issues, 35, 306-324. Cooky, C. (2017). “We cannot stand idly by”: A necessary call for a public sociology of sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 34, 1-11. 208 Cooper, J. N., Macaulay, C., & Rodriguez, S. H. (2019). Race and resistance: A typology of African American sport activism. International Review of the Sociology of Sport, 54, 151-181. Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4, 307-327. research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. orientation prejudice. Small Group Research, 41, 556-592. the empirical literature. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26, 199-238. orientation: Lesbian, gay and bisexual student experiences and outcomes. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 1132-1150. communication skills, relationships, and social justice. Small Group Research, 43, 559-586. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods Dessel, A. B. (2010). Effects of intergroup dialogue: Public school teachers and sexual Dessel, A. B., & Ali, N. (2012). Arab/Jewish intergroup dialogue courses: Building Dessel, A. B., & Rogge, M. E. (2008). Evaluation of intergroup dialogue: A review of Dessel, A. B., Woodford, M. R., & Warren, N. (2011). Intergroup dialogue courses on sexual Diener, E. (2009). Positive psychology: Past, present, and future. In C. R. Snyder & J. L. Driska, A. (2014). Advancing program evaluation for sport psychology researchers: A systematic Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (2002). Community programs to promote youth Eitzen, D. S., & Sage, G. H. (2009). Sociology of North American Sport (8th ed.). Boulder, CO: Flett, M. R., Gould, D., Griffes, K. R., & Lauer, L. (2013). Tough love for underserved youth: A Ford, K. (2012). Shifting white ideological scripts: The educational benefit of inter- and intra- Frantell, Miles, & Ruwe (2019). Intergroup dialogue: A review of recent empirical research and its implications for research and practice. Small Group Research, 50, 654-695. Lopez (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 7-11). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. racial curricular dialogues on the experiences of white college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5, 138-158. comparison of more and less effective coaching. The Sport Psychologist, 27, 325–337. review and narrative analysis. Unpublished manuscript. development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Paradigm Publishers. 209 Review, 1(2), 124–134. DOI:10.1080/21640629.2012.746049. coaching. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(3), 212–221. DOI:10.1016/j. psychsport.2010.11.004. development for African Americans. National Civic Review, 95, 41–46. microaffirmations: Toward a cultural praxis of sport coaching. Sociology of Sport Journal, 34, 160-175. Fraser-Thomas, J. L., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2005). Youth sport programs: An avenue to foster positive development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 19-40. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder. Gano-Overway, L. A., Newton, M., Magyar, T. M., Fry, M. D., Kim, M., & Guivernau, M. R. (2009). Influence of caring youth sport contexts on efficacy-related beliefs and social behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 45, 329-340. Gearity, B. T., & Henderson-Metzger, L. (2017). Intersectionality, microaggressions, and Gearity, B. T., & Mills, J. (2012). Discipline and punish in the weight room. Sport Coaching Gearity, B. T., & Murray, M. (2011). Athletes’ experiences of the psychological effects of poor Ginwright, S. (2006). Racial justice through resistance: Important dimensions of youth Ginwright, S., & Cammarota, J. (2002). New terrain in youth development: The promise of a Ginwright, S. & James, T. (2002). From assets to agents of change: Social justice, organizing, Gonzales, M., Kokozos, M., Byrd, C., & McKee, K. (2020) Critical positive youth development: Gould, D., & Carson, S. (2008). Life skills development through sport: current status and future Griffin, P. (1998). Strong women, deep closets: Lesbians and homophobia in sport. Human Griffin, S. R., Brown, M., & warren, n. (2012). Critical education in high schools: The promise Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–366. A framework for centering critical consciousness. Journal of Youth Development, 15, DOI: 10.5195/jyd.2020.859. directions. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 58-78. social justice approach. Social Justice, 29, 82-95. and youth development. New Directions for Youth Development, 96, 27–46. Kinetics. and challenges of intergroup dialogue. Equity & Excellence, 45, 159-180. 210 democratic citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 17–34. conception of civic engagement. Liberal Education, 97(2), 46-51. research on intergroup dialogue. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. action: How talking, thinking, and feeling make a difference in intergroup dialogue. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45, 60-79. DOI:10.1080/ 10665684.2012.643699. Gurin, P., Nagda, B., & Lopez, G. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education for Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., Sorensen, N. (2011). Intergroup dialogue: Education for a broad Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Zùñiga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and Gurin-Sands, C., Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Osuna, S. (2012). Fostering a commitment to social Halbrook, M., Watson, J., & Voelker, D. (2018). High school coaches’ experiences with openly Hartmann, D. (2016, July 27). “A new era of athlete awareness and advocacy.” The Society Pages. Retrieved from https://thesocietypages.org/editors/2016/07/27/a-new-era-of- athlete- awareness-and-advocacy/. Hellison, D. (2011). A framework for teaching personal and social responsibility. In D. Hellison (Ed.), Teaching personal and social responsibility through physical activity (pp. 17-29). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hennrick, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning Hershberg, R. M., Johnson, S. K., DeSouza, L. M., Hunter, C. J., & Zaff, J. (2015). Promoting saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research 27, 591-608. lesbian, gay, and bisexual athletes. Journal of Homosexuality, 66, 838-856. contribution among youth: Implications for positive youth development research for youth development programs. In E. P. Bowers, G. J. Geldhof, S. K. Johnson, L. J. Hillard, R. M. Hershberg, J. V. Lerner, R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Promoting positive youth development: Lessons from the 4-H study (pp. 211-228). New York, NY: Springer. Hodge, S. R., Kozub, F. M., Dixson, A. D., Moore, J. L., & Kambon, K. (2008b). A comparison of high school students’ stereotypic beliefs about intelligence and athleticism. Educational Foundations, 22, 99-119. Routledge. Holt, N. L. (2016). Positive youth development through sport: Second edition. New York, NY: Holt, N. L., & Neely, K. C. (2011). Positive youth development through sport: A review. Revista hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: de Iberoamericana de Psicología del Ejercicio y el Deporte (English version), 6, 299– 316. Routledge. 211 Social Issues, 61(3), 593-610. Hopkins, L. E., & Domingue, A. D. (2014). From awareness to action: College students’ skill development in intergroup dialogue. Equity & Excellence in Education, 48, 392-402. doi:10.1080/10665684.2015.1057446. Hurtado, S. (2005). “The next generation of diversity and intergroup relations.” Journal of Hylton, K. (2009). Race and sport: Critical race theory. New York, NY: Routledge. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed Kaplowitz, D. R. (2018). MSU Dialogues: A brief review of program data, Report for Office of methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112-133. Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives, Michigan State University, June 21, 2018. collegiate athletes, Women in Sport and Physical Activity, 15, 42-56. tackling the elephant in the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Kaplowitz D. R., Griffin S. R., & Seyka, S. (2019). Race dialogues: A facilitator’s guide to Kauer, K., & Krane, V. (2006). “Scary dykes” and “Feminine queens”: Stereotypes and female Kaufman, P. (2008). Boos, bans, and other backlash: The consequences of being an activist Kaufman, P., & Wolff, E. A. (2010). Playing and protesting: Sport as a vehicle for social change. Khuri, M. L. (2004). Working with emotion in educational intergroup dialogue. International Klein, A., Paule-Koba, A. L., & Krane, V. (2019). The journey of transitioning: Being a trans Kluch, Y. (2020). “My story is my activism”: Re-Definitions of social justice activism among Knowles, Z., Gilbourne, D., Borrie, A., & Neville, A. (2001). Developing the reflective sports coach: A study exploring the processes of reflection within a higher education coaching program. Reflective Practice, 2, 185-207. Knowles, Z., Tyler, G., Gilbourne, D., & Eubank, M. (2006). Reflecting on reflection: Exploring collegiate athlete activists. Sport Communication and Social Justice, DOI: 10.1177/2167479519897288. the practice of sports coaching graduates. Reflective Practice, 7, 163- 179. male athlete in college sport. Sport Management Review, 22, 626-639. athlete. Humanity & Society, 32, 215–237. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 34, 154-175. Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 595–612. 212 intergroup dialogue approach. Athletic Training Education Journal, 15(2). experiences across types of organized youth activities. Developmental Psychology, 42, 849-863. using critical race theory. Quest DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2019.1641728 sport head coaches’ critical praxis. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 45, DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101580 femininity in women's sport. Quest, 53, 115-133. 55, 170-183. Kochanek, J. (2020). Promoting cultural competence in athletic training education: An Kochanek, J. & Erickson, K. (2021). What counts as educational athletics? An exploration of high school athletic directors’ critical praxis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise Journal, 53, DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101871. Kochanek, J., & Erickson, K. (2019a). Interrogating positive youth development through sport Kochanek, J., & Erickson, K. (2019b). Outside the lines: An exploratory study of high school Krane, V. (2001). We can be athletic and feminine, but do we want to? Challenging hegemonic Larson, R. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, Larson, R. W., Hansen, D. M., & Moneta, G. (2006). Differing profiles of developmental Lerner, R. M., Bowers, E. P., Geldhof, G. J., Gestsdóttir, S., & DeSouza, L. (2012). Promoting positive youth development in the face of contextual changes and challenges: The roles of individual strengths and ecological assets. New directions for youth development, 135, 119-128. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J., Theokas, C., Naudeau, S., Gestsdottir, S., . . . von Eye, Lee, W., & Cunningham, G. B. (2019). Moving toward understanding social justice in sport Lopez-Humphreys, M., & Dawson, B. A. (2014). From education to action: The immediate and Lee, A., Singh, G., & Wright, M. E. (2020): Using the transtheoretical model to promote A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H Study on positive youth development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17-71. doi:10.1177/0272431604272461. organizations: A study of engagement in social justice advocacy in sport organizations. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 43, 1–19. long-term results of intergroup dialogue on BSW students’ social justice activity. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 19, 31-43. behavior change for social justice in Kinesiology. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, DOI: 10.1080/21520704.2020.1822969. 213 perceptions of social justice activism. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 51, DOI: 101766. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 390-399. review. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 296-319. (Vol. 2nd ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. combat racism. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 9, 159-171. of social workers in advocating for change. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 152–171. Lyle, J., & Cushion, C. (2017). Sport coaching concepts: A framework for coaching practice Mac Intosh, A., & Martin, E. (2018). Creating athletic activists: Using sport as a vehicle to Mac Intosh, A., & Martin, E., & Kluch, Y. (2020). To act or not to act? Student-athletes’ McCoy, L., Oregon, E., & Sullivan, D. J. (2017). College athletes, social justice, and the role McGrath, S. H., & Chananie-Hill, R. A. (2009). “Big Freaky-Looking Women”: Normalizing gender transgression through bodybuilding. Sociology of Sport Journal, 26, 235-254. Miller, R. L. (2010). Developing standards for empirical examinations of evaluation theory. Miller, R. L., & Campbell, R. (2006). Taking stock of empowerment evaluation: An empirical Nagda, B. A. (2006). Breaking barriers, crossing boundaries, building bridges: Communication Nagda, B. A., Gurin, P., Lopez, G. E. (2003). Transformative pedagogy for democracy and Nagda, B. A., Gurin, P., Sorsensen, N., Zuniga, X. (2009). Evaluating intergroup dialogue: National Council of Youth Sports. (2008). Report on trends and participation in organized youth Nelson, M. B. (1994). The stronger women get, the more men love football: Sexism and the Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., Wholey, J. S., & (Eds.) (2015). Handbook of practical program Palfrey, J. G. (2017). Safe Spaces, Brave Spaces: Diversity and Free Expression in Education. Parker, K., & Igielnik, R. (14 May 2020). On the cusp of adulthood and facing an uncertain Engaging diversity for personal and social responsibility. Diversity & Democracy, 10, 4-6. sports. Retrieved from: http://www.ncys.org/publications/2008-sports-participation. American culture of sports. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace. processes in intergroup dialogues. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 553-576. social justice. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 6(2), 165–191. evaluation (4th edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. future: What we know about Gen Z so far. Pew Research Center: Social & Demographic 214 Interpersonal relations and group processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783. Trends. Retrieved from: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/on-the-cusp-of- adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far/. understand the behaviors of elite youth football coaches during games. Sports Coaching Review, 1, 93-105. Partington, M., & Cushion, C. J. (2012). Performance during performance: using Goffman to Patton, M. Q. (2011). Essentials of utilization-focused evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Petitpas, A. J., Cornelius, A. E., Van Raalte, J. L., & Jones, T. (2005). A framework for planning youth sport programs that foster psychosocial development. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 63-80. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Potrac, P., & Jones, R. (2009). Power, conflict, and cooperation: Toward a micropolitics of Potrac, P., Jones, R. L., Gilbourne, D., & Nelson, L. (2012). ‘Handshakes, BBQs, and bullets’: self-interest, shame and regret in football coaching. Sports Coaching Review, 1, 79-92. Rauscher, L., & Cooky, C. (2016). Ready for anything the world gives her?: A critical look at Rodriguez, J., Nagda, B., Sorensen, N., & Gurin, P. (2018). Engaging race and racism for Rossi, P. H., & Lipsey, M. W, & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M.W., & Henry, G. T. (2019). Evaluation: A systematic approach (8th Ryba, T. V., & Schinke, R. J. (2009). Methodology as a ritualized eurocentrism: Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7, 263-274. Ryba, T. V., & Wright, H. K. (2005). From mental game to cultural praxis: A cultural studies model’s implications for the future of sport psychology. Quest, 57, 192-219. coaching. Quest, 61, 223-236. sports-based positive youth development for girls. Sex Roles, 74, 288-298. socially just intergroup relations: The impact of intergroup dialogue on college campuses in the United States. Multicultural Education Review, 10, 224-245. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 215 An introduction to the special section. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 17, 45–47. athletes. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8, 365-386. praxis and cultural sensitivity: Strategies for self-reflexive sport psychology practice. Quest, 64, 34-46. sport psychology as a pathway to advance in identity and settlement research to practice. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 42, 58-65. competent research and practice in sport and exercise psychology. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 123-142. Ryba T. V., Stambulova N., Si, G., & Schinke R. J. (2013). ISSP position stand: Culturally Schinke, R. J., Blodgett, A. T., Ryba, T. V., Kao, S. F., & Middleton, T. R. F. (2019). Cultural Schinke, R. J., & McGannon, K. R. (2015). Cultural sport psychology and intersecting identities: Schinke, R. J., McGannon, K. R., Parham, W. D., & Lane, A. M. (2012). Toward cultural Singer, J. N. (2005). Understanding racism through the eyes of African American male student- Sorensen, N., Nagda, B. R. A., Gurin, P., & Maxwell, K. E. (2009). Taking a “hands on” approach to diversity in higher education: A critical-dialogic model for effective intergroup interaction. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9, 3–35. Thakral, C., Vasquez, P. L., Bottoms, B. L., Matthews, A. K., Hudson, K. M., & Whitley, S. K. (2016). Understanding difference through dialogue: A first-year experience for college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 9, 130-142. doi:10.1037/a0039935. United States Olympic Committee Quality Coaching Framework (USOC) (2017). Champaign, Waldron, J. (2016). It’s Complicated: Negotiations and complexities of being a lesbian in sport. Walsh, D. S., Ozaeta, J., & Wright, P. M. (2010). Transference of responsibility model goals to Weiss, M. R. (2016). Old wine in a new bottle: Historical reflections on sport as a context for youth development. In N. L. Holt (Ed.) Positive youth development through sport (2nd ed., pp. 7-20). New York, NY: Routledge. Weiss, M. R., & Wiese-Bjornstal, D. M. (2009). Promoting positive youth development through the school environment: exploring the impact of a coaching club program. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15, 15-28. IL: Human Kinetics. Sex Roles, 74, 335-346. physical activity. President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Research Digest, 10, 1-8. Withycombe, J. L. (2011). Intersecting selves: African American female athletes’ experiences of Sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 28, 478-493. 216 Zúñiga, X., B. A. Nagda, Chesler, M., & Cytron-Walker, A. (2007). Intergroup dialogues in higher education: Meaningful learning about social justice. ASHE Higher Education Report Series 32, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Zúñiga, X., Lopez, G. E., & Ford, K. A. (2014). Intergroup dialogue: Engaging difference, social identities, and social justice. London, UK: Routledge. 217