This dissertation is a qualitative case study investigating a series of Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) funded post 9/11 dialogues. The case study is intended to be both descriptive and theory-building, providing empirically-grounded insights into what occurred during the dialogues, which is useful for evaluation, and building theory around alleged narrative shifts that may occur during dialogue.; A thematic study of the dialogues' transcripts uncovered several dominant themes within the community's deliberations: a pattern of traumas exacerbated by a lack of sufficient time to heal after political violence and threatening events; societal shifts toward patriotism and nationalism leading to social marginalization and isolation at the community level; acute experiences of discrimination and fear among Muslim and Arab citizens following the 9/11 attacks; and widespread confusion and powerlessness to grapple with the political issues raised by the events.; A grounded theory investigation into the dialogues' dynamics showed that shifts (both relational and narrative) occur during dialogues, that process models and facilitator skills have limited influence on promoting these shifts, and that the skills and abilities of individual dialogue participants can yield the greatest contributions to a dialogue's success.
展开▼
