There is a growing body of research on the positive outcomes associated with participation in intergroup dialogue (IGD), a group intervention providing opportunities for sustained communication across social groups (Gurin, Nagda, & Zúñiga, 2013). Less research has examined the experiences of IGD facilitators. To better understand these experiences, we examined perceptions of critical incidents (CIs) in 7 consecutive IGD sessions among 13 IGD facilitators-in-training. We used latent semantic analysis (Landauer & Dumais, 1997) on 77 CI reports to derive pairwise similarity ratings. We then conducted a cluster analysis on these ratings and identified 6 clusters of CIs: (a) managing anxiety and promoting safety, (b) development of the group and the cofacilitator relationship, (c) learning from and with others, (d) vulnerable/meaningful disclosures, (e) difference and conflict, and (f) emotional openness. These clusters of CIs are discussed in terms of their relationships to the IGD literature, the literature on group counseling leadership, and the types of CIs identified by group members in previous research (Kivlighan & Arseneau, 2009).

中文翻译：

---

群体间对话中关键事件的类型学：培训中的协调员的观点。

关于参与群体间对话 (IGD) 相关积极成果的研究越来越多，IGD 是一种群体干预，为跨社会群体的持续沟通提供了机会（Gurin、Nagda 和 Zúñiga，2013 年）。很少有研究检查 IGD 协调员的经验。为了更好地理解这些经历，我们在 13 名接受培训的 IGD 协调员中连续 7 次 IGD 会议中检查了对关键事件 (CI) 的看法。我们对 77 份 CI 报告使用了潜在语义分析（Landauer 和 Dumais，1997）来得出成对相似性评级。然后，我们对这些评级进行了聚类分析，并确定了 6 个 CI 聚类：(a) 管理焦虑和促进安全，(b) 团体发展和共同促进者关系，(c) 向他人学习并与他人学习，(d) 脆弱/有意义的披露，(e) 差异和冲突，以及 (f) 情绪开放。这些 CI 集群根据它们与 IGD 文献、小组咨询领导力的文献以及小组成员在先前研究中确定的 CI 类型的关系进行了讨论（Kivlighan & Arseneau，2009）。