The Interfaces of Community Groups and Segments

Pursuing community engagement may reveal specific dimensions of conflict that otherwise may remain invisible. As mentioned above, two questions with respect to research on or inter­vention in community conflict are (a) Does the conflict predate the researchers’ engagement? and (b) Is the conflict an explicit focus of the research? We repeat these questions because all engaged scholars need to be aware of changes in the groups and communities we are investi­gating and with whom we are partnering.

In the course of community life, groups develop a vested interest in maintaining rela­tionships with other groups, whether their aims are social, political, or economic. In this sense, groups must manage multiple levels and sites of conflict between themselves and other entities, such that disagreements and disentanglements are handled effectively and with minimal damage (Beyer-Hermsen, 2001). The commitment that these groups have to each other and to their overall membership as part of the community presents unique chal­lenges and limitations as to how such conflicts may be resolved. With respect to communica­tion researchers’ involvement in communi­ties, a wide range of domains may feature or lead to conflict. These include city planning and urban development, public education, local political life, immigration, crisis response and mitigation, health-related campaigns and advocacy, toxic exposure and environmental cleanup, combating homelessness, neighbor­hood gardening, and cross-neighborhood rela­tions. Importantly, all of these social issues and problems now have engaged research associated with them (see, e.g., Diener & Liese, 2009; Welch & Billig, 2004).

Some community issues necessarily involve the management of complex intergroup rela­tions (see Harwood & Giles, 2005). The scope and scale of such issues can make for meaningful, effective solutions initiated by parties acting alone. But in many cases, resolu­tion seems to be a remote possibility without some sort of third-party intervention, even if largely nondirective and invitational in nature. The complexity of intergroup dynamics and the role for outside intervention are revealed in two issues: promoting healthy racial and ethnic intergroup relations and pursuing envi­ronmental protection and advocacy.

The desire to have one’s voice be heard and taken seriously is important in most community contexts. Sometimes, opportuni­ties for discussion and collaboration are so few that community group members need to innovate to establish place for dialogue. For example, the search by members of African American communities for a place to discuss critical “Black issues,” resulted in the cre­ation of forums through online social media (Byrne, 2007). The disproportionate lack of attention given to Black issues and voices in mainstream media outlets (i.e., television, radio) also represents a favored attention to White issues and voices. Limited opportunity to communicate the needs or issues of a com­munity can amplify feelings of alienation and feed outsiders’ caricatures and stereotypes of that community’s issues. Community engage­ment scholars have noted increased involve­ment and diversity in the workplace through facilitation of intergroup dialogues (Nagda & Zuniga, 2003).

Cities and regions face a variety of chal­lenges, from resource management, to social service access, to cross-community conflict. As certain metropolitan areas continue to grow and search for agreeable ways to manage such growth, land becomes a focal point of decision and struggle. Changing and expanding residen­tial zones create conflict over land preserved or affected by growth. For example, the “Save Our Springs Alliance,” based in Austin, Texas, has successfully lobbied city legislatures and com­munity groups to raise awareness on the poten­tially harmful effects of approving commercial and residential zoning on the overall ecol­ogy of Austin’s traditionally preserved natural resources. Ultimately, the conflict focused on city groups with an interest in preservation of natural beauty and healthy resources. Building on these successful efforts, the “SOS Alliance” also successfully fought a major development proposal for the Barton Creek watershed. Debates regarding the preservation of natural resources in municipalities are hardly pecu­liar to the United States, especially as major community conflicts have erupted across the globe over oil, water, gold, and diamonds (Krolikowska et al., 2007).