Category 2: Interactive, experiential, and intergroup interventions

1. Why do we need social psychology to fight antigypsyism?
2. Psychological interventions to reduce prejudice
3. The unique characteristics of antigypsyism
4. Best practice examples
5. Recommendations

This category contains interventions where the procedures are focused around explicit contact and interactions between the majority group and the Roma population. Here, intergroup contact is the key. The interventions often focus on stimulating perspective taking and raising awareness about group inequalities. They involve interactive activities such as role playing and discussions with Roma/Traveller community members. Experiential learning techniques include discussing group norms, fostering a spirit of cooperation rather than competition, and planning meaningful roles that allow participants to extend their learning in a supportive environment. These principles intuitively match the optimal conditions of intergroup contact theory. In some cases, outgroup members step in the shoes of educators and become role models for the learners (for more information see Seaman et al. [35]).

Equal access to justice for Roma people (Romania)

_________________________________________________________________

https://www.romanicriss.org/ 

Description of the intervention Romani CRISS is an NGO established in April 1993. Their mission is to protect the rights of the Roma population, fight discrimination in all aspects of life such as education, health or social life and provide legal assistance in abuse cases. The project is aimed to fight racism by training lawyers and district attorneys, offering support to Roma victims of abuse and also raising awareness within the Roma communities related to their own rights.

The first step of the project was curriculum development for training district attorneys, judges and lawyers in fighting racism. It was followed by the organization of four training courses for judges, prosecutors and lawyers aimed at fighting racism, especially through criminal law. Within the programme they also investigated cases of abuse by the law enforcement officials’ and provided psychological and medical support for victims.

They raised awareness related to discrimination within the Roma communities by informing them about their procedural and fundamental rights: right to life, right to fair trial, the right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman treatment on punishment; the right to liberty and security.

The key elements of the program were to fight discrimination in a twofold manner. Firstly, to reduce abuse starting at the top with the persons in power positions such as judges, prosecutors, district attorneys and lawyers. Secondly, to inform the Roma communities related to their own rights so that they might be aware of any violation, report it and know how to ask for help and support.

Why it should be considered as best practice The intervention illustrates a best practice as it addresses antigypsyism at an individual level and societal level phenomenon among members of the majority (in position of power) and focuses on Roma communities as well to reduce victimisation and increase empowerment. This project highlights the importance of designing more complex interventions to tackle the problem of antigypsyism in one field.

How this intervention works The programme focuses on both representatives of the majority society and Roma people and relies on theoretical assumptions to reduce antigypsyism among judges, prosecutors and lawyers and empower Roma communities to reduce victimisation.

On societal level, the programme raises awareness about structural inequalities by engaging people in the position of power in learning about Roma discrimination and cases of violation of Roma rights.

On the individual level, the main method is awareness raising and learning about unconscious biases among legal representatives and awareness of structural inequalities directly and creating new norms for behaviour. The programme also aims to raise awareness within the Roma community on their own rights which can increase awareness of structural inequalities and engagement and decrease victimisation.

Scope and Limitations The project requires institutional level cooperation and commitment and can most effectively run in collaboration with state institutions. In order to work effectively with Roma communities, the involvement of local NGOs and representatives may be needed to gain enough trust to share experiences of rights violations.

Platform for dialogue between Roma and non-Roma by UCCU Roma Informal Education NGO (Hungary)

_________________________________________________________________

http://www.uccualapitvany.hu/english/

Description of the intervention The NGO is run by Roma employees and volunteers and engaged in various prejudice reduction intervention programmes mainly for non-Roma secondary school students and members of the community.

Within this intervention, two Roma group leaders spend 1.5 hours with a school class to engage in an informal and interactive dialogue about the situation of Roma people in Hungary and the topic of prejudice. The main method is storytelling: Roma volunteers share their personal stories and opinions as Roma people. Although the intervention has a script, it is always tailored to the questions and expectations of the school group/group of students. The programme gives the opportunity for Roma students who participate in the programme to share their own experiences and initiate discussions about antigypsyism within their own class.

Why it should be considered as best practice This intervention is relatively simple and requires little time and investment on behalf of institutions, therefore it can be suitable to implement in any school setting. The intervention builds on the theory of intergroup contact and provides thought-provoking information that can be deliberated to achieve long-term effect. It offers the opportunity for non-Roma members of the majority to confront their own prejudices, and although it provides only an initial step, it can be the basis for any larger scale social transformations. The programme empowers Roma volunteers and offers contact experiences that are empowering, rather than demobilising.

How this intervention works Discussion educates students by sharing their own stories as Roma people on inter-personal level. They encourage students to speak without taboo about prejudice, so they can respond with their own stories, presenting counter-stereotypical examples. They give a chance for students to get to know Roma people better, encourage them to ask questions and start discussing these issues among themselves.

The programme provides the opportunity for positive personal contact to reduce prejudice, which can demonstrate that Roma people are diverse, and that generalization is not okay. As the main topic of discussion are social inequalities, the contact does not entail the risk of demobilisation among Roma participants.

Scope and Limitations The programme is usually a single occasion which can have limited long-term impact. Furthermore, the effectiveness of such small-scale interventions is hampered by the political context which enables antigypsyism (especially during times when politicians take advantage of rising anti-Roma sentiments). However, within the hostile political context, some teachers take it on themselves to make room for such programmes, but it is difficult to reach new schools without the strong drive of individual teachers.

Compulsory programmes are less effective and can result in reactance among students.

Those groups who consider themselves non-prejudiced are more difficult to work with. This is often a barrier to working with teachers, as prejudice among teachers is considered a taboo subject.

Go to the next category Public Showcasing Interventions

or return to Best practice examples

[35] Seaman, J., Beightol, J., Shirilla, P., & Crawford, B. (2010). Contact Theory as a Framework for Experiential Activities as Diversity Education: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Experiential Education, 32(3), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590903200303