THE CONTACT THEORY

Both Carpenter (1995a) and Hewstone et al (1994) designed their IPE programmes around creating the appropriate conditions for successful contact between the different professional groups involved. They did not specifically define successful contact but this is presumed to be linked to the objectives of the programme. These were to examine similarities and differences in attitudes and skills of the members of the other profession, acquire knowledge of the role of professions and to explore methods of working together co-operatively. They were among few authors in the field of multiprofessional education who attempted to place their IPE programme in any theoretical context. The theory they selected as being relevant to interprofessional education was based upon the Contact Hypothesis.

It is unclear who the originator of the contact hypothesis was. The principle, upon which it is based, that contact between members of different groups will improve relations between them, goes back to Allport's (1954) book The Nature of Prejudice. Although Amir (1969) quotes Saengar (1953), Williams (1947) and Rose (1948) as being key contributors. Much of the early work on the contact hypothesis was developed by studying ethnic and racial groups particularly the Jews and the Arabs in Israel, the blacks and the whites in the United States and the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

But is this hypothesis relevant to studies involving different professional groups?

3.6.1 The contact hypothesis and its relevance to interprofessional relations.

There are several similarities between the professional, racial and ethnic groups that suggest that the contact hypothesis might be relevant across each group. As discussed in chapter two, there is tribalism within the healthcare professions. They have their own codes of conduct, they limit membership to their group, and promote their own culture. Atkins (1998) cites research by social psychologists, sociologists and social anthropologists, which describe specialist training schools for professions that transmit a “unique culture”. There is also evidence of stereotyping (Carpenter 1995b) within healthcare a feature found within racial and ethnic groups.

In addition Allport (1954/1979) states that there are several areas of intergroup contact for which the contact hypothesis may be relevant. These included ‘occupational’ settings (p263).

3.6.2 The contact hypothesis explained

The hypothesis has been discussed widely in social psychology and according to Pettigrew (1975) is important for its rare theoretical status and impact on social policy. Its importance in interprofessional education is summed up by Wittig (1998) who describes the contact hypothesis as:

..”one of the most researched theoretical constructs for designing and evaluating programs to promote more positive intergroup relations.”

Allport’s (1954/1979) hypothesis suggests that positive effects of intergroup contact occur only when four conditions are met. These are equal group status within the given situation; common goals; intergroup co-operation; and the support of authorities, law and custom. Amir (1969 pp338) discussed these principles and examined some of the early evidence that has evolved from contact studies. He identified (see table 3) the favourable conditions, that tend to reduce prejudice and promote successful contact and the unfavourable ones, which might inhibit any positive effect.

The favourable conditions

1. Equal status between members of the group

2. When an "authority" and/or the social climate are in favour of and promote the intergroup contact.

3. When the contact is of an intimate rather than a casual nature. 4. When the intergroup contact is pleasant or rewarding.

5. When members of both groups interact in functionally important activities or develop common goals that are higher ranking in importance than the individual goals of each group.

The unfavourable conditions

1. When the contact situation produces competition between groups. 2. When the contact is unpleasant, involuntary or tension laden

3. When the prestige or the status of one group is lowered as a result of the contact situation

4. When members of the group or the group as a whole are in a state of frustration

5. When the groups have moral or ethnic standards which are objectionable to each other

6. In case of a majority/minority group, when the members of the

minority group are of a lower status or are lower in any relevant characteristic than the members of the majority group

(Amir 1969 pp338)

Table 3: The favourable and unfavourable conditions which constitute the contact hypothesis

When compared to Allport’s four conditions Amir has ostensibly, omitted the co-operation condition. However when looking at the unfavourable conditions competitiveness is cited which can be considered to be the antithesis of co-operation. He has also included two new ones that of intimate and rewarding contact. These could be considered as elements of a friendly contact experience.

Although the contact hypothesis is now over 30 years old Pettigrew (1998) reviews both initial and recent empirical evidence over this time which cites this hypothesis. He states that most studies report positive contact effects even in situations lacking key conditions. He identifies several problems with the hypothesis that will be discussed shortly.

On reflecting upon the use of this hypothesis which appears to have been successfully applied over 30 years it seems unusual that it should still be called a hypothesis. If so much research has supported the principles of this hypothesis why is it not now the contact theory? Interestingly Pettigrew’s (1998) article which offers a critique and evidence for development of the contact hypothesis is entitled Intergroup Contact Theory. Following Personal Communication with Pettigrew (email 12.4.01 appendix 3) He suggested that there was sufficient evidence now for the Contact hypothesis to become a Contact theory. This raises several interesting questions. What is theory? what is a hypothesis? and when does a hypothesis become a theory? My set discussed this issue early on in our action learning experience. Several meetings were given over to it and the key elements of the discussion supported by examples from the literature will now be debated.