Contemporary cr issues

Workers in the CR field differ about the directions the field should take. Many of these differences are primarily internal to the field, while some relate to public policy and to relations with other fields.

A major internal issue concerns the extent to which CR is and should be a focused discipline or a broad general approach. The vision for many workers in the CR field in the 1950s, of a new interdisciplinary field with a shared research-grounded theory, has not been realized. Some CR workers continue to work toward this vision and some programs and centers are relatively focused onparticular matters for investigation and practice, for example, the Program on Negotiation (PON) based in Harvard University, the Dispute Resolution Research Center at Northwestern University, and the Washington Interest in Negotiation Group at the Johns Hopkins University. Others tend to emphasize a wider range of CR matters, for example, The Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame, the Institute of Global Conflict and Cooperation at the University of California, and the Program on the Analysis and Resolution of Conflicts (PARC) at Syracuse University.

A related issue is the relative emphasis on core topics that are crucial in training and edu­cation or attention to specialized knowledge and training for particular specialties within the broad CR field. Another contentious issue is the degree to which the field is an area of academic study or is a profession, with the academic work focused on providing training for practitioners. In addition, there are debates about certification and codes of conduct and who might accord them over which domains of practice.

An underlying difference is between CR analysts and practitioners who stress the process that is used in waging and settling conflicts and those who emphasize the goals sought and realized.

An enduring matter of controversy relates to the universality of CR theory and prac­tices (Avruch 1998). Obviously, ways of negotiating, forms of mediation, styles of confrontation, and many other aspects of con­ducting and settling conflicts vary to some degree among different national cultures, religious traditions, social classes, gender, and many other social groupings (Abu-Nimer 2003; Cohen 1997; Faure 2005). Moreover, within each of these groups, there are sub-groupings and personal variations. The differences between groups are matters of central tendencies, with great overlaps of similarities. More needs to be known about the effects of situational as well as cultural effects and of the ease with which people learn new ways of contending and settling fights.

Another contentious issue relates to the use of violence in waging conflicts. There is widespread agreement among CR analysts and practitioners that violence is wrong, particularly when violence is used to serve internal needs rather than for its effects upon an adversary. They generally agree that it is morally and practically wrong when it is used in an extremely broad and imprecise manner, and when it is not used in conjunction with other means to achieve constructive goals.

CR workers also differ in their time perspectives. Frequently, CR analysts stress long-term changes and strategies for conflict transformation, while CR practitioners tend to focus on short-term policies of conflict management. Theoretical work tends to give attention to major factors that affect the course of conflicts, which often do not seem amenable to change by acts of any single person or group. Persons engaged in ameliorating a conflict feel pressures to act with urgency, which dictates short-term considerations; these pressures include fund­raising concerns for NGOs and electoral concerns for government officials driven by upcoming elections. More recognition of these different circumstances may help foster useful syntheses of strategies and better sequencing of strategies.

These contentions are manifested in institutions of higher learning among the diverse MA programs, certificate programs, courses, and tracks within university graduate schools, law schools, and other professional schools in the United States and around the world (see www.campusadr. org/Classroom_Building/degreeoprograms. html). PhD programs remain few in number, reflecting the emphasis on training students for applied work, the lack of consensus about CR being a discipline, and the resistance of established disciplines to the entry of a new one.

A major issue relates to the degree and nature of the integration of theory, practice, and research. Each has varied in prominence within the field and all have been regarded as important, in principle.

Another set of issues pertain primarily to external relations. Funding for CR poses a major concern. The Hewlett Foundation ended its 20-year program of support for the conflict resolution program in December, 2004, and no comparable source for sustaining programs of theory, research, and applications has appeared. Tuition charges help support education and training, service fees help sustain NGOs doing applied work, and government agencies and various foundations provide funds for particular research and service projects. All this keeps the work relevant for immediate use. However, the small scale and short duration of such kinds of funding hamper making the long-term and large-scale research assessments and theory building that are needed for creative new growth and appropriate applications.

Coordination of applied work poses other issues. As more and more intervening governmental and nongovernmental orga­nizations appear at the scene of major conflicts, the relations among them and the impact of their relations expand and demand attention. The engagement of many organizations allows for specialized and complementary programs but also produces problems of competition, redundancy, and confusion. Adversaries may try to co-opt some organizations or exploit differences among them. To enhance the possible benefits and minimize the difficulties, a wide range of measures may be taken, ranging from informal ad hoc exchanges of information, regular meetings among organizations in the field, and having one organization be the “lead” agency.

Finally, issues relating to autonomy and professional independence deserve attention. CR analysts as well as practitioners may tailor their work to satisfy the preferences, as they perceive them, of their funders and clients. This diminishes those goals that in their best judgment they might otherwise advance. These risks are enhanced when tasks are contracted out by autocratic or highly ideological entities. Furthermore, as more NGOs are financially dependent on funding by national governments and international organizations, issues regarding autonomy and co-optation grow (Fisher 2006).