THE CHALLENGES THAT LIE AHEAD

In the last section of the Introduction to this handbook, Morton Deutsch out­lined a series of questions that the field of conflict resolution has been, or is cur­rently, addressing.

Oppression and Conflict

The first question is how can a field that holds notions of neutrality and egal­itarianism so dear work constructively and ethically in situations where inter­group dominance and oppression are the norm? In the spring of 2005, the National Urban League released a study that reported that today, 142 years after the issue of the Emancipation Proclamation, the equality gap between Blacks and Whites in the United States continues to be substantial and in some areas is increasing. Black unemployment remains stagnant at 10.8 per­cent, while White unemployment dropped to 4.7 percent; the health status of Black Americans is 76 percent that of Whites; teachers with less than three years’ experience are teaching in minority schools at twice the rate that they teach in White schools; and Blacks are three times more likely to become prisoners once arrested than Whites. These are just a few examples of the extra­ordinary disparities in equality between groups that are becoming more and more pronounced worldwide. In the 1990s, the Minorities at Risk Project doc­umented a total of 275 minority groups at risk for ethnopolitical conflict in 116 nations. This constitutes 17.4 percent of the world’s population who belong to groups disadvantaged due to discriminatory practices or currently politically organized to defend their interests.

The substantial scholarship on oppression, particularly in the social sciences, does an excellent job of describing the intractability of systems of dominance and conflict (see, for example, Sidanius and Pratto, 1999), but offers little utility for interrupting patterns of injustice or for sustaining constructive changes in the balance of power when they do occur. Thus, it becomes paramount for con­flict scholars and practitioners in the field to identify the processes and condi­tions that can undo the dynamics of oppression at individual and group levels, and thus enable constructive conflict resolution processes to work in tandem with those that promote justice.

Since 2002, we have conducted a faculty seminar at our center to explore and develop comprehensive conceptual models for addressing oppression and con­flict. The main focus of the seminar has been on strategies that can ameliorate the increasing gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” in institutions and societies worldwide. This investigation culminated in a two-day working con­ference at Teachers College, Columbia University in spring 2004, which brought together eighty invited participants from a wide variety of academic disciplines (for example, economics, psychology, politics, and education) and professional practice areas (scholars, activists, philanthropists, students), focused on gener­ating strategies for interrupting oppression and sustaining justice. The work from this meeting resulted in the development of a new cross-sector network of individuals interested in supporting each other in their work in this area, a Web site of the proceedings (see http://www.tc.columbia.edu/icccr/iosj.htm), and in a special issue of Social Justice Research, published in 2006.

Adam Curle (1971) proposed a practical model for conceptualizing the complementarities between justice-related activities (such as advocacy and consciousness-raising campaigns) and constructive conflict resolution. (See Lederach, 1997 for more detail.) He suggested that sustainable peace can be achieved progressively through four stages in situations characterized by oppres­sion. In the first stage, conflict is “hidden” to some of the parties because they are unaware of the imbalances of power and injustices that affect their lives. Here, activities or events resulting in conscientization (erasing ignorance and raising awareness of inequalities and inequities) can move the conflict forward. An increase in awareness of injustice leads to the second stage, confrontation, when demands for change from the weaker party bring the conflict to the sur­face. Under some conditions, these confrontations result in the stage of negoti­ations, which is aimed at achieving a rebalancing of power in the relationship in order for those in low power to increase their capacities to address their basic needs. Successful negotiations can move the conflict to the final stage of sus­tainable peace, if they lead to a restructuring of the relationship that addresses the substantive and procedural concerns of those involved. This model empha­sizes the essential relationship between conflict and justice and the important complementarities of these different areas of practice.

Readiness

The second question is how can readiness to resolve conflict constructively be fostered in individuals, groups, and nations?

This raises many issues, several of which were touched on in the chapters on personality, intractable conflict, training, change, and large-group interven­tion in this volume. However, many questions remain.

The first task is, quite often, simply to broaden people’s awareness that there are options available to them when in conflict other than to fight or flee. This is largely what most preliminary training or coursework in conflict resolution attempts to achieve: to increase people’s understanding of their own competi­tive or avoidant tendencies in conflict and of the fact that they have a broader menu of available options. For these educational experiences to be successful, it is important that they effectively engage and inspire students sufficiently to motivate them to try something new and to strengthen their skills at resolving conflict constructively.

A separate but related concern with regard to readiness has to do with our ability as third parties to assess and engender a degree of authentic readiness for disputants involved in a conflict. Collaborative negotiation and mediation are voluntary processes. They work only when the disputants engage in them willingly, by choice, if they are to help to make real progress toward under­standing each other’s needs and reaching agreement. At times, disputants may “act cooperative” during a negotiation process, while having no intention of following through once an agreement has been reached. This is related to the distinction between compliance and commitment. (See Chapter Twenty for fur­ther discussion.) This is thought to have occurred at the Cambodian Peace Accords in the mid-1990s, an exemplary collaborative peace process that fell apart upon implementation because the parties reneged on the agreement.

Systems must also be readied. Research has shown that unless schools and districts are sufficiently motivated to embrace a change initiative such as insti­tuting a program of conflict resolution training, it is likely to fail. This readiness must exist for a majority of the system, including regents, board members, superintendents, principals, teachers, other professional staff, students, and parents. One method for assessing organizational readiness in schools was used in the Learning Communities Project, initiated by the New York City Resolving Conflict Creatively Program, or RCCP (Roderick, 1998; see also the last part of Chapter Thirty-Six). For a school to be included in the project, 70 percent or more of the faculty must vote in favor of its implementation. This approach could be taken for entire school districts or even for statewide school initia­tives. Administrators and conflict practitioners need to work to develop innov­ative methods of assessing and fostering readiness throughout these and other systems.

Finally, awareness of constructive responses to conflict needs to be wide­spread among the general population. One way of attaining this is for the field to attempt educating prestigious individuals in high-profile positions within a given society. In 1995, a campaign was initiated in Australia through the leader­ship of the nationwide Conflict Resolution Network (CRN), which sought to influence the campaign process of local, state, and federal elections in that coun­try. Their basic objective was to ensure high-level political dialogue by encour­aging the candidates to adopt an orientation to issues, not insults; dialogue, not debate; and collaboration, not confrontation. Immediate response to the cam­paign was very positive, with 32 percent of candidates for their House of Repre­sentatives committing to the CRN conflict-resolving principles.

These efforts hope to foster a new type of political process, and a govern­ment that models respect, care, and common sense in addressing the issues, conflicts, and visions of the people it represents. A general shift in attitude and response to conflict could come about if those in influential positions of high visibility (political leaders; sports, entertainment, and media celebrities; and business leaders) were to model constructive strategies and skills.

Change Agents

Third, how can we help people in the field of conflict resolution understand and develop skills in their roles as change agents?

The field is increasingly aware of the fact that very often conflict profession­als have to act as change agents within the systems in which they work. Whether intervening in a professional relationship, a family, an organization, a community, or a nation, you will find it useful to think about conflict resolu­tion systemically. This has two implications, one practical and one political. The practical concerns the need to broaden understanding of what we do. Much of the emphasis of past work in the field has been on training conflict specialists in the skills of getting disputants to the table, facilitating a constructive process, and reaching an agreement. However, there is increasing recognition of the prob­lems that occur in implementation, both in helping to ensure that disputants can effectively implement their agreements and in implementing effective medi­ation and training programs within larger systems.

In the case of disputes between individuals, it is not uncommon for good agreements to fall apart because of problems with implementation or changes that occur after the agreement is made. Conflict specialists need to be better trained to help disputants anticipate future problems and to build in feedback mechanisms so that if problems occur with implementation, the disputants will attempt to resolve them collaboratively or return to the table to work them out.

Considerable challenges can also occur in implementing mediation or training programs within systems. There is increasing recognition of the difficulties of implementing any lasting change in systems with regard to dispute resolution mechanisms and the need to identify the processes and conditions that give rise to successful implementation. Introducing cooperation and conflict resolution con­cepts and practices into systems often involves, in a sense, a paradigm shift in how people see and approach differences. Fostering this type of fundamental change in the norms and practices of a system requires that conflict specialists have the nec­essary skills to motivate and persuade, organize, mobilize, and institutionalize the change. These skills need to be adequately integrated into the training of conflict specialists who work in systems, particularly complex ones.

The second implication of defining our work in terms of change concerns the conflict resolver’s level of awareness of the political repercussions of his or her work. Intervening in part of any system in some way affects the whole system. If one department in an organization undergoes a substantial change in how it functions, this is likely to have an impact on the entire organization. It is there­fore important for the intervenor to be informed about the political context in which she or he works and to be aware that the intervention has a likely impact on the balance of power existing within the system.

This is both a moral and a practical obligation. In The Promise of Mediation (1994), Bush and Folger discussed this issue under the heading “The Oppres­sion Story” of mediation. They argued that in some settings, mediation can serve to oppress those in low power by masking patterns of injustice within sys­tems or by allowing those in high power to set the agenda and intimidate. Con­flict specialists must be trained to think in terms of the social and political processes within organizations and to reflect critically on their own role in the power dynamics within institutions so that they can work fairly and effectively. Furthermore, the moral obligation of the conflict specialist extends beyond understanding his or her impact on power dynamics and toward undoing sys­temic injustices that may exist.

The Importance of Cultural Differences

The forth challenging issue is how can our growing recognition of the impor­tance of cultural differences be used to improve the practice of constructive con­flict resolution and to help develop practical theories in this area that are universally valid?

Most scientific theories and models of practice have the laudable aim of being universally true. Theorists commonly assume that the basic ideas in the theories related to cooperation and competition, equity theory, social judgment, commu­nication, self-control, persuasion, and so on are applicable to, say, the aborigines in Kakadu as much as to Park Avenue sophisticates, to people living in caves as well as to astronauts. However, most theories are developed in particular societies with their particular cultures, gender roles, and other characteristics that are often invis­ible to the theoreticians.

Theorists often do not articulate their assumptions about the relations between the theory and the social context in which it is to be applied. Does a theory developed in the United States implicitly assume that the social context is one in which there is a market economy and individualistic values are strongly held? If so, it may be applicable only in social contexts similar to the ones in which it was developed. There is a strong need for the field of conflict resolution, and the social sciences generally, to develop explicit knowledge about the social context that is assumed in its relevant theories.

Even if the basic ideas of a theory are applicable in a variety of social con­texts, specific implementation of its ideas always depends on the characteristics of the social context in which they are applied. Thus, effective implementation of many of the theoretical ideas in this book depends on whether a practitioner is working in a social context (such as the American one) that is predominantly individualistic, has low-power distances, is strongly task oriented, has low uncertainty avoidance, and is masculine and modern or in a social context that differs significantly on any of these dimensions.

In general, scholars and practitioners can respond to these concerns in sev­eral ways. First, it is important that both scholars and practitioners be aware of their own gendered, cultural, and societal mind-sets with regard to their work. (See Fisher, 1988.) Kimmel (Chapter Twenty-Eight) offers a useful stage model for self-examination in this area along a dimension from ethnocentricism to understanding. Some degree of mindfulness of our own biases and assumptions can help us examine our theories, models, and practices for similar biases and make them explicit.

Second, a significant amount of work has been conducted in the last two decades on identifying the psychological dimensions on which people differ due to variations in culture, ethnicity, religion, and gender. (See Hofstede, 1980; Kolb and Coolidge, 1991; Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Segall, Lonner, and Berry, 1998.) Conflict specialists working cross-culturally need to be informed about these dimensions and be mindful of how they affect the way people make meaning in conflict situations.

Third, scholars and practitioners need to better distinguish those elements of conflict resolution that are universal and therefore applicable across cultures from those that are not. For example, Deutsch (in Chapter One) has suggested that specific values such as reciprocity and nonviolence universally occur in enduring, voluntary, and significant relations of cooperation and constructive conflict resolution. The cross-cultural universality of the linkage between such values and constructive conflict resolution is different from the culturally spe­cific usefulness of certain prescribed processes (such as recommendations to “separate the people from the problem,” to openly express one’s needs, or to take an analytical approach to understanding the issues); these are likely to vary con­siderably across cultures, gender, class, and so on.

Lederach (1995) has suggested practicing an “elicitive” approach when offer­ing conflict resolution training across cultures. He argues that “prescriptive” approaches to training, which view the trainer as the expert and participants as passive recipients of predetermined knowledge, models, and skills, are often inappropriate in many cultures. Lederach advocates an approach in which the context expertise of the participants is emphasized and combined with the process and content expertise of the trainer, so that the trainer and the participants together create a new model of constructive conflict resolution that is specifi­cally suited to the resources and constraints of the particular social context in which the participants are embedded.

Conflict Within the Field of Conflict Resolution

Fifth, given the existence of much conflict in the field of conflict resolution (as among the scholarly disciplines, among theorists, researchers, and practition­ers; and among training programs and graduate studies for scarce resources— students, clients, grants, and so on), how can the field learn to better walk its talk and model how conflicts can be resolved constructively?

The field of conflict resolution has become, ironically, a fairly competitive arena. This competition and the resulting conflict between individuals, disci­plines, programs, and institutions pose serious challenges to progress in our field.

For example, the various scholarly disciplines often approach conflict from contrasting perspectives. Take a dispute over water rights between two neigh­boring tribal groups. A social psychologist is first concerned with the charac­teristics of the parties, their prior relationship, the strategies and tactics they use in the dispute, their respective needs in the situation, escalatory dynamics, and so on. A legal scholar working in this area, however, is concerned with prior treaties or contracts, land rights, the existence of legal precedents, and so on. A scholar of international affairs may be oriented to contextual or structural fac­tors such as the balance of power in the dispute or the national or regional sources and implications of the conflict. Scholars from anthropology, business, history, and economics may emphasize still other aspects of the situation.

At one level, these orientations are due simply to the varieties of educational training and task orientation. At a deeper level, however, beneath many of the disciplinary contrasts are ideological and value differences. If conflict is believed to exist within a unitary ideological frame (where society is seen as an integrated whole in which the interests of the individual and society are one) as opposed to a radical frame (in which antagonistic class interests are seen as comprising society), it requires one kind of response and not another. Similarly, whether one’s primary orientation to conflict is competitive or cooperative dictates strategy.

These and other variations in how conflict is understood and approached typ­ically come into conflict themselves when scholars or practitioners attempt to work together. These days, because many of the significant conflicts that soci­eties face are rooted in political, economic, and social histories and are fueled by social psychological dynamics, we are finding that analysis and resolution cannot be adequately conducted from any one disciplinary perspective; a mul­tidisciplinary framework is required. But the traditional reward systems and ori­entations of the disciplines lessen the chances for such an approach. Combining traditional disciplinary paradigms and methodologies with multidisciplinary ones is a daunting task, though an essential one if the field of conflict resolu­tion is to offer effective solutions to some of the world’s most perplexing problems.

Second, there is growing concern in the field of conflict resolution over the substantial gap between theory and practice. As described by Deutsch in the Introduction, many practitioners of conflict resolution dismiss (or are simply unaware of) the contributions of theorists and researchers, particularly if the research challenges their own opinions or methods. At the same time, scholars often fail to use the expertise of highly skilled practitioners in their development of theory, and research designs often fail to take into account what practitioners and policy makers want or need to know. In fact, an evaluation of the eighteen, mostly university-based, Hewlett Theory Centers found that the work of most practitioners surveyed was largely unaffected by the important contributions generated by the various centers (theory, publications, and so forth). At the same time, much of the research conducted at these centers was found to be “removed from practice realities and constraints.” This lack of effective collab­oration between scholars and practitioners hinders the development of the field and is a significant loss for both scholars and practitioners.

There exists an interesting problem when trying to enhance the connections between theory and practice. It is embodied in this handbook, which is geared more toward the scholarly, academic modes (learning through reading), rather than the practice mode (learning through doing). The issue is how can we foster the growth of knowledge in this field by using more practical modalities? We have made efforts on two fronts in this regard. One way we have done so in this handbook is by asking those trained in the knowledge aspects of conflict, but whose work lies primarily in its practice, to contribute chapters (see, for, example, Burke; Sole; Bunker; Marcus; Raider, Coleman, and Gerson; and Bartoli and Psimopoulos). Though not an equal balance, we have strived for a greater contribution from the practice side in this second edition of the book. A second way we have strived to strengthen the linkage is that we have asked contributors to devote a section of each chapter to the implications of their contributions to the arena of practice.

A curious and related matter concerns the distinction between knowledge and skill in the area of conflict resolution (a distinction written about by Sole in Chapter Thirty-Five). Unlike other scholarly areas, in the field of conflict studies, we have all experienced conflicts: within ourselves, with other people, within and between groups we belong to, and so forth. That is, we have more skill prac­tice than theoretical knowledge in both well and poorly resolved conflicts. So, even the most scholarly oriented conflict student continues to have many oppor­tunities to increase his skill by practicing with the very concepts he is studying. This is less likely to be the case in other areas of scholarship (for example, the study of comparative political systems). In other words, there is more of an inher­ent connection between theory and practice in the conflict field.

The field will be well-served if we work harder at practicing what we preach and learn to work together to resolve the conflicts that exist across orientations, organizations, disciplines, and between theory and practice. There is much strength in the diversity of our field, but we must come together to realize it.

Learning to Learn

The sixth challenge is how can we learn to learn about our methods and practice?

The field of conflict resolution has been criticized for being broad, but not deep. The issue is whether work in this area is both based on sound theoretical think­ing and systematically studied and evaluated in a manner that allows the field to grow. We believe this volume attests to the rich theoretical foundations of the field. However, much of the practice of conflict resolution is not evaluated or poorly eval­uated. This is a lost opportunity to learn from our collective work, to understand the conditions under which certain tactics and strategies are more or less effective, and to build on what is effective and discard what is not. This type of research is still uncommon, despite its increase in the past ten years. (See Chapter Thirty-Six.) Systematic evaluation of conflict resolution practices needs to be conceptualized and implemented at the onset of intervention, not as an afterthought. Addition­ally, there would be much benefit from longitudinal studies examining the long­term effects of training and mediation programs.

Encouraging Innovation

Finally, how can we foster creative innovation in our thinking and our practice of resolving conflict constructively?

Betty Reardon, a renowned peace educator, has stated that “the failure to achieve peace is in essence a failure of the imagination.” In addition to studying what we already do, it is essential that we develop new methods and ways of thinking about conflict that move beyond our current approaches. As the nature of the conflicts that we face changes, so must our thinking and our strategies for resolution. This often requires adopting a novel point of view. (See Chapter Seventeen.) We must continuously view our current understanding of conflict and conflict resolution as merely a beginning—the first few steps toward the much needed means for finding “a better way” of improving and enhancing human conflict interaction.