TYPES OF RESEARCH

There are many kinds of research, all of which have merit. They have differing purposes and often require varying types of skill. There is a tendency among both researchers and practitioners to derogate research that does not satisfy their specific needs or that does not require their particular kind of expertise.

We now turn to a discussion of several types of research that are relevant to conflict resolution: basic research, developmental research, field research, con­sumer research, and action research. Some researchers work primarily in one type; others move back and forth among them. We start our list with a discus­sion of basic research, but we do not assume the natural flow is unidirectional from basic to developmental research, and so forth. The flow is (and should usually be) bidirectional: basic does not mean initial.

Basic Research

There are many unanswered questions basic to knowledge and practice in the field of conflict resolution. To illustrate just a few:

• What is the nature of the skills involved in constructive conflict resolu­tion?

• What determines when a conflict is ripe for intervention or mediation? What gives rise to intractable conflict, and how can it be changed constructively?

• What are the basic dimensions along which different cultures vary in their response to and management of conflict?

• How can people learn to control transference and countertransference (to use psychoanalytic terms) so that their emotional vulnerability does not lead to counterproductive behavior during conflict?

• What are the important similarities and differences in conflict processes at the interpersonal, intergroup, and international levels?

• What are reliable, valid, and reasonably precise ways of measuring the knowledge, attitudes, and skills involved in constructive conflict resolution?

• What are the intervening psychological processes that lead to enduring and generalized change in managing conflict, and what are the psycho­logical and social consequences of such change?

• What are the most effective ways of dealing with difficult conflict and difficult people?

• What type of value system is implicit in the current practice of conflict resolution?

These are only a few of the important questions that must be addressed if we are to have the kind of knowledge that is useful for those interested in mak­ing conflict constructive—whether it be in families, schools, industry, commu­nity, or across ethnic and international lines.

Developmental Research

Much developmental research is concerned with helping to shape effective educational and training programs in this area. Such research is concerned with identifying the best ways of aiding people to acquire the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary for constructive conflict resolution by answering such questions as how should something be taught (for example, using what type of teaching methods or pedagogy)? What should be taught (using what curriculum)? For how long? Who should do the teaching? In what circum­stances? With what teaching aids? These best ways are apt to vary as a func­tion of the age, educational level, cultural group, and personality of the children and adults involved.

There is a bidirectional link between developmental and basic research. To assess and compare the changes resulting from various educational and train­ing programs, it is necessary to know what changes these programs were seeking to induce and also to develop valid and reliable measuring instruments and pro­cedures for measuring these changes. We are now at the point where such instruments and procedures are being created and tested. One example is the conceptual framework for comparative case analysis of interactive conflict res­olution by D’Estree, Fast, Weiss, and Jakobsen (2001). This framework was devised as a tool that can be used to evaluate and compare the results of a diverse set of conflict resolution initiatives. The framework is described in the final section of this chapter. Another example is the action evaluation research initiative (Rothman, 1997, 2005; Rothman and Friedman, 2005; Rothman and Land, 2004; Ross, 2001), a process that has been developed (though still being tested and refined) to help CRIs identify the changes they seek to create, and to evaluate whether and how those changes have occurred. This project is also described at the end of this chapter.

Field Research

Much developmental research can be done in experimental classrooms or work­shops. However, field research is needed to identify the features of political sys­tems, cultures, and organizations that facilitate or hinder effective CRIs. What type of effects do CRIs have with populations living under conditions of intractable ethnic conflict? What kind of culture is most favorable to such ini­tiatives, and what kind makes it unfeasible or ineffective? Which levels in an organizational hierarchy must be knowledgeable and supportive of a CRI for it to be effective? In schools, what type of CRI model should be employed: extracurricular activity, a specific course in CR, an infusion model in all school courses, use of constructive controversy, or all of the above? Is cooperative learning a necessary precondition or a complement to a CRI? What criteria should be employed in selecting CR practitioners? And so forth.

Most of these questions have to be asked and answered in terms of the spe­cific characteristics of an individual setting, taking into account the resources, organization, personnel, population, and social environment. While this type of research can be difficult and expensive (in both time and money) to conduct, examples of it can be found in the conflict literature. Such research has been conducted on conflict resolution encounters that have taken place over the past few decades between parties in ethnic conflict, including those between Israelis and Palestinians (see Abu-Nimer, 1999, 2004; Kelman, 1995, 1998; Maoz, 2004, 2005) and Greek and Turkish Cypriots (Angelica, 2005; Rothman, 1999), among others, both internationally and domestically.

Consumer Research

It would be valuable to have periodic surveys of where CRIs are taking place, who is participating, what kind of qualification the practitioners have, and so on.

Most of the research on CRIs in organizations has been essentially study of “consumer satisfaction.” The research has usually involved studying the effects of CRIs in a particular classroom, workshop, or institution. Results are quite consistent in indicating a considerable degree of approval among those exposed to CRIs, whether in the role of practitioner or participant. This is indeed encour­aging, but awareness of the Hawthorne effect suggests both caution in our con­clusions and the need to go considerably beyond consumer satisfaction research. (The Hawthorne effect, of course, refers to research suggesting that almost every program that is introduced has beneficial effects on the people involved simply because of the increased attention they receive.)

Action Research

Action research is a term originally employed by Kurt Lewin (1946) to refer to research linked to social action. To be successful, it requires active collabora­tion between the action personnel—the practitioners and participants—and the research personnel. What the action personnel do can be guided by feedback from the research concerning the effectiveness of their actions. To study the processes involved in successfully producing a change (or failing to do so) in a well-controlled, systematic manner, the researchers depend on the action per­sonnel being cooperative. Most research on CRIs in the field—no matter how it is otherwise labeled—is a form of action research.

There are two main ways in which successful collaboration with practitioners increases the likelihood that research findings are used. First, participation usu­ally raises the practitioners’ interest in the research and its possible usefulness. Second, collaboration with practitioners helps to ensure that the research is rel­evant to problems as they appear in the actual work of the practitioners and the functioning of the organization in which their practice is embedded.

However, there are many potential sources of difficulty in this collaboration. It is time-consuming and hence often burdensome and expensive to both the practitioners and researchers. Also, friction may occur because of the disparate goals and standards of the two partners: one is concerned with improving exist­ing services, the other with advancing knowledge of a given phenomenon. The practitioner may well become impatient with the researcher’s attempt to have well-controlled independent variables and the intrusiveness involved in exten­sive measuring of dependent variables. The researcher may become exasper­ated with the practitioner’s improvisation and reluctance to sacrifice time from other activities to achieve the research objectives. In addition, there is often much evaluation apprehension on both sides: the practitioners are concerned that, wittingly or unwittingly, they will be evaluated by the research findings; the researchers fear that their peers will view their research as not being suffi­ciently well controlled to have any merit.