NEWSLETTER SPECIAL ISSUE: November, 1990 THE SUMMER 1990 HEWLETT CENTERS CONFERENCE AND THE FUND FOR RESEARCH IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION (FRDR) SUMMER CONFERENCE CONFERENCE SUMMARIES* ________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION ________________________________________________________________________ This summer the Consortium hosted a meeting of the 15 Hewlett-funded Conflict Resolution Theory Development Centers. The purpose of the meeting was to stimulate the exchange of ideas between centers and to explore ways in which the centers might further collaborate. Discussions were designed to identify and examine current critical questions in the field and to discuss how these questions might be addressed and the field advanced. One week before this conference, the Fund for Research in Dispute Resolution held a similar conference, at which the FRDR Board and invited guests assessed current trends and opportunities in disputing research and examined possible new directions for FRDR's funding priorities. This special issue describes these conferences in some detail. It will be followed by a regular newsletter, detailing other Consortium activities and business. ________________________________________________________________________ *Published by the Conflict Resolution Consortium. Readers should note that these summaries are not "official" proceedings or summaries of either conference. FRDR is preparing a book of proceedings which will summarize its conference much more fully; a committee of Hewlett Center representatives is also in the process of preparing an "official" summary of the Hewlett Conference for publication elsewhere. These summaries are simply meant to give our view of these two conferences for the use of Consortium members, affiliates, and other interested readers. For more information contact Guy Burgess or Heidi Burgess, Consortium Co-Directors, Campus Box 327, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 80309-0327. (303)492-1635. HEWLETT CENTERS MEETING ________________________________________________________________________ Representatives of fourteen of the 15 Hewlett-funded Conflict Resolution Centers met for a four day conference in Estes Park, Colorado in June of this year. The purpose of the meeting was to stimulate the exchange of ideas between centers and to explore ways in which the centers might further collaborate. Both plenary and small group sessions were structured to examine current critical questions in the field and to discuss how these questions might be addressed and the field advanced. META-QUESTIONS ________________________________________________________________________ The conference started with a discussion of four "meta-research questions" -- questions which the organizers saw as cutting across all the more traditional process and domain distinctions. These questions were: 1) How does conflict resolution affect access to and attainment of justice and social transformation? 2) What is the cultural context of conflict resolution? 3) What is the impact of race and gender in conflict resolution? 4) How can theory and practice be better integrated? In answer to the first question, participants saw a need to distinguish between macro and micro-level effects of conflict resolution processes. So far, most evaluation of conflict resolution processes has focused on the micro (individual) level, primarily addressing client satisfaction. Little has been done to evaluate the macro (societal) level effects of conflict resolution processes. Participants felt that many important questions are being overlooked in the current emphasis on client satisfaction. For instance: Is social justice well served by alternative dispute resolution processes? Are low-power groups being empowered, or further exploited? Are important and socially necessary conflicts being repressed, and hence not adequately resolved? Is social transformation being facilitated or stifled? Is social transformation an appropriate goal of ADR? Is it different from settlement or resolution? If so, how? If social transformation is an appropriate goal of conflict resolution, how can it be brought about? What are the principles, the theories, the strategies? How does it involve the surfacing or escalation of conflict as opposed to the management or resolution of conflict? These questions were not answered. However, most discussants seemed to agree with Kenneth Boulding's comment that "the macro consequences are often extraordinarily different from the micro consequences. . . most of the people who are affected by decisions made through conflict resolution [processes] aren't present during the negotiations." "One of the tasks of the academic community," said Boulding (Colorado), "is to expand our image far beyond the local into the larger world community." Boulding suggested the preparation of "distributional impact statements" as a way to avoid unintended macro-level effects. In addition, most participants seemed to agree that more research needed to be done on the macro impacts of ADR, specifically addressing questions such as those listed above. Questions two, three, and four were also found to be key areas in need of more research. In the discussion on culture, participants asked whether ADR is too culture-specific. Is the North American dominant culture's definition of negotiation different from others' definitions? Are our ADR processes useful in other cultural contexts? If ADR is being globalized, what effects will that have on the field in the future? "Anglos," Neal Milner (Hawaii) pointed out, "lean toward a much more fact-oriented approach to negotiation, while other cultures never get to that stage. The problem with fact-oriented approaches is that they have no face-saving opportunities" and no methods to improve relationships. The Polish changes recently, for example, were not brought about by negotiation but rather by nonviolent direct action which has many benefits which ADR does not. Discussants suggested that research which compares the U.S. approach to ADR with conflict resolution processes of other cultures would be most useful. The race and gender session asked similar questions and came to similar conclusions. Does ADR adequately reflect the experience of women, people of color, and other disenfranchised groups? Does it adequately include or represent these groups? The clear consensus was no. ADR, it was felt, reproduces the existing inequality and doesn't address the justice and training differences between people. Participants in this session agreed that much of the language of ADR has reflected white, male, European biases, and has not reflected the approaches and attitudes of non-dominant groups. It presumes a rational, reasonable, decision-making process. It presumes that power is equal. It also presumes that there is only one rationality. Emotionalism is seen to get in the way of conflict resolution. Rather, it should be integrated into the conflict resolution process. Further, discussants noted that the ADR approach views conflicts as debates between individuals. The notion of relationship, discussants thought, has largely been ignored. More effort needs to be made to change conflict resolution language and to better integrate non-dominant groups into the language of ADR as well as the process. We should also examine what failures and gaps are promoted by ADR rather than focussing only on its successes from the individual's point of view. PROCESS QUESTIONS ________________________________________________________________________ The discussions on meta-questions were followed by a series of sessions on process. Rather than just examining negotiation, mediation, and other "traditional" processes, the sessions examined first-person processes (advocacy and community organizing); second party processes (bilateral and multilateral negotiations); and third-party processes (mediation, arbitration etc.). The session on first-party processes started with the assumption presented in the earlier discussions that there are times in which traditional third-party intervention undermines the pursuit of social justice. In disputes which involve high power inequities, the intervenor needs to empower one group by taking more of an advocacy than a neutral role. At times it is necessary to teach advocates to engage in conflict resolution more effectively. Alternatively, intervenors may enter the process on the side of one particular group. Such advocacy is not generally considered an ADR technique, but its use is likely to be more effective in some conflicts than is traditional ADR. Another basic question discussed in this session was how can you tell the difference between constructive and destructive conflicts? Similarly, when should parties be encouraged to escalate a conflict and when should they be encouraged to negotiate a settlement? Does escalation ever lead to eventual de-escalation? Is escalation a legitimate strategy to use to reach ultimate resolution? These questions were not answered. However, discussants agreed, as they did earlier, that dispute resolution should be examined in the larger sense of social change, not just in the narrow sense of dispute settlement. A second session examined second-party processes -- i.e., negotiation. Here participants examined the following questions: What conditions give rise to constructive or destructive outcomes in bilateral negotiations? In multilateral negotiations? Are there unintended consequences of negotiating? (For instance, are there times when negotiating does more harm than good?) What factors determine the nature of outcomes? Negotiator characteristics? Strategy or tactics? Process? Underlying structure of problems and issues? External political or economic factors? How do culture or gender differences influence the process or the outcome? Much of the discussions of these questions centered on unfolding international negotiations. What happens when conflicts change from bilateral (i.e. U.S./U.S.S.R.) to multi-lateral (U.S./ U.S.S.R./ Germany/France/ Poland/ Hungary, etc.)? Who convenes the players? Who comes to the table? Who represents whom? Will there be multiple voices or one voice for the European community? Lee Ross (Stanford) observed that groups often agree to submerge differences by forming coalitions to increase their power, therefore moving back toward bilateral negotiations. However, once these groups feel empowered, differences often become more important than the similarities and the groups may tend to pursue their separate needs, rather than the coalition's interests. Such coalitions are therefore often unstable. This is especially true, Ross observed, in European and American culture, where it is acceptable to form a coalition one day and change that relationship the next. For these cultures, the basic unit is interest, not the relationship. Other cultures value the relationship more highly. All participants agreed with the finding of the preceding culture group: cultural differences make negotiations especially difficult. How do you design a process that adequately addresses cultural and gender differences? Is negotiation typically a Western-style process? Is it possible to build a prototypical, multicultural process? While these questions were again left unanswered, participants agreed that traditional Western approaches needed to be modified when used in multicultural or non-Western settings. In the session on third-party processes, participants agreed that there has been a great deal of growth in the third-party dispute resolution field, both domestically and internationally. There is much more knowledge about mediation now than there was five years ago. However, most of the research is focused on outcomes and examines court-related processes. This research is flawed, Lloyd Burton (Colorado) argued, because gender, racial, and cultural differences tend to get glossed over. "We know much less about process, about tactics, incentives, framing, or agenda setting. We know very little about standards and how to set them. We don't know much about the effect of gender, race, and cultural differences on mediation practice. We need to think more about the question of quality rather than quantity. For instance, how do we measure the depth of settlement?" In summing up the process sessions, Mark Chesler (Michigan) observed six cross-cutting themes: - Our work is expanding; we are playing more roles and expanding our markets continuously. - Processes are still difficult to see. We need to articulate and systematically research how these processes work. - Empowerment is an increasingly critical concept. - Multiculturalism is also increasingly critical. Gender, race and class differences are important and they tend to be glossed over in much conflict resolution work. - The macro-societal structure is critical as it constrains the way conflicts are framed and conducted. Macro-societal structure is also a source of conflict. - We need to examine the state of justice in society. This includes the structure of justice and justice seeking institutions which give rise to the processes discussed above. DOMAIN DISCUSSIONS ________________________________________________________________________ After discussing meta-questions and process, the conference turned to a discussion of several domains. These included environmental/public policy conflict, international conflict, and ADR and the courts. The environmental/public policy session focused on three topics: 1) stumbling blocks to effective practice; 2) current research; and 3) future needs. Mike Elliott (Georgia) suggested that ADR's bad image was one of the most important stumbling blocks. People involved in environmental disputes don't understand what conflict resolution is or how it can be useful for them. They tend to be skeptical of the process and the likely results. "Dispute resolution in environmental conflicts tends to be resisted by powerful groups," Elliott suggested, "because they see it as an effective way to redistribute power." This seems to contrast with the oft-held environmentalist view that ADR works against them because it forces compromise on basic non-negotiable issues. Both sides distrust the process, however, and tend to opt for other (usually adversarial) approaches for resolving public policy disputes. Other problems are intervenor legitimacy (which affects entry), lack of a statutory framework, and a variety of process issues: technical complexity and uncertainty, political uncertainty, power imbalances, the interjurisdictional character of many environmental disputes, the representation of unrepresented groups, and the prevalence of conflicts between present and future interests. Current research, it was agreed, tends to be practitioner-based: it primarily consists of war stories and case studies of successful efforts to give mediators ammunition. There is no sound comprehensive theory. Links between democratic theory, conflict theory, conflict management theory and public policy-making need to be further explored. We also need a richer array of cases examined for process as well as outcome. Further needs mentioned included a common database, needs assessments, and a registry of practitioners and researchers in the field. Participants in the international session discussed current changes in that arena, and in international conflict research. Is the Cold War really over? Or is that an image we are creating by the way we frame reality? Why is international environmentalism arising as a key issue now? Has reality changed, or simply our image of reality? Both cases are so, according to discussants, as our perceptions create "reality." Certainly current changes in the international system need to be examined and new approaches to conflict resolution need to be developed to reflect these changes. Also needed is a better taxonomy of conflict for improved theory-building. One flaw in much international research is its emphasis on the state as the unit of analysis. Most current conflicts which are called international are not actually conflicts between nations but between groups within them tending to involve issues of identity and legitimacy. Discussants saw a need to rework taxonomies and theory to better reflect such issues. In the session on courts and ADR, Lloyd Burton (Colorado) noted that ADR practice is largely dominated by lawyers. There needs to be infusion of people from other backgrounds into the field. While much research evaluating ADR programs has already taken place, there still are significant problems concerning access to data, its reliability, and comparability of it between studies. Other needs in this area include a better understanding of "real world" needs and a registry of academicians and practitioners in the field. COLLABORATIVE INITIATIVES ________________________________________________________________________ The domain sessions were interspersed with two "administrative interludes" that looked at fundraising questions and long-term institutional survival. The conference then concluded with the discussion of possible collaborative projects that developed as a result of the preceding discussion. These included: 1. EXPANSION OF THE FUNDING BASE So far, the number of foundations giving significant amounts of money to this field are quite limited. Bob Barrett (Conflict Resolution Program Officer at the Hewlett Foundation) offered to coordinate a multi-university effort to inform more potential funders about the field, the importance of the work being done, and the need for more foundations to become involved. Steps to be taken include the preparation and distribution of a pamphlet on the field, possible presentations at foundation organizations, and the pursuit of collaborative projects that would bring researchers from several universities and funders from a variety of foundations together on joint projects. 2. TAXONOMY OF CONFLICT AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION A working group chaired by Claudio Cioffi (Colorado) hopes to develop a major work on the classification of conflicts and conflict resolution processes to support both basic research and theoretical development, as well as applied conflict resolution work. In addition to developing a more unified terminology, the project will examine how various conflict resolution approaches can be optimally matched to different types of conflict, and how conflict resolution performance varies as a function of conflict type. The group plans the exchange of conceptual papers on 1) surveys of existing literature on classification (e.g., COCTA/ASPA); 2) sets of criteria used in classificatory work; and 3) a glossary of terms. The group is planning a discussion in the Spring either at the ISA meetings in Vancouver or the Western Political Science Association in Seattle and perhaps a Panel on Conflict Taxonomy. 3. NATIONAL FORUM ON VALUES, POLICY AND SOCIETY Greg Bourne (Georgia), Mike Elliott (Georgia) and Karen Cross (Hawaii) are coordinating a major effort to convene community-based forums which would use collaborative problem solving to examine issues of governance, increased pluralism, and changing demographics, with a goal of establishing a value-based agenda for the future. 4. RACE AND GENDER ISSUES Terrie Northrup (Syracuse) is coordinating an effort to hold a "retrieval conference" on race and gender issues. The retrieval conference is an idea developed in Michigan in which practitioners and/or disputants are brought together to discuss their activities with academicians. The conference is designed to "retrieve" knowledge and information from the nonacademic participants about what they do, and what they have learned that otherwise tends not to be recorded. Neal Milner (Hawaii) suggested that "indigenous peacemakers" -- grassroots leaders who deal with racial and ethnic tensions -- be brought together to discuss their work. This retrieval conference might then lead to an agenda for a national conference on race and gender issues in conflict resolution. 6. GRASSROOTS ISSUES Mark Chesler (Michigan) proposed a project of research, training, and advocacy work with grassroots community groups around health issues, education, environmental, race, gender, justice, etc. The project would use approaches from social movements, community organizing, and democratic participation and would intervene as first, second, and third parties. 7. UNIVERSITY CONFLICT MANAGEMENT MODELS The Conflict and Change Center at the University of Minnesota has developed a conceptual and pragmatic application model for disseminating conflict management awareness and skills throughout complex organizations such as universities. The model includes assessment, questionnaires, negotiation training for faculty and administrators plus skilled mediator intervention. Tom Fuitak seeks other universities which might be interested in looking at the Minnesota model and testing it elsewhere. 8. ARMS CONTROL Dorinda Dallmeyer (Georgia) hopes to form a research team to examine multilateral negotiation of arms control agreements. How does increasing the number of parties "at the table" influence coalition- building, the conduct of negotiations, the management of treaty implementation, and resolution of disputes (not only between adversaries but between/among allies)? 9. POLISH CONSTITUTION The Conflict and Change Center-Minnesota has been asked by the Institute of State and Law of Poland to provide a "Conflict Management" point of view in examining the constitutional rights and freedoms sections of the currently developing constitution. Information is available from Tom Fuitak at Minnesota. 10. ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION CONFERENCE Barbara Gray (Pennsylvania) proposed a conference to draw together stakeholder groups, practitioners, and academics to disseminate experience in using dispute resolution techniques in environmental conflicts. The proposed focus would be an environmental problem that has direct impact on different areas of the globe (but not global warming). The conference would consider the problems of dealing with the same issue in different parts of the world. One possible topic might be water pollution. 11. CONFLICT AND LARGE-SCALE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE Similar to Barbara Gray's suggestion, Guy Burgess (Colorado) proposed a research program to examine the special problems which are likely to arise as different societies try to resolve policy conflicts relating to global environmental change (e.g., the ozone hole, greenhouse effect, migratory wildlife, ocean dumping, acid rain, etc.). 12. POWER, JUSTICE, NONVIOLENCE, INTRACTABILITY The University of Colorado has developed a major research program examining the use of nonviolent techniques to mitigate or resolve intractable justice conflicts around the world. We seek participants in this program from other universities as well as our own. A further de scription of this program will be forthcoming in our next regular newsletter, due out shortly after this one. 13. DATA EXCHANGE AND INFORMATION SHARING The University of Colorado and a number of other organizations have been working independently on computer bibliographic retrieval systems for conflict resolution research. The result has been the creation of a number of partially duplicating, incompatible computer- based systems. Guy Burgess (Colorado) has developed a plan and obtained the software necessary to combine such "incompatible" systems into one easy-to-use database. He is currently collecting databases from those interested, adding them to a collaborative database, and returning the latter along with the compatible search software to all participants. In addition to bibliographic entries, such a database could include a: - Registry of Datasets and Survey Instruments - Directory of Conflict Resolution Researchers and Organizations Our ultimate goal is to coordinate with other interested parties to include all such items, to eliminate duplications, to continuously update the work, and to make the database(s) available not only on disc, but also online through BITNET, CONFLICTNET, or other E-mail networks. 14. HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT DATASETS (OR DATABASES) In a parallel effort, Claudio Cioffi (Colorado) is compiling an inventory of all known databases on strikes, demonstrations, riots, revolutions, civil and international wars, etc. Guy and Heidi Burgess hope to undertake a similar effort on nonviolent conflict datasets. So far about 80 databases have been inventoried and are being cataloged. Anyone with knowledge of such databases is asked to contact them. 15. ELECTRONIC MAIL/TELECOMMUNICATIONS Bob Barrett (Hewlett) and Guy Burgess (Colorado) have initiated an effort to link the Hewlett Centers electronically through BITNET or CONFLICTNET. So far, interest in this appears to be slight, but, if it grows, the capability is available. 17. CONFLICT RESOLUTION RESEARCH COUNCILS AND/OR CLEARING HOUSE Several conference participants suggested that national networks of researchers who share research interests might be formed to facilitate inter-university collaboration. Activities might involve support services (such as database development, paper and/or electronic networking, materials development, collaborative research project design, and/or collaborative fundraising). Initial interest in this proposal appears to have waned; however, it too can be revitalized as interest or need arises. FOR MORE INFORMATION For more information about individual projects, contact the coordinators listed above. The Consortium has addresses and phone numbers, if needed. FRDR CONFERENCE ________________________________________________________________________ The Washington-based Fund for Research in Dispute Resolution held a conference in June, 1990 which was attended by a few Hewlett center directors, the FRDR Board, and about 25 other invited guests. The purpose of the conference was to assess current trends and opportunities in disputing research and to examine possible new directions for FRDR funding. Fifteen people were invited to prepare papers for the conference on one of four themes: Public Bureaucracies; Privatization; Ethnic and Racial Conflict; and Environmental and Community Disputes. Many of the papers and the discussions were critical of current practice and research trends because they saw them as working in favor of the rich and powerful and against the poor and other low-power groups. For instance, in the session on public bureaucracies, discussants saw a need for more research on the relationship between organizational structure, the distribution of power and disputing resources, disputing processes, and organizational change. Some organizational structures, it was suggested, encourage the articulation of disputes more than others. This influences not only the outcome of the disputes, but also the speed and nature of organizational change and growth. Disputes should be examined within their structural context, not as isolated cases unrelated to the rest of the organization or other disputes. Also examined in this session was the notion of success. Is success a researchable question? Most ADR research has focused on client satisfaction, ignoring the larger macro-social issues. The general feeling at this conference was that the definition of success needed to be broadened and ADR evaluation needed to go beyond simple client satisfaction assessments. The second session, on privatization, came to similar conclusions. Several of the authors and discussants saw that privatization of dispute resolution was really just one manifestation of the larger issue of privatization of other governmental functions (for example, package delivery, garbage collection, prisons, hospitals, etc.). The common expectation in all these areas was that private vendors could provide the services more efficiently and less expensively than the government; therefore, they should do so. Privatization has been seen as especially important in the area of dispute resolution since the traditional governmental service providers (the courts) were so severely overburdened that they were unable to deliver effective justice. However, conference participants were not nearly so ready to acknowledge that the courts were ineffective or that ADR is indeed more efficient or less costly. They also strongly questioned the quality issue, especially as it relates to societal impacts and effects on the poor, minorities, and other low-power groups. Researchers, it was suggested, need to evaluate who wants ADR, who uses it, what their goals are, and why they chose ADR over other processes. They also need to examine the broader social goals that are affected by conventional and alternative processes. Is the public nature of litigation a necessary component for effective justice? What other components of public processes are missing in private processes? What are the societal effects of these differences? A third issue of key importance was access to data. One of the "benefits" often touted for ADR is that the processes -- and outcomes (opinions and settlements) -- are confidential. This makes good research on these topics very difficult, and often impossible. This was seen to be a highly political issue that would remain a problem for some time to come, but one that needed considerable attention and work. The third session on race and ethnicity echoed many of the same themes. ADR research should be directed at the macro, societal level, not at the individual level as has so often occurred. Race and ethnicity need to be viewed as a form of conflict as well as a context in which conflict takes on meaning. However, race and ethnic conflicts are not a generic type of conflict -- the context and nature of conflict makes differences as important as similarities. But some similarities are worth noting. One similarity in most racial and ethnic conflicts is the importance of self and group identity. These conflicts also tend to be characterized by very strongly held, non-negotiable values. This makes interest-based bargaining impossible; disputes must be resolved by going to a higher authority. Conflicts tend to be moderated, however, if people have overlapping group identities. Questions of interest for research included how do such value conflicts emerge, get transformed, then played out? How does one measure the success of conflict resolution? Are racial and ethnic conflicts qualitatively different from other types? If so, how? Are the resolution processes qualitatively different as well? The fourth session of the FRDR conference focused on environmental and public policy disputes. Discussions here addressed several questions: how environmental disputes develop (i.e., why some do and others don't), how they are transformed as they progress, and whether local environmental disputes serve to increase or decrease community power. Also debated was the definition of "public good," and the appropriate role for mediators or other intervenors. Should intervenors act as uninterested and neutral third-parties who are involved only in process, or should they be what Larry Susskind calls activist mediators, working to empower low-power groups, and becoming involved in the substance as well as the process of the negotiations? The interaction between scientific information, values, political processes, and dispute resolution processes was seen to be a key area in need of more investigation, as was the differential impact of environmental problems on low-power groups. At the final session of the conference, participants pulled together a list of research topics and questions important for FRDR to address in the coming years. 1) Participants agreed that conflict is a social benefit, not a cost. Therefore, they suggested further examination of when and how disputes emerge, how they are transformed, and how they can be maintained, rather than suppressed. 2) How do institutional designs affect dispute development and maintenance? 3) What is the importance of the specific participants, time and place? 4) Taxonomies of disputes need to be further developed. 5) More research is needed on organizations as sites for disputes and organizational processes as contexts for dispute processes. What is the relationship between dispute characteristics and bureaucratic characteristics? 6) What is the relationship of identity issues to interest issues in race and ethnic conflicts? In other conflicts? How does identity become part of group action, become politicized? 7) What are alternative mediation styles? What is most appropriate and useful? When are they most appropriate and useful? 8) What is the effect of informal processes on the law? On other social institutions? On society overall? 9) What are the roles of language and symbols in disputing? 10) More comparative and historical research is needed to supplement current highly ethnocentric research. 11) How does the market for ADR affect the nature of ADR? How is this market constructed? 12) What is the relationship between group justice and individual justice? 13) How does community mobilization take place? 14) The utility of dispute resolution needs to be further examined: whom are we helping? Whom do we want to help? How do we help the submerged voices?