usiplogo.gif (1499 bytes)

International Online Training Program On Intractable Conflict

Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, USA



THE CONSORTIUM APPROACH


 

Destructive Confrontation

Ethnicity, race, religion, gender roles, economic policy, school policy, land use and re-distribution, environmental protection--in socially, religiously, and politically diverse societies, continuing conflicts over such complex and deep-rooted issues are inevitable. Such "intractable" conflicts tend to arise from four overlapping sources: 1) fundamental moral conflicts in which one group views the actions of another as intolerably evil, 2) high-stakes distributional questions over "who gets what," 3) social status conflicts which arise as people compete for preferred positions in the social hierarchy, and 4) identity conflicts in which individuals or a group of people are denied respect and recognition on the basis of their individual and/or group identity.

While these conflicts play a crucial role in determining the course of social progress, they can also be extremely destructive. They breed distrust, hostility, and too often, violence. Even at lower levels of intensity, such intractable conflicts are time consuming and expensive. They can quickly escalate to the point where thoughtful debate is lost amid rampant misunderstanding, fear, and threat. These dynamics not only undermine advocates' pursuit of justice and wise decisions, they also prevent the parties from taking advantage of the many collaborative, "win-win" opportunities that do exist.

Often people involved in these conflicts recognize their destructiveness, yet they view their cause as so important, or compromise as so unconscionable, that they continue to pursue destructive strategies in the face of enormous costs and limited prospects for success. Stalemates, in which critical issues remain unresolved for protracted periods, are common. Often the result is continuation of status quo policies which nobody supports.

Even when decisions are made, destructive conflict dynamics can cause them to be poorly conceived and ineffective. Decisions may fail to balance competing interests fairly, or they may be so technically, economically, socially, or politically flawed that they cannot achieve desired results or even be implemented as intended. The hostility generated by these conflicts frequently spawns a continuing series of a destructive confrontations in which the core issues are never really resolved. In order to better deal with these important issues we, as individuals, as communities, and as societies, must learn how to handle our conflicts in more constructive ways.

Limits of Current Agreement-Based Approaches

Given the destructiveness of these confrontations, it is easy to conclude that conflict itself is the problem. Many think that, if the parties could simply be shown win-win solutions, then the conflicts could be permanently resolved and the heavy costs of confrontation could be avoided. This belief that win-win solutions can be found to almost any conflict has helped spur the enormous growth and institutionalization of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes. While ADR has proven remarkably successful in dealing with tractable conflicts--those in which "win-win" opportunities really do exist--it has not been nearly as effective in handling conflicts, such as those described above, that have significant and irreducible "win-lose" components.

Parties to intractable conflict often view efforts to negotiate a compromise "resolution" with considerable skepticism or even outright hostility. Given the importance that the parties attach to these high-stakes conflicts, it is unrealistic to expect them to voluntarily accept an agreement if they believe that their interests can be better advanced through some force-based strategy (e.g. litigation, lobbying, elections, strikes, boycotts, non-violent protests, or military campaigns). In these situations, even the best conflict resolution strategies are usually unsuccessful. Given these failures and the apparent lack of an alternative approach, many people conclude that there are no viable alternatives to destructive, all-out confrontation. The result is that the field seems to have reached a plateau in which there is considerable opposition to the expanded use of alternative approaches.

Moving Beyond the Limits

The limitations of resolution-based approaches have led the Consortium to pursue an alternative strategy. We begin with the assumption that intense, long-term conflicts over difficult moral and distributional issues are inevitable and appropriate. After all, these conflicts play a crucial role in determining how society addresses fundamental issues of morality, justice, and progress. What is not inevitable, we believe, is the destructiveness commonly associated with these confrontations. Thus, the primary goal of our work is the identification and dissemination of information about realistic measures that disputants and intermediaries can take to increase the constructiveness of intractable conflicts.

We believe that this reframing of the basic conflict problem can substantially increase the ability of the field to limit the destructive aspects of intractable conflicts, while supporting the positive functions of conflict for the parties and for society as a whole. Our ultimate goal is to help disputing parties improve decisions, while reducing transactions costs (as measured in terms of time, money, and, all too often, blood).



The Incremental Approach

We believe that an incremental approach offers the best way to reduce the destructiveness of confrontations over intractable issues. This approach begins by helping parties (both adversaries and intermediaries) identify conflict problems which increase the conflict's overall destructiveness or threaten the parties' ability to make wise decisions or advance their interests. We then provide parties with information about options for dealing with each problem and their advantages and disadvantages. While it is usually impossible to correct all such problems, our goal is to help people fix as many of the problems as possible, and reduce the magnitude of problems that cannot be eliminated .

Although many of our "treatments" require the cooperative efforts of contending parties (often with the assistance of intermediaries), others can be implemented unilaterally. Similarly, some treatments are relatively easy to implement, while others require that the parties develop new dispute-handling skills or secure the assistance of outside professionals. Unlike other forms of dispute resolution, this incremental approach can work in situations where resolution-based approaches are unworkable. It also makes sense in cases where it is unrealistic to expect major changes in dispute-handling process or decision-making institutions.



Accumulating Knowledge Base

While there are no proven and reliable strategies for resolving intractable conflicts, the field's accumulating knowledge base does offer a rich array of ideas for making inevitable confrontations far more constructive. Some of these ideas have a long history as essential elements of every dispute resolution practitioner's toolbox. Also of great value are many of the dispute handling techniques used by the many more traditional conflict professionals (e.g. politicians, lawyers, soldiers, and judges). Other useful ideas arise from basic research and theory building in the social sciences where all that is needed is to present the ideas in widely understandable terms, rather than inscrutable academic lingo. Finally, there are the creative ideas of citizens who are struggling to find better ways of dealing with the difficult conflicts that they confront in their daily lives.

At this point the Consortium has identified more than 125 common problems which undermine the constructiveness with which intractable conflicts are addressed. More encouraging is the fact that we have also identified 150 realistic steps which can be taken to limit these problems. We have arranged these problems and treatments into nine categories found in Figure 1. (Examples of problems and treatments in each category are found in Appendix 1 with a complete listing found in Appendix 2.)

A principal advantage of this problem/treatment approach is that it is highly adaptable to the special circumstances of particular conflicts. There is no single approach which can be expected to work in all situations. Each conflict creates different combinations of problems which require different combinations of treatments.



Helping Adversaries, Not Just Intermediaries

Unlike intermediaries who want to resolve conflicts, adversaries often want victory more than they want resolution. They often distrust dispute resolution, because they think it will force them to compromise or give up what they want or need. To be successful, conflict professionals (both practitioners and educators) must demonstrate how application of the field's expertise can help disputants more effectively pursue their objectives. Any conflict intervention program which fails to obtain the support of the parties is doomed to failure. This is why a major focus of the Consortium's work has been the application of the field's insights from the first-party, adversarial perspective, as well as the traditional, third-party, neutral perspective.



Dissemination

The key to realizing the potential benefits of the expanding knowledge base in our field is an effective and affordable strategy for promptly disseminating ideas to those who can profitably use them. Without such a capability, far too many people will be forced to "reinvent the wheel." Dissemination processes are needed which precisely focus upon the needs of two different groups--part-time, "do-it-yourselfers" and dispute handling professionals. Of these two groups, it is the do-it-yourselfers that have been most neglected by traditional training programs.

Part-Time, Do-It-Yourselfers

Professional conflict intervention is expensive. Only a tiny percentage of conflict-related interactions can be facilitated by conflict professionals. Most interactions are handled by either the parties themselves or informal intermediaries. For these people, confrontation and conflict resolution is a "do-it-yourself" activity. In the absence of effective training, these individuals are likely to employ "seat-of-the-pants" approaches which fail to benefit from either scientific studies of conflict processes or the practical experiences of those who have struggled with similar conflicts in the past.

Most of these do-it-yourselfers are also "part-timers" with many other pressing demands on their time. This means that any dissemination program must be extremely efficient or people won't have time to use it. Effective training programs must be precisely focused on the user's immediate problems--do-it-yourselfers don't have time to learn how to deal with somebody else's problems. They usually don't have much money to spend either. A typical one week, $500-$1000 training program is likely to be completely out of reach to most parties to intractable conflicts.

A major focus of the Consortium program has been the development of better ways of disseminating the field's knowledge to these individuals. Our dissemination efforts are offered in the spirit of information sharing and not paternalistic outside experts who "know what's good for people." We view our role as giving people things to think about. We trust them to decide which of our ideas are truly applicable to their situation.



Windows of Opportunity

Effective dissemination programs must also be able to work within a narrow "window of opportunity." There is usually a brief period between the time that individuals are presented with a conflict problem and the time when they must commit themselves to a particular course of action. If better options can be provided to these individuals during this critical window, they are likely to take them. They are also likely to return to this resource in the future as additional conflict problems arise. This, in turn, is likely to lead to long-term improvements in their overall conflict skills.

If such information is not forthcoming, the parties can be expected to stick with often destructive, "business-as-usual" practices. In short, information provided outside of this window is likely to be of limited utility. A major focus of the Consortium program has, therefore, been the creation of a dissemination program that works within these narrow time constraints.



Helping Intermediaries Better Deal With Intractable Conflicts

While professional intermediaries may be unable to resolve intractable conflicts, there is much that they can do to help the parties' more constructively deal with confrontations over intractable issues. In some cases these professionals may be able to apply old skills in new ways. In other cases they may be able to increase their effectiveness by mastering new skills. Here somewhat different approaches are needed for formal intermediaries (arbitrators, mediators, and facilitators), decision makers (judges, politicians, and business executives), and community leaders who play an important role helping citizens deal with conflict.



Helping Advocates Better Deal With Intractable Conflicts

While many steps toward increasing the constructiveness of the confrontation process can best be taken by neutral intermediaries, there are other steps which can be better taken from an advocacy perspective. One example involves the empowerment of the disempowered. Although many intermediaries try to "level the playing field" by empowering the lower-power parties, they cannot do much empowerment without compromising their neutrality. For this reason, we believe that it is useful to create separate roles for conflict professionals--neutral intermediaries and partisan advocacy advisors or coaches. Here the later can freely pursue empowerment goals while the former can take advantage of opportunities available only to true neutrals. These advisors can show the parties how a more sophisticated understanding of conflict dynamics can help them better pursue their interests. This understanding can help the parties see alternative approaches as well as legal, political and other force-based strategies in a broader perspective.



The Web: The Tool That Is Making It All Possible

The Consortium is using the interactive capabilities of the world-wide-web to build a high quality, online, "consulting service" that can provide users with "executive summaries" highlighting options for dealing with their specific conflict problems. These summaries also include links to sources of in-depth, follow-up information on each topic. These sources include full-text, online write-ups, links to high quality web accessible documents, and printed documents available through online ordering channels.

This system has a number of benefits. First, it enables us to quickly and inexpensively provide users around the world with a tremendous amount of information. Second, the information can be organized and linked in ways which let users find what they need quickly without having to wade through lots of information that they don't care about. Another advantage of this system is that its use is private. People do not have to admit to anyone their dispute handling skills are limited. They can even use the ideas found in the system to enhance their own reputation as someone who has good ideas for dealing with difficult situations.

In the next few years, technological developments already in the pipeline will open up exciting new opportunities. For example, many users will be able to take advantage of online audio and video. Of greater importance will be the fact that falling costs will extend the web's reach to poorer communities around the world which do not yet have access to reliable and affordable computing and telecommunications services.

While the system described above does not yet exist, the first working version will go online this spring. At that point, we will enter a period in which the system is field tested and refined. We also plan to prepare specialized versions focused upon particular classes of conflicts. Beyond this there will be a continuing effort to incorporate new ideas, better explanations, more real world case studies, and, especially, success stories into the system.




Copyright ©1998 Conflict Research Consortium  -- Contact: crc@colorado.edu


 

NOTE: There has been considerable debate within the Consortium regarding the appropriate name for the difficult conflicts with which we are concerned. To some, the dictionary definition of the term "intractable" sums it up nicely—difficult but not necessarily impossible. To others, the term seems too hopeless. There is also concern that intractable may be interpreted as implying that the parties somehow failed to adequately fulfill their responsibilities. For this reason, some of us prefer the term "long-term, continuing conflict." Still others like the term, "resolution-resistant conflict." In Consortium publications all of these terms are used.