Conflict Resolution and the Scholarship of Engagement : Partnerships Transforming Conflict [1 ed.] 9781443838344, 9781443837668

Citation preview

Conflict Resolution and the Scholarship of Engagement

Conflict Resolution and the Scholarship of Engagement: Partnerships Transforming Conflict

Edited by

Cheryl Lynn Duckworth and Consuelo Doria Kelley

Conflict Resolution and the Scholarship of Engagement: Partnerships Transforming Conflict , Edited by Cheryl Lynn Duckworth and Consuelo Doria Kelley This book first published 2012 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2012 by Cheryl Lynn Duckworth and Consuelo Doria Kelley and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-3766-0, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-3766-8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ................................................................................... vii Introduction ................................................................................................ ix From Analysis to Resolution through the Scholarship of Engagement Cheryl Lynn Duckworth and Consuelo Doria Kelley Chapter One................................................................................................. 1 Participatory Action Research Efforts and Scholarship of Engagement Neil H. Katz Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 23 Engaging Social Movements in Conflict Transformation Toran Hansen Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 50 Growing a Gandhi: Critical Peace Education, Conflict Transformation and the Scholarship of Engagement Cheryl Lynn Duckworth Chapter Four.............................................................................................. 72 Working through Organizational and Community Conflict with Scholarship of Engagement: Dramatic Problem Solving Facilitator Model (DPSFM) and Interactive Management (IM) Alexia Georgakopoulos and Steven T. Hawkins Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 102 The Scholarship of Engagement: Transforming Communities and Organizations through Practicum and Other Collaborative Projects Judith McKay Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 119 Avoiding the Recess Effect: The Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in Conflict Resolution Training in Community Organizations Claire Michèle Rice and Larry A. Rice

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 145 Scholarship of Engagement in Transitional Contexts: An African Focus Ismael Muvingi Chapter Eight........................................................................................... 170 Genocide Prevention and the Scholarship of Engagement Jason J. Campbell Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 179 Islamic Fundamentalism and the Egyptian Revolution Dustin D. Berna Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 198 Global Courses as Incubators for Scholarship of Engagement Activities Elena P. Bastidas Epilogue................................................................................................... 217 Supporting the Scholarship of Engagement Tommie V. Boyd, James Hibel and Honggang Yang Contributors............................................................................................. 221 Index........................................................................................................ 228

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The dialogue which launched this work initially took place at the house of contributing author, Dustin Berna, during a brief faculty retreat. He fed us well (with crème brulée for dessert!), and our Chair and Dean led us in a conversation about each of our faculty research and passions, looking for areas of overlap. We also challenged ourselves to consider who we really are as a department, and on which strengths we most wished to build. Students were also key in this dialogue—what sorts of students seek DCAR out? Where are they from, both literally and figuratively, and where do they hope to go? From these questions, we developed strong consensus that we are a department who values a democratic, egalitarian view of knowledge production and is committed to community partnerships. Conflict resolution tends to be a field of scholar-practitioners who reject the divide between theory and practice, and DCAR is no exception. This ethos is consistent with the Graduate School of Social Sciences and Humanities overall and in fact with Nova Southeastern as an entire campus. The departmental synergy around exploring the Scholarship of Engagement and its utility for the field of conflict resolution was clear and the theme for this book thus emerged. Nearly each member of our faculty has provided an exploration of his or her own area of expertise and how research and practice into this particular area has been (or can be) enhanced via the Scholarship of Engagement. There are a considerable number of people I’d like to thank. First, many thanks to our doctoral student, Heather Wellman, whose early and excellent research contributed significantly to the book proposal. My thanks, appreciation, and admiration also go to each of my DCAR colleagues who found the time to make this collaboration a priority and contribute a chapter. I would also like to thank my Dean, Dr. Honggang Yang, Dr. Tommie Boyd, and Dr. Jim Hibel, for graciously sharing their time with this project as well. As administrative leaders at NSU, their vision of engaged scholarship throughout SHSS, and their thoughts on how to institutionalize and sustain it, are an immense contribution. My thanks also to Amanda Millar and Carol Kolikourdi, our editors at

viii

Acknowledgements

Cambridge Scholars Publishing, for their time, guidance, and support. Finally, I’m delighted to thank another of our intrepid doctoral students, Consuelo Kelley, whose leadership, tireless work, and eagle-eyed editing helped make this work what it is. It has been a pleasure to collaborate with her. —Cheryl Lynn Duckworth Assistant Professor Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution School of Humanities and Social Sciences Nova Southeastern University The multi-faceted view that a kaleidoscope provides is often invoked as a visual metaphor by and for those who would analyze and resolve conflict’s many facets; a similar visual has often helped me to consider the multiple facets of meanings that words can carry. I want to thank this anthology’s contributors for their willingness to subject their words to my editorial kaleidoscope, as well as for their patience, understanding, and follow-through efforts. I also want to thank Tammy Graham, Project Manager of the Department of Multidisciplinary Studies in SHSS at NSU, for her generous technical assistance and unwavering support throughout this project. Finally, I want to thank Elena Bastidas, my dissertation chair, mentor, colleague, and friend, for her exceptional guidance on the Scholarship of Engagement, and for confirming by her actions on behalf of others its potential to change the lives of students and community members through the DCAR Global Course practicum platform. Like many I have had the privilege to meet during my graduate studies in conflict analysis and resolution at NSU, she lives her life every day in service to Nelson Mandela’s rallying call: “Education is the most powerful weapon you can use to change the world.” —Consuelo Doria Kelley Doctoral Student and Graduate Assistant Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution School of Humanities and Social Sciences Nova Southeastern University

INTRODUCTION FROM ANALYSIS TO RESOLUTION THROUGH THE SCHOLARSHIP OF ENGAGEMENT CHERYL LYNN DUCKWORTH AND CONSUELO DORIA KELLEY

As the field of conflict analysis and resolution continues to grow, scholars and practitioners increasingly recognize that we can learn from one another. Theory must be informed by practice and practice must draw on sound theory. Above and beyond this lies a further recognition: without at least attempting to actually engage and transform entrenched conflicts our field cannot hope to achieve its potential. We will merely remain in a more diverse, multi-disciplinary ivory tower. This edition breaks new ground in explicitly connecting the Scholarship of Engagement to the work of conflict resolution professionals including those in the academy, those in the field, and those who refuse to choose between the two. The text explores a wide variety of examples of and thinking on the Scholarship of Engagement, from participatory action research to peace education and from genocide prevention to community mediation and transitional justice. The Scholarship of Engagement is a model of scholarship that bridges theory and practice. North Carolina State University (NCSU) defines it as follows: “Community engaged scholarship encompasses scholarly activities related to research and/or teaching that involve full collaboration of students, community partners and faculty as co-educators and cogenerators of knowledge and that address questions of public concern.” Barker (2004) offered a similar definition in his recent taxonomy of the Scholarship of Engagement: “Reacting to the disconnect between academics and the public, in somewhat dialectical fashion scholars are finding creative ways to communicate to public audiences, work for the

x

Introduction

public good, and most important, generate knowledge with public participation” (123). He continued, clarifying that scholarly engagement is, “…research, teaching, integration, and application scholarship that incorporate reciprocal practices of civic engagement into the production of knowledge” (124). As we will see below, this notion of the reciprocal coproduction of knowledge represents to our minds a key synergy between the academic framework of the Scholarship of Engagement and conflict transformation. Particularly in contexts where one or more conflict party has been oppressed or marginalized, conflict transformation practitioners and scholars risk reproducing that marginalization if we imagine that we hold objective answers that we can bestow upon conflict parties (see for example Lederach 2005, Cloke 2008). Rather, the process itself of generating solutions is fundamental to building the confidence, skills, capacity and trust with the other party needed to transform the root political, economic and socio-cultural drivers of the conflict. Similarly, as the above suggests, those committed to the Scholarship of Engagement embrace an epistemology that is harmonious with conflict transformation. The co-creation of knowledge, with respect both to initial setting of the agenda and priorities, as well as with respect to the ultimate “product” created, is essential to the values of this academic framework. This harmony between conflict resolution and the Scholarship of Engagement, of course, is a central reason for and theme of this volume. Recently the Scholarship of Engagement has attracted increased academic interest. NCSU, for example, hosted a conference on developing and defining the Scholarship of Engagement. The University of Michigan now offers a graduate certificate in the Scholarship of Engagement; and, similarly, the University of Vermont hosts an “Engagement Academy.” Amy Driscoll and Lorilee Sandmann argued that this model of scholarship is moving from “maverick to mainstream” (Driscoll and Sandmann 2001). Again, this trend is a natural fit for those of us who teach, study, and practice conflict resolution. Thriving, multidisciplinary, and potentially transformative, our field’s expertise and practice is needed if the Scholarship of Engagement is to continue developing both in academia and communities worldwide. As Cheldelin, Druckman and Fast (2008) note, the praxis that results from integrating theory, research, and practice is a central tenet of the field of conflict resolution. As peace workers and conflict resolution professionals, we are drawn to this field as a vocation. As such, we should embody praxis—the collective study of a shared problem that then can lead to transformative action. As Sandmann (2008) observes, the Scholarship of Engagement as it has been evolving, argues

Conflict Resolution and the Scholarship of Engagement

xi

for the integration of theory, research, and practice, just as conflict resolution does. She writes, “More work reflects the two grounding principles of the Scholarship of Engagement: (1) mutually beneficial, reciprocal partnerships and (2) integration of teaching, research, and service” (98). The model of the Scholarship of Engagement is a natural fit for engaged conflict resolution scholars, yet until now, this link has not been fully explored. Literature discussing the Scholarship of Engagement began emerging in the 1990’s. In 1990 the Carnegie Foundation produced a report that denounced faculty focusing on research and placing teaching as a secondary function. In the report, four new categories of scholarship are outlined as discovery, integration of knowledge, teaching, and service (Boyer 1990). From there, scholars began discussing the future of faculty engagement in terms of both research and service. This discussion led many to conclude that the Scholarship of Engagement is the new paradigm of faculty engagement by building on service learning models. These Scholarship of Engagement models incorporate elements of service learning (applying taught concepts in the community through volunteer opportunities) and faculty creating with students bridges between theory and praxis (Boyer, 1996; Bringle, Games and Malloy 1990; Driscoll and Lynton,1999; Ehrlich 1995; Ellis and Noyes 1990; Fairweather 1996; Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff 1997; Harkavy and Benson 1998; Kellogg Commission 1999; Lynton 1995; Michigan State University 1996; Palmer 1998; Sandmann, Foster-Fishman, Lloyd, Rauhe, and Rosaen 2000; Schon 1995). More recently, scholars have begun to assert that the Scholarship of Engagement has moved from the sidelines to a more mainstream concept (Driscoll and Sandmann 2001). Sandmann (2008) asserts that the Scholarship of Engagement as a concept has evolved from faculty being responsive to communities to developing more research and policy analysis. Driscoll and Sandmann (2001) explore the notion that as this evolution has occurred, more institutions of higher learning are expanding their Scholarship of Engagement programs, and this has created multiple definitions and models of engagement. Rice (2002) explores how the current literature has focused on developing a unified model and theory for the Scholarship of Engagement. Similar to participatory action research (see Katz, this volume), the Scholarship of Engagement at its best moves beyond involving community

xii

Introduction

members in a pre-conceived research project. Rather, it engages communities in a democratic and equitable co-construction of knowledge, without presuming prematurely what community values, priorities or even epistemology should be (see Duckworth, this volume). O’Meara and Rice (2005) argue that the Scholarship of Engagement “requires going beyond the expert model that often gets in the way of constructive universitycommunity collaboration…calls on faculty to move beyond ‘outreach,’…[and] asks scholars to go beyond ‘service,’ with its overtones of noblesse oblige. What it emphasizes is genuine collaboration: that the learning and teaching be multidirectional and the expertise shared. It represents a basic reconceptualization of faculty involvement in community based work” (28). Extending the conversation further, however, the Scholarship of Engagement more explicitly addresses the need for institutions of knowledge production (universities, think tanks) to reconsider and reform faculty reward systems (O’Meara and Rice 2005; Sandmann, et al. 2009). This means developing broader criteria for what constitutes scholarship, as well as rejecting the notion of the “great man” model of the scholar, a lone genius producing and disseminating knowledge for the masses to apply and be edified by. Praxis inherently must mean a more democratic, participatory, relevant, and frankly humble approach to scholarship. The dialogue about what this means for assessing students, hiring and promoting faculty, and even the conceptualizing itself of the purpose of universities must continue, we would argue, advancing the framework of the Scholarship of Engagement if the academy is to be able to improve communities and transform conflicts. This is especially true of academics, such as the present authors and presumably our readers, who wish to transform persistent or even violent conflicts. What remains needed from the body of Scholarship of Engagement literature is a presentation of successful Scholarship of Engagement projects. Sandmann (2008) notes something of a “definitional anarchy” regarding what actually constitutes the Scholarship of Engagement. We hope the chapters herein can inspire our conflict resolution colleagues to consider this model for their own peace building works, as well as to contribute to clarifying what we mean by the Scholarship of Engagement via specific examples of engaged conflict resolution scholarship. There are two primary works on the implementation of the Scholarship of Engagement. Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, and Tipton (1996) explore the Scholarship of Engagement through their research in faith communities in

Conflict Resolution and the Scholarship of Engagement

xiii

their book Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Chibucos and Lerner (1999) also look at a variety of successful stories in their book Serving Children and Families through Community-University Partnerships: Success Stories. In their book they look at community-university partnerships that serve children and families through faculty engagement. Similarly, presentations of successful conflict resolution programs and projects, such as Zelizer and Rubinstein’s recent volume Building Peace (2009), have not reported such programs through the lens of the Scholarship of Engagement. Such was simply beyond the scope of what seems to have been the intent of the volume. This enables such scholarship to offer compelling examples of peace-building praxis, but leaves open questions of needed reform of the institutions of knowledge production such as universities, as well as how exactly peace building programs constitute scholarship. Again, such has simply not been the intent of conflict resolution editions which present case studies from the field. The present volume intends to initiate a conversation between conflict resolution and the Scholarship of Engagement literatures. For the reasons noted above, they have much to contribute to each other. Barker (2004) explores an approach in which students and faculty engage in community projects on the one hand and where students and faculty engage in research aimed at impacting a community on the other hand. He asserts that both models of Scholarship of Engagement are needed to create a fully engaged institution. In the current volume, faculty members engage in both community projects and in research that impacts the community through a meaningful examination of policy and practice and through the presentation of real world solutions to conflicts. By looking at community engagement and the development of research and policy analysis, the proposed book provides real-world examples of the Scholarship of Engagement for the purpose of conflict resolution and peace-building. We can see from the above that there is a compelling need for an exploration of what the Scholarship of Engagement looks like within the context of conflict resolution praxis. Sandmann (2008) has called for an increased level of empiricism and scholarship as the dialogue around this framework continues to consolidate and mature. She writes: There is now a rich repository “making the case” for engagement in higher education, of cases of engagement enacted in a variety of contexts through

xiv

Introduction a variety of means, and of cases of emerging institutionalization of engagement and engagement as a scholarly expression in a number of higher education institutions. However, beyond program evaluation of the programs or cases documented in the articles in this journal, there is a paucity of empirical studies and serious policy analysis leading to theory development. (99)

Regarding such empirical documentation and theory development, as detailed above, there currently is no work that explicitly bridges theory and practice employing the concept of the Scholarship of Engagement in conflict analysis and resolution. Hence this edition is a unique contribution to the field which this faculty, as a community of engaged conflict resolution scholars, are readily able to make. The chapters outlined below will elaborate precisely this bridge from the perspective of a variety of specific specialties. We hope they represent a contribution to two key related dialogues: the urgent calls that the academy embrace the Scholarship of Engagement, and the continued development of our understanding of how peace and conflict scholars can ultimately achieve praxis for conflict transformation by employing the Scholarship of Engagement. Dr. Neil H. Katz begins this volume’s exploration of Scholarship of Engagement by providing a contextual and historical setting for its methodology in action research, participatory action research, and participant observation. His chapter describes four studies as they may be viewed through the lens of the Scholarship of Engagement, assessing the effectiveness and objectives of interactions between researcher(s) and community participants in three different past social protest initiatives, as well as in a recent ongoing university-community partnership for enhanced understanding of conflict management in South Florida. The social protest initiatives (an anti-nuclear power protest, a protest against the development of cruise missiles, and a sustained peace march across the United States) provide a rich background for understanding the emergence of the Scholarship of Engagement and its enhancement by different research traditions and guidelines. In contrast, a Scholarship of Engagement approach has greatly informed the current ongoing South Florida conflict management study discussed in Chapter One. Dr. Katz makes a convincing case for how social protest research and other kinds of peace and conflict resolution research can benefit from the Scholarship of Engagement’s full collaboration of students, community, and faculty as co-educators and co-generators of knowledge to address public concerns.

Conflict Resolution and the Scholarship of Engagement

xv

In Chapter Two Dr. Toran Hansen considers how conflict transformation and social movement scholarship contribute to the empowerment of social movement participants in their work. Discussing his own research with the peace movement of Minnesota as an example, he describes and analyzes engagement in social movements using conflict transformation. Included in his discussion are agent transformations, relational transformations, and structural, cultural, and issue transformations that occur over the course of conflict transformation, as well as special features of its processes. The comprehensiveness of analysis and practice of conflict transformation, and the high level of engagement demanded of its scholars and practitioners, illuminate the importance of the transformative conflict framework and process for the Scholarship of Engagement, to benefit surrounding communities and address pressing social concerns. Dr. Cheryl Duckworth in Chapter Three argues that critical peace education and the Scholarship of Engagement can make reciprocal compelling and unique contributions to the successful facilitation of systemic conflict transformation. Critical peace education engages students in developing conflict transformation skills, empowering students and teachers through critical dialogue to become conscious of structural violence roots and causes of a particular violent conflict. As Duckworth notes, deconstruction of dominant social or political myths that reproduce structurally violent systems needs to be accompanied by an enhanced understanding of what might be reconstructed in their place; collaborative problem solving is key to the success of that reconstruction. The Scholarship of Engagement can frame student and academics’ interaction with and among the conflicting parties as well as other stakeholders in the conflict region, in ways that facilitate critical peace education efforts to achieve enhanced understanding and co-create knowledge with and in communities that seek real and effective structural transformation of violent conflict(s) they face. In Chapter Four Dr. Alexia Georgakopoulos and Dr. Steven T. Hawkins explore the role that facilitation processes play in conflict understanding and transformation for community members. They focus on the application of two facilitator models, Dramatic Problem Solving and Interactive Management, to illustrate how understanding their effective use can enhance objectives sought by students and educators, with implications for effective Scholarship of Engagement. Community participant members are ultimately responsible for generating content in both models; in this and other ways Dramatic Problem Solving and

xvi

Introduction

Interactive Management processes and objectives mirror the approach of Scholarship of Engagement, for academics who would benefit communities not by imparting wisdom and solutions but eliciting them via facilitated dialogue among the members of a community or organization. Both models feature culturally-relevant methodologies, involving member participants from design through idea generation to implementation and refinement of community-generated action plans. They also provide for the systematic and logical holistic framing of all facets of the conflict or dispute from the perspective of members and stakeholders. Through engagement of the collective democratic voices of all they promote a sense of ownership, collaboration, and commitment to conflict resolution tasks and outcomes. The authors provide specific examples of the models’ use in community engagement projects, and how their application evolved into acquisition by participants of creative and critical skills sets for confronting conflicts. In Chapter Five Dr. Judith McKay advocates for the embrace of Scholarship of Engagement by higher education programs that train conflict resolution specialists. For the students in such programs, hands-on experience in actual conflict settings is key to successful acquisition of the skills needed to apply what they have learned. That hands-on experience is in turn implicit in the approach of Scholarship of Engagement wherein academic institutions partner and engage with communities and organization. Dr. McKay describes how that engagement can be effectively accomplished through academic school practicum coursework and other collaborative projects that partner higher education with communities. She discusses the wide variety of conflict resolution programs in higher education, and specifically traces the evolution of practicum coursework for students in such programs at Nova Southeastern University (NSU), to illustrate how partnerships between the academy and the community can lead to successful and integrative conflict resolution strategies for community members. The benefits that conflict resolution students derive from the immersion component of their school practicum coursework are mirrored by the benefits experienced as a result of that partnership, by communities, organizations, educators, and individual members and stakeholders in conflict settings. Dr. McKay illustrates the power of student practicum opportunities and integration of the public in scholarship with numerous examples of university and community partnering objectives, research findings, and beneficial outcomes achieved by NSU’s VOICES Family Outreach Project.

Conflict Resolution and the Scholarship of Engagement

xvii

Drs. Claire Michèle Rice and Larry A. Rice in Chapter Six explain why a Scholarship of Engagement that involves community partnerships must also consider how the dichotomies of inclusion/exclusion and ingroup/out-group dynamics affect relationship building among the individuals in the community being served. They broaden our understanding of the term community to encompass people within all their respective circles of influence, including the organizations within which they work and settings within which they ‘live’ and ‘play,” to discuss a phenomenon they have observed in various training situations wherein patterns of exclusion invariably lead to conflict: The Recess Effect. They discuss how its application and understanding can illuminate patterns of exclusion in community activities, to assist faculty, students, trainers, and trainees with effectuating successful partnerships between academic institutions and communities in the Scholarship of Engagement. Building on observations of children’s patterns of inclusion and exclusion in playgrounds and classrooms, The Recess Effect has been observed by the authors in university classrooms and in training workshop participants in organizations. The exclusion and inclusion dichotomy evident in The Recess Effect has distinct implications for understanding possible roots of conflict, and therefore significant relevance for scholars who would engage with communities, organizations, and their members to achieve their respective conflict resolution and transformation objectives. The compelling benefits of an international Scholarship of Engagement in the global arena are discussed by Dr. Ismael Muvingi in Chapter Seven. Through the lens of transitional justice in post-conflict situations in Africa, Dr. Muvingi explores the perceptions of community members’ needs and challenges as framed by their own experiences, noting that a Scholarship of Engagement approach that elicits understanding of the multiple perspectives and meanings of differing stakeholder perceptions of specific conflicts in Africa is essential for higher education teachers and students, to contribute to just understanding and resolution of those conflicts. Two empirical studies are discussed in the context of those differing local perceptions: the first focuses on the Rwandan genocide and the gacaca system in Rwanda, and the second on the Tree of Life initiatives in the ongoing conflicts in Zimbabwe. Both studies illustrate how a Scholarship of Engagement approach necessarily entails eliciting local conceptualizations of justice, thereby enhancing knowledge creation through an effective exploration of African community members’ understandings, objectives, and member-generated solutions. Despite challenges, applying such an approach helps to: 1) meet local needs; 2) counter the continuance of neo-

xviii

Introduction

colonialist relationships between Africa and the world; and 3) bring the focus down from macro-level initiatives driven by elites to a micro-level focus on local particularities, realities, and desires for social transformation. In Chapter Eight Dr. Jason Campbell explores the Scholarship of Engagement’s considerable potential to advance the systematic spreading of genocide awareness on behalf of targeted group members by bridging the conceptual gulf between theory and action. He argues that Scholarship of Engagement as applied to genocide prevention and awareness would allow for greater understanding of local experience, critical to effectively countering state and perpetrator-generated narratives that create and perpetuate systems of dehumanization that legitimize the destruction of members of a targeted population. Such scholarly efforts must first recognize the potential for conflict escalation, most effectively by analyzing the discursive hegemonic modes for describing targeted group members as Other. Those narratives can desensitize populations of moderates to the plight of those outside the scope of state protection, while simultaneously absolving them from the moral obligation to care for their plight. Scholarship of Engagement can effectively access and elicit the narratives of marginalized populations, in turn facilitating the compilation of heterodox narratives of genocide victims and populations. By fostering greater genocide awareness through Scholarship of Engagement that is rooted in the voices of those targeted for extermination, conflict resolution educators and students can engage moderates to recognize the legitimacy and humanity of targeted group members for the ultimate preservation of all human dignity and human life. In Chapter Nine Dr. Dustin Berna seeks to enhance understanding of Islamic fundamentalism, to address the fears Americans and Westerners have toward the Muslim world, when their own world has come in great part to be defined by the events of 9/11, all too frequent terrorist attacks, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While the Scholarship of Engagement is an essential and valuable tool for enhancing the public’s interactive and integrative understanding about Islam, he notes it is a difficult process because of the lack of accurate information, the fear, and the intolerance that plagues American society. The Islamic world should not be feared; nevertheless it is human nature to fear the unknown and the Islamic world is unknown to most Americans. Dr. Berna thus believes that the power of Scholarship of Engagement to facilitate a more informed, active, and tolerant society can and should be used to enhance public understanding of

Conflict Resolution and the Scholarship of Engagement

xix

Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. To facilitate an informed dialogue between academia and the public on the issue of Islamic fundamentalism he describes differences between Islamic fundamentalist movements, to increase awareness of that knowledge among communities and academic institutions partnering for the mutual benefits derived from knowledge creation and dissemination of that knowledge. In the book’s final Chapter Ten, Dr. Elena Bastidas presents a framework for the development of graduate higher education courses that have the potential of becoming incubators for Scholarship of Engagement activities, based on courses developed as part of the graduate curriculum of the Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution (DCAR) at Nova Southeastern University (NSU). These DCAR Global Courses are so termed because they incorporate an overseas field-immersion experiential component that enhances students’ cross-cultural skills and fosters sensitivity to, and appreciation and understanding of, diversity and global issues in the context of specific, local conflict settings. The chapter’s framework is based on the experiences of students and communities in two Global Courses, one in Ecuador (2010) and the other in Suriname (2011), which were designed to provide graduate students with learning experiences that have the potential for inspiring transformational effects in students’ lives while making meaningful contributions to the field of peace and conflict analysis and resolution (CAR) studies. Specific pieces that make up the puzzle of effective academic incubation of Scholarship of Engagement activities in a Global Course are identified and described: 1) the institutional context, 2) the academic field of study, 3) a clear understanding of student needs, and 4) a learner-centered approach to the study of peacemaking and CAR. Dr. Bastidas suggests that Global Courses like these provide the necessary conditions for developing engagement activities that, with the appropriate follow-up, could become important Scholarship of Engagement projects. Moreover, the field immersion component has acted to ignite a passion in DCAR Global Course students for research and their own continued engagement to facilitate mutual learning in communities experiencing conflict. Local communities, academic, and government institutions served and studied during the Global Courses in turn have initiated ongoing partnerships with NSU, to continue the work of conflict analysis and resolution that students commenced with them during the course field component. The Epilogue to this volume explores the many current benefits and still untapped potential of the Scholarship of Engagement for the School of

xx

Introduction

Humanities and Social Sciences (SHSS) at NSU and other higher education institutions. NSU’s SHSS Dean Honggang Yang, Chair of the Department of Family Therapy (DFT) Dr. Tommie V. Boyd, and Senior Associate Dean of the Division of Applied Interdisciplinary Studies (DAIS)1 Dr. Jim Hibel provide in the Epilogue a stirring call for the integration of the Scholarship of Engagement in graduate study programs, to provide meaningful opportunities and elective platforms for town-gown partnerships at local, national, and global levels. Scholarship of Engagement projects have proven at SHSS and NSU to make a difference that becomes publicly known through the scholarly application and presentation of project outcomes. The bedrock of such projects is full collaboration between communities, their members, and all stakeholders with academic educators and students; it is that collaboration that distinguishes the Scholarship of Engagement from service learning and from activities where academics might prescribe or impose solutions on communities. Most significantly, the “impact factors” the authors describe for measuring the success of Scholarship of Engagement projects signal a promising empirical barometer by which to assess the union of higher education and communities in partnership-based endeavors. As the authors suggest, this means rethinking how we evaluate faculty and indeed even how we conceptualize scholarship. The pride and passion the authors feel about the Scholarship of Engagement’s proven potential to bring together the expertise of the community with the expertise of the academy is shared by every contributor to this anthology.

References Barker, Derek. 2004. “The Scholarship of Engagement: A Taxonomy of Five Emerging Practices.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 9 (2): 123-137. Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven N. Tipton. 1996. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Boyer, Ernest L. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. New York, NY: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1

NSU’s Division of Applied Interdisciplinary Studies (DAIS) includes the Center for Psychological Studies, Criminal Justice Institute, Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Human Services Unit, and the Mailman Segal Institute for Early Childhood Studies.

Conflict Resolution and the Scholarship of Engagement

xxi

—. 1996. “The Scholarship of Engagement.” Journal of Public Outreach 1 (1): 11-20. Bringle, Robert G., Richard Games, and Edward A. Malloy. 1990. Colleges and Universities as Citizens. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Cheldelin, Sandra, Daniel Druckman and Larissa Fast, eds. 2008. Conflict: From Analysis to Intervention, 2nd ed. London: Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc. Chibucos, Thomas R., and Richard M. Lerner. (1999). Serving Children and Families Through Community-University Partnerships: Success Stories. Norwell, MA: Academic Publishers. Cloke, Kenneth. 2008. Conflict Revolution: Mediating Evil, War, Injustice, and Terrorism. Santa Ana, CA: Janis Publications. Driscoll, Amy, & Lynton, Ernie A. 1999. Making Outreach Visible:A Guide to Documenting Professional Service and Outreach. Washington D.C.: American Association for Higher Education. Driscoll, Amy, and Lorilee R. Sandmann. 2001. “From Maverick to Mainstream: The Scholarship of Engagement.” Journal of Higher Education: Outreach and Engagement 6 (1): 9-19. Ehrlich, Thomas. 1995. The Courage to Inquire: Ideals and Realities in Higher Education. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Ellis, Susan J., and Katherine H. Noyes. 1990. By the People: A History of Americans as Volunteers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fairweather, James S. 1996. Faculty Work and Public Trust. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Glassick, Charles E., Mary T. Huber, and Gene I. Maeroff. 1997. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Harkavy, Ira and Lee Benson. 1998. “De-Platonizing and Democratizing Education as the Bases of Service Learning.” In Academic Service Learning: A Pedagogy of Action and Reflection. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 73, edited by Robert A. Rhoads & Jeffrey P. Howard, 11-19. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities. 1999. Returning to our Roots: The Engaged Institution. Washington, D.C.: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Lederach, John Paul. 2005. The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lynton, Ernie A. 1995. Making the Case for Professional Service. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.

xxii

Introduction

Michigan State University. 1996. Points of Distinction: A Guidebook for Planning and Evaluating Quality Outreach. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Board of Trustees. O’Meara, KerryAnn and R. Eugene Rice, eds. (2005) Faculty Priorities Reconsidered: Rewarding Multiple Forms of Scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Palmer, Parker J. 1998. The Courage to Teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rice, R. Eugene. 2002. “Beyond Scholarship Reconsidered: Toward an Enlarged Vision of the Scholarly Work of Faculty Members.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 90: 7-18. Sandmann, Lorilee R., Pennie G. Foster-Fishman, James Lloyd, Warren Rauhe, and Cheryl Rosaen. 2000. “Managing Critical Tensions: How to Strengthen the Scholarship Component of Outreach.” Change 32 (1): 44-52. —. 2008. “Conceptualization of the Scholarship of Engagement in Higher Education: A Strategic Review, 1996-2006.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 12 (1): 91-104. Sandmann, Lorilee, Courtney H, Thornton, and Audrey J. Jaeger, eds. 2011. Institutionalizing Community Engagement in Higher Education: The First Wave of Carnegie Classified Institutions. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley and Sons. Schon, Donald A. 1995. “The New Scholarship Requires a New Epistemology.” Change 27 (6): 27-34. Zelizer, Craig, and Robert A. Rubinstein. 2009. Building Peace: Practical Reflections from the Field. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press.

CHAPTER ONE PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH EFFORTS AND SCHOLARSHIP OF ENGAGEMENT NEIL H. KATZ

Scholarship of Engagement is rapidly becoming more accepted in colleges and universities throughout the United States as an accepted mode of scholarship. This book chapter will trace some of the history and descriptions of “action research,” “participatory action research,” “participant observation,” and “scholarship of engagement,” and demonstrate some linkages between them. I will then present four previous research efforts to explore some compelling themes. The four case studies will be “Citizen Reaction to Protests at a Nuclear Power Plant,” “Community Reaction to Protests at a Cruise Missile Military Site,” “The Use of Mediation among Participants in the Great Peace March Across the United States,” and “Understanding Conflict Management Systems and Strategies in the Workplace in Broward County, Florida.” This chapter will also address how these research studies and similar research efforts could be enhanced by building bridges and borrowing from the different research traditions and guidelines. During my 40-year professorial role in higher education at 5 different universities in the United States and Canada, I have witnessed many changes and reforms. One of the most significant innovations has been the fairly recent movement and acceptance of the “Scholarship of Engagement.” Throughout my career during my 37 years at Syracuse University, scholarship that counted towards rewards, including tenure and promotion, was traditional or “pure” scholarship—mostly dispassionate, objective, academic writing that would find publication in peer-reviewed academic journals or in books published by a recognized academic press. A corollary system attached to this was a reward system that was heavily influenced by how many times a particular scholar was cited by his peers,

2

Chapter One

a measure then compiled and publicized in books such as the Social Science Citation Index. This culture of privileging traditional, pure scholarship has been challenged by numerous scholars and research trends, but none of them have been as successful as the Scholarship of Engagement. First promoted widely by Ernest Boyer in 1991 from his prominent position as President of the influential Carnegie Academy for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, the Scholarship of Engagement has become accepted as a much desired goal for many universities that compete to become a member of an exalted list of schools honored for receiving Carnegie Community Engagement Classification. Annual conferences of scholars dedicated to Scholarship of Engagement have taken place over the past 12 years, with two recent annual conferences at North Carolina State University and Michigan State University drawing about 500 participants from over 75 United States colleges and universities, as well as representatives from universities from 29 states and 5 foreign countries (Crowgey and Futrell 2011). The widespread popularity and acceptance of Scholarship of Engagement is also supported by evidence of over a hundred journals publishing articles of this nature, as well as dozens of websites, electronic mailing lists, and regional gatherings and conferences. Ernest Boyer’s (1991) influence in this revolution of accepted academic scholarship began to spike with the wide circulation of the 1990 Carnegie Foundation report on “Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Profession,” which assigned 4 “interlocking functions” to the professorate and promoted new models of balancing 4 general scholarship areas: 1) The scholarship of discovery, which incorporated basic research that expanded the frontiers of human knowledge. 2) The scholarship of integration, which placed discoveries within a larger context and made interdisciplinary connections, often educating non-specialists as well by illuminating data in new ways. 3) The scholarship of teaching, which transformed and extended knowledge among a wider audience beyond the scholar’s peers. 4) The scholarship of application in which theory and practice informed each other; it was applied to solve problems, to help individuals and institutions acquire “new intellectual understandings from the very act of application.”

Participatory Action Research Efforts and Scholarship of Engagement

3

Boyer’s (1991) publication surely provided an impetus for discussions of what kinds of scholarship should be accepted, promoted, and rewarded at Syracuse University and other colleges and universities across the country. However, it was the April 1996 publication of his clarion call for “Scholarship of Engagement” in the prestigious Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences that really began to have a major impact on the culture of higher education scholarship. Boyer’s (1996) main thesis, both in his Bulletin article and his subsequent book Scholarship Reconsidered, was that a new form of scholarship was needed to counter the trend toward mainstream academic scholarship emphasizing “increasing specialization, fragmentation of knowledge, and narrowly defined notions of faculty scholarship” (32). Boyer reminded his audience that universities historically served as partners to the local and wider communities in the “search for answers for our most pressing social, economic and moral problems,” and higher education needed to reaffirm this commitment that had “become submerged to the pedestal of traditional scholarship” (18). He called for universities to “retrace their steps back to their civic responsibility” by engaging in scholarship that “makes connections across disciplines and places specialties in larger contexts” and “embraces academically relevant work that simultaneously meets campus missions and goals as well as community needs external to the campus environment to contribute to the public good”(32). Scholarship of Engagement would cut across Boyer’s four categories of academic scholarship identified in this 1990 article (discovery, teaching, integration, application) and would have university researchers “form a reciprocal, collaborative relationship with a public entity to incorporate civic engagement into the production of knowledge” (Barker 2004, 124). Furthermore, it would “cut across disciplinary boundaries and teaching, research and outreach functions in which scholars would communicate to and work both for and with communities” (Barker 2004, 123). Although Ernest Boyer’s critique of mainstream scholarship, his compelling call for Scholarship of Engagement, and the prestige of the Carnegie Foundation Community Engagement listing and designation all lent visibility and credibility to this new wave of scholarship, one must not conclude that all of these elements are totally new initiatives in academic research and practice. To me, among the initiatives that provided powerful antecedents to the scholarship of engagement are research practices of action research, participatory action research and participant observation.

4

Chapter One

Throughout history there have undoubtedly been academic researchers who engaged in scholarship intended to produce social action and civic engagement. However, the term “Action Research” is widely attributed to social psychologist Kurt Lewin and some of his World War II contemporaries who committed themselves to conducting research that would have practical application and deal with compelling issues of the time, such as prejudice, authoritarianism, dogmatism, leadership, group behavior, and decision making. Lewin, a German Jew who had fled Nazism and Germany in 1933, involved himself and his colleagues in “a form of research which married the experimental approach of social science with programs of social action in response to social problems of the day to “advance both theory and needed social change” (Kemmis 1980, 29). And even as far back as 1944 when Lewin and his associates conducted studies of food shopping and eating habits of American and British citizens in relation to food rationing during World War II, Lewin believed strongly that “participants in the social world, under investigation, were to be involved in every state of the action research cycle…including a more central role in the formulation and execution of the action research cycle” (Kemmis 1980, 30). The approach of Action Research was soon followed by several spinoff traditions, including participatory action research and participant observation. William Foote Whyte (1989), a leading theorist and practitioner of these approaches, distinguished participatory action research as the researcher “combining observation with explicitly recognized action objectives and a commitment to carry out the project with the active participation in the research process by some members of the organization being studied” (369). Participatory Action Research would also be explicitly “client centered research in that it was focused on practical problems of importance to the client organization” (382). Professional researchers and members of the client organization would “work together in defining the problem and gathering the data, as well as in the analysis and action phases of the project” (382). Participant observation, an offshoot of participatory action research, distinguished itself as a research tradition by having the “researcher use participation to gain access to members of a group or organization to observe behavior as it occurs, and also to build relations of personal trust needed to elicit full and reasonably frank interview material” (Whyte 1989, 368). Ideally the researcher would be as inconspicuous as possible and “blend into the social scene in such a way to minimize the impact of

Participatory Action Research Efforts and Scholarship of Engagement

5

his or her presence on the behaviors of those observed” (368).With roots in traditional ethnographic research, the objective was to assist the research team to study the actual attitudes, motivation, and perspectives held by the study targets. Unlike Participatory Action Research, Participant Observation alone does not necessarily call for the same kind of involvement from members of the group being studied in the design, implementation, and results of the research study. In this regard, Participatory Action Research is more congruent with Scholarship of Engagement than pure participant observation methods (Mack et al. 2005).

Four Research Projects In the next section of this chapter, I want to address four research studies I have been involved in during my academic career at Syracuse University and Nova Southeastern University, and relate how each of them borrows some elements from the traditions of action research, participatory action research, participant observation, and scholarship of engagement. I will then conclude with some observations of the relationship between research theory and practice, noting how research projects such as these could have been enhanced by combining some of the best features of each of these traditions. The first three research studies explored the use of nonviolent struggle to produce purposive change through social protest movements. As Gene Sharp (1973, 2010, 2011) and other scholars (Ackerman and Kruegler 1994, Ackerman and Duvall 2000) have documented over the past few decades, nonviolent struggle has an impressive history of accomplishments. The use of nonviolent action by social protest groups has recently received much attention and credibility by mass citizen actions during the “Arab Spring” and Occupy Wall Street movements. These noteworthy phenomena, coupled with the recent popularity of Scholarship of Engagement in our nation’s colleges and universities, has prompted me to revisit some of my earlier research on social protest movements to speculate on how the older traditions of action research, participatory action research, and participant observation could be enhanced by some of the guidelines now being trumpeted by the Scholarship of Engagement. In my earlier academic career at Syracuse University as Professor and Director of the Program in Nonviolent Conflict and Change, (PNCC), I headed several research projects attempting to address some salient unanswered questions about the dynamics of nonviolent struggle within

6

Chapter One

social movement organizations: (1) how do people come to participate in nonviolent struggle; (2) what are the strategies and tactics that various nonviolent action groups use; (3) how are third parties affected by various nonviolent action strategies and tactics; and (4) how does a protesting group's internal decision making and conflict resolution structure and procedures affect the group's performance of their effort? In general, I was interested in how social protesters think about and evaluate their own actions and how third parties perceive the behavior of nonviolent resistors. As this action-research was carried out by members of the Program in Nonviolent Conflict and Change (PNCC) at Syracuse University, some words about the Program and its members are important. The program, initiated in 1970 during the height of demonstrations against American involvement in the Viet Nam War, concentrated its study on nonviolent means of resolving conflicts and influencing change. While the program emphasized undergraduate teaching, a number of graduate students were attracted to the interdisciplinary graduate programs of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs because of PNCC. In 1986, the Hewlett Foundation provided Syracuse University with funding to launch the Program on the Analysis and Resolution of Conflicts (PARC), a research and theory-generating program, voluntarily attracting many graduate students and faculty from throughout the Maxwell School. Together, PNCC and PARC provided a focal point for those of us who were interested in researching questions of nonviolent struggle and conflict resolution. Some students, both undergraduates and graduate, and some faculty who were active in the programs, were advocates of nonviolent action and have had personal experience with its practice. The personal tension between studying versus doing nonviolent action was often evident. The research projects that I will discuss are just a few of our attempts to wed these two concerns. The reasons for conducting the research itself were fourfold. We wanted to: x Add to the literature of the impressive history of nonviolent struggle x Assess the impact of the protest movement’s action on public opinion, particularly in the immediate local area x Help the movement organizers to understand more about the impact of their actions on their own movement and on the intended audience.

Participatory Action Research Efforts and Scholarship of Engagement

7

x Assist the social protest movements by giving them valuable data to enhance their future strategy and tactics. The specific data that our research team gathered and explored can be grouped into four categories: the motivation and personal characteristics of the participants, the strategies and tactics they used, the impact of their action on third parties and opponents, and the effect of the action on the participant group itself. Under each of these categories, there were several more specific questions which guided how we collected and analyzed our data: I. Understanding the participants A. What types of participants are there in nonviolent action groups? What are the roles that they perform for the action groups? What factors contribute to the recruitment and retention of the different types of participants? B. What are the characteristics of participants in nonviolent action groups? II. Strategies and tactics that nonviolent action groups used to wage conflict A. What are the strategies and tactics that nonviolent action groups use in order to gain concessions from the groups and individuals they are in conflict with? B. What are the strategies and tactics that nonviolent action groups use in order to gain adherents and supporters and to mobilize others for participation? III. Impact of action on third parties and opponents A. The primary opponents -- how are they affected by protesters actions and the responses of third parties? How effective are opponents' actions in thwarting the protesters? B. Government officials and other key decision-makers How do they respond in terms of attitude, behavior, and public policy questions? Can their changes be attributed to the action of the protesters? IV. Effect of Action on the social protesters A. On the group itself—how effectively do members work together? What is the impact of internal communication and decision making structures and process on the group itself?

Chapter One

8

B.

On individual protesters—does the protest action mobilize and motivate participants for future action? Under what conditions do individuals drop out of a movement?

The following brief discussion of our action research efforts offers a glimpse of the protest actions and of our research methods and results. My intent in each of these vignettes is not to thoroughly describe the actions or the research findings, but to comment on these research questions within the vignettes and then offer some general observations about how research on social protest movements could be assisted by the addition of some of the best features of research methods, such as action research, participatory action research, participant observation and scholarship of engagement.1

The Seabrook Anti-Nuclear Power Protests In June of 1978 a team of nine PNCC researchers/participants traveled to Seabrook, New Hampshire, to study the Clamshell Alliance and its announced actions. The Clamshell Alliance, a loose federation of antinuclear power groups in and around New England, had engaged in several prior acts of civil disobedience to stop construction of the proposed Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant. Most notable of these was a 1977 mass civil disobedience action in which 1,414 protesters were arrested for trespassing after intentionally refusing to leave the Power Plant parking lot and entrance. The arrestees then applied the tactics of bail solidarity and non-cooperation with procedures in the armory where they were held for up to two weeks. The $50,000 cost-per-day to the state for the Clamshell incarceration influenced New Hampshire’s Governor, Meldrim Thomson, to eventually offer a compromise to the protesters. The "Clams" accepted a mass verdict of guilty on misdemeanor trespassing charges (instead of demanding separate trials) and, in exchange, the state released them on personal recognizance. In 1978 the State and the Public Service Company of New Hampshire were determined not to repeat the 1977 scenario, which cost them well over $500, 000 for the incarceration. The state and the utility hired consultants on nuclear power protesters and public relations, and 1

For additional information on these social protest movements, see Katz, et al. 1981, 1984, 1988.

Participatory Action Research Efforts and Scholarship of Engagement

9

appointed a new state Attorney General to seize the initiative in the battle with the Clamshell Alliance which had announced its intention to “mobilize the citizenry to return to the site to blockade or occupy it until construction has ceased and the project is totally and irrevocably cancelled.” (Katz and List, 1981, 59) Clamshell organizers claimed that had 25,000 protesters willing to commit massive and sustained civil disobedience. The Clamshell opposition, led by Governor Thomson and William Loeb, the editor of the staunchly conservative paper, the Manchester Union Leader, escalated the rhetoric and hysteria leading up to the June, 1978 appointed date by attesting that Clamshell was planning “essentially a military maneuver” that “might seek the unlawful destruction of lives or property.” Furthermore, the organizers of the protest were characterized as “terrorists” and as “associates of Russian agents.” (Katz and List 1981, 59) It was in this highly charged environment that the new Attorney General, Thomas Rath, offered the Clamshell Alliance a deal in which a portion of the Seabrook site would be set aside for a legal anti-nuclear power rally and alternative energy fair the weekend of June 23-26. In turn, Clamshell would agree to four demands: 1) ensure the demonstration would be nonviolent, 2) not enter the fenced area, 3) not interfere with the access road for construction workers, and 4) leave the site at an agreedupon time. The proposal was presented to the Clamshell leadership group only six weeks before the planned occupation. Both the timing and terms of the proposal created a huge controversy within Clamshell. The Clamshell leadership team initially rejected the proposal and offered five counter-proposals. However, after their opponents labeled them publicly as "unreasonable" and "irresponsible," and the state had increased its pressure on local Clamshell supporters, the Clamshell Central Committee accepted the "Rath Agreement." Some members of Clamshell were shocked with the agreement and accused the group's co-ordinating committee of "selling-out" and violating Clamshell consensus and decision- making procedures. Dissident Clams believed the Alliance had been maneuvered into abandoning its main tactic of civil disobedience and abandoning its unique and well-developed decision making structure using representatives from the numerous affinity groups to help make decisions on policy. The group was now deeply divided. In this atmosphere of internal strife the Clamshell Alliance held its June 23-25 “weekend rally and alternative energy fair,” which attracted

10

Chapter One

approximately 6000 protesters and 14,000 on-lookers. At the end of the weekend, the protesters left the site voluntarily, and, according to State and County inspectors, “left the site much cleaner than when they arrived.” Even Governor Thomson affirmed they were a “well-disciplined group…who co-operated and kept their word.”(Katz and List 1981, 60) The nine-member research team from Syracuse University’s PNCC travelled to Seabrook to attend and study the rally and was accepted as a “Clam Affinity Group.”2 The research team witnessed the now legal and peaceful protest and administered a survey instrument of closed and openended questions to a representative quota sample of 113 protesters while also observing how members operated at Clamshell meetings and briefings. Our research team gathered information on the background and ideology of the protesters, the perceived effectiveness of their tactics, and the perception and attitudes of individual members toward the Clamshell organization. In general terms, researchers found the protesters to be mostly young, highly educated, politically left of center, with strong feminist and pacifist sympathies. Regarding tactics, members demonstrated a disposition toward “direct action” since they believed that “anti-nuclear interveners faced a stacked regulatory deck” at hearings and from other more traditional means to influence policy makers. The most important finding showed strong evidence that the organization's structure and decision-making process encouraged loyalty and support to the organization from its members despite the controversy over the Rath Agreement and the process by which it was adopted. Specifically, the membership's overwhelming support of Clamshell's affinity group structure (small groups of 10 members who trained together, had responsibility to one another and made decisions together) and consensus decision-making procedure, and the perceptions of members that they had influence in the group, provided motivation to maintain loyalty to the organization and comply with the Rath agreement, despite serious misgivings of many of its members. Immediately after the weekend rally, five of the original nine PNCC researchers remained in the area for another two weeks, to assess the impact of the demonstration on local public opinion regarding the nuclear power issue, and to explore townspeople’s reactions to the Clamshell 2

Clam affinity groups were made up of approximately 10 people who would train together, live, and protest together during the demonstration, and would make decisions by consensus. The individual affinity groups would send representatives to the larger Clamshell decision making body.

Participatory Action Research Efforts and Scholarship of Engagement

11

organization itself as well as any change in beliefs that could be attributed to the recent actions. Researchers attempted to administer a telephone survey to 242 adult members randomly selected from the Seabrook telephone directory. Although some of the sample group did not answer the phone or refused to answer the questions on the survey, 144 or 60% of the targeted population answered the complete questionnaire. Results of the survey indicated that the acceptance and upholding of the Rath agreement brought the Clamshell considerable support among area residents in terms of “legitimacy" and “appeal” for their goals and actions and understanding of their concerns. Respondents chose to characterize the actions as “mostly peaceful” (over 83%) and a “demonstration or protest” (over 93%), as opposed to “an attempted revolution”, “a rebellion against authority,” “a few troublemakers causing trouble,” or “a bunch of people out to have a good time.” Other indicators of understanding and support for Clamshell gave evidence of residents’ overwhelming agreement that the Alliance had a “legitimate grievance in their opposition of the nuclear power plant”, did have “respect for the law”, and had “sincerely attempted to use legal means in its efforts to stop construction of the plant.” Most importantly, survey respondents agreed that the “recent actions taken by the Clamshell Alliance helped their cause” (over 58%), as opposed to 17 % who believed that “recent actions hurt their cause.” More respondents believed that the “recent actions have made local people more opposed to the construction of the Seabrook Plant,” with over 42% indicating they strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, as opposed to 26% who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. For purposes of this discussion, most noteworthy are two developments that occurred in the few weeks and months following the 1978 protests. One was the apparent minimal interest in the findings of our research effort on the part of leaders of the direct action. In fact, though Clamshell leaders graciously accepted and expressed thanks for receiving our research results, they desired very little follow-up discussions regarding the interview data of their own members, nor regarding the survey of the effect of their actions on the Seabrook residents. (It should be noted that officers of the Nuclear Power Plant requested our survey results immediately after the data-gathering effort). The second development was, perhaps, even more surprising. Although the June 1978 protest was unusually successful in gaining support from Seabrook residents, countering the negative characterizations of the protesters spearheaded by

12

Chapter One

the Governor and the editor of the Manchester Union Leader, and demonstrating loyalty to the Clamshell Alliance among its members, the deep divisions over tactics that surfaced during the controversy over the Rath Agreement continued to divide the Alliance, so much so that they were unable to mount any significant united actions after the June 1978 rally.

Seneca Army Depot Protest On the weekend of October 22, 1984, about 5,000 protesters rallied near the Seneca Army Depot in Romulus, a small town in upstate New York in which the Army Depot was the largest employer. The rally was organized by a coalition of New York State peace groups opposed to the storage of nuclear weapons, especially Pershing II and Cruise Missiles, at the Seneca Army Depot. (The U. S. Department of Defense never affirmed or denied that the weapons were stored there.) Members of PNCC traveled to Romulus to survey 150 participants at the rally and, during the two weeks following, questioned 116 people who lived near the area. We asked residents about their attitudes toward the demonstrators and their goals, and their feelings about living near the nuclear weapons facility. The research team also collected data on the protesters themselves that served to refute some common myths about protest participants (that they are "recycled hippies" from the 1960s or that they were "outside agitators" whose real intent was to overthrow the government by violent means). For the most part, survey results showed the demonstrators to be fairly traditional and mainstream. Almost all of the participants surveyed were from New York and many of them were first time protesters, even though three-fourths of the group was over 25 years old. More than 90% belonged to one of the two major political parties, or were independent voters who believed that working within the party system was at least sometimes effective. An overwhelming majority of protesters said they were committed to nonviolence. The most significant finding of the residents' survey was the high awareness of the residents about the possible dangers of nuclear activity in their hometown. Seventy percent of the residents believed that nuclear weapons were stored there and that Seneca would be a likely target of a nuclear attack. The protesters, however, not only underestimated the residents' awareness of the risks, they also underestimated the town peoples' strong beliefs in the positive benefits of the Depot. Over three-

Participatory Action Research Efforts and Scholarship of Engagement

13

fourths of the residents believed the Depot had a positive economic impact on their lives and the community. This finding serves as an important reminder to protesters that, in preparation of an action, they need to research the attitude of third parties and launch an education campaign prior to, or parallel with, mass protests that will deal with the critical issues that emerge (e.g., in Seneca the need to address alternative employment possibilities).

The Use of Mediation in the Great Peace March On November 11, 1986, about 15,000 people celebrated the grand finale of the "The Great American Peace March for Global Nuclear Disarmament" at Lafayette Park across from the White House. The approximately 500 walkers had trekked most (or all) of the 3700-mile, journey from Los Angeles to Washington, D. C., had walked an average of 18-25 miles daily for 8 1/2 months, and had lived and worked constructively among a diverse group of strangers who ranged from 1 year to 79 years in age. Drawing inspiration from Gandhi’s “March to the Sea” and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s marches for civil rights, throughout their 11state march the protesters held rallies in towns and cities about the need for global nuclear disarmament “to counteract a danger that is so urgent and so serious that they gave up their jobs and homes, incomes and conveniences to educate and demonstrate their belief that individuals can make a difference.”(Katz and Manes 1988b, 77) As one might expect during this physically demanding journey in which “work” and “home” were a single environment, there were many disagreements since the group constantly needed to make decisions about daily living needs as well as march strategies and logistics. In this crisisladen atmosphere, there was high awareness of the critical need for innovative, constructive conflict resolution mechanisms. For this reason, the peace walkers' processes for managing conflict were the focus of a research effort by faculty, graduate students, and staff from PNCC. A team of five researchers spent two days with the marchers as they walked into downtown Baltimore on their way to Washington, D. C. Before deciding on and designing the research project, our team had communicated with several members of the walk team who mentioned the use of mediation as a specific, significant factor in strengthening their peace action. Our research attempted to more thoroughly test the impact of

14

Chapter One

formal mediation in the Peace March. We administered a survey instrument composed of closed and open-ended questions to measure: (1) walkers' awareness of the range of dispute settlement procedures, (2) their awareness of mediation as an option, and (3) the perceived impact of mediation on the march itself. Researchers administered and completed 69 interviews with a quota sample of marchers who had been involved with the march at least two months; 77% of the sample had spent over 6 months with the march. The results of the 26-item survey certainly confirmed the proposition that the use of mediation contributed to the ability of the marchers to reach their destination and publicize their disarmament message. Furthermore, the findings of our research confirmed certain claimed benefits of mediation. Specifically, the use of the voluntary process allowed disputants to feel safe, respected, and understood, and assisted them in articulating mutually agreeable solutions. Both the process and the mediators earned strong approval from the users of mediation, and there was a high frequency of agreement attained through mediation (77%), as well as a high level of satisfaction with the outcome of mediation (80%). 96% of the respondents stated that they would recommend the process to others. Most important, the users of mediation claimed that mediation positively affected their overall contributions to the march. Their ability to work out disagreements allowed them to function productively as part of the peace marchers “family,” in stark contrast to the belief of 55% of the respondents who voiced their opinion that “aggressive behavior” would have resulted, had mediation not been available. In addition, even nonusers spoke highly of the benefits of mediation, especially its facilitation of their ability to model values of co-operation and belief in the desirability and feasibility of peaceful relations among people and nations. The marchers saw themselves as an experimental and affirming community, yet also believed that conflict is normal and inherent in human relationships. Thus the fact that they were able to live their values within the demanding society they had created was a deep source of satisfaction to them, and allowed them to help keep their fragile, intimate social fabric intact. In his important book Justice Without Law, Jerold Auerbach (1983) states that “for a community to operate efficiently and successfully with non-legal dispute settlement procedures, there must be a high congruence

Participatory Action Research Efforts and Scholarship of Engagement

15

between individual and community norms, with shared commitment to common values” (16), and further that “the varieties of dispute resolution procedures and the socially sanctioned choices in any culture communicate the ideals people cherish, their perceptions of themselves, and the quality of their relationships with others” (324). This study of the use of innovative mediation techniques not only informed us of the the unique social culture of the “Great Peace March,” but also afforded us an important glimpse of the norms, values, and aspirations of that community, and its individual members’ attempts to shape and live up to them. The fourth research project I next want to briefly describe has a focus not on social protest movements, but on the use of systems and strategies of handling disputes and difference within the workplace environment in a large, diverse county in southeast Florida.

Understanding Conflict Management Systems and Strategies in the Workplace (Broward County, Florida) This research study is being conducted presently in my position as Chair and Professor in the Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution at Nova Southeastern University (NSU) in Ft. Lauderdale. With funding provided by an NSU Quality of Life Grant, I served as coprinciple investigator (along with a wonderful Ph.D. student, Linda Flynn) on a pilot project designed to enhance “Understanding Conflict Management Systems and Strategies in the Broward County (southeast Florida) Workplace.” Unlike previous studies, this investigation has explicit, formal community partners---the United Way of Broward County and the Greater Ft. Lauderdale Workplace Alliance---that assisted us with invaluable support, by contacting both private and non-profit organizations on our behalf and helping us to gain access to their organizational leadership. The goals of the study are to: 1. Measure awareness, perceptions, and usage of conflict management systems 2. Assess how organizational members handle issues and differences with employees and customers 3. Measure level of satisfaction with/of current systems and strategies 4. Understand more completely the associated costs of workplace conflict 5. Examine the relationship among leadership, organizational culture

16

Chapter One

and conflict practices 6. Provide results back to the business community with information and comparisons to best practices 7. Work with the business community to develop effective tools for managing workplace conflict. To gather information for the assessment, the research effort followed a mixed method design, conducting extensive face-to-face interviews with over 20 leaders in the private, public, and non-profit sectors, and administering quantitative surveys to employees and managers in selected organizations. Though the data is still being collected and analyzed, preliminary findings indicate that, for the most part, old-fashioned systems emphasizing avoidance, formal grievances, and threats of litigation still predominate in most workplaces, despite advances of knowledge and practices of what are commonly referred to as “alternative dispute resolution” (ADR) processes, such as facilitation, negotiation, and mediation. In fact, in many of the organizations studied, there was a decided lack of awareness of many of these ADR methods, and when they were used, they most often were contracted out to experts outside the organization. In addition, in some organizations, the leader’s perception of “satisfaction” with current disputes resolution practices were decidedly more favorable than the satisfaction level articulated by employees. Not surprisingly, we found a strong relationship among sophisticated leadership philosophy and tools, organizational culture, and more innovative conflict resolution procedures. Follow-up meetings with community partners and the organizations participating in the study will highlight possible advantages of training opportunities to become more knowledgeable and competent in adapting and utilizing some of these ADR practices, as well as facilitating a sharing of “best practices” of preventing and managing conflict from our interviews and literature in the field (Katz and Flynn 2011).

Relationship of Research, Theory and Action Before I return to some additional comments on these research projects and some general observations about how different research traditions contributed to these studies, I want to explicate an overarching meta-theme that emerged from discussions from our research team in each of these projects. As we analyzed our research efforts and shared our insights, members of the different project research teams consistently brought up

Participatory Action Research Efforts and Scholarship of Engagement

17

new insights on their understanding of the relationship among theory, research, and practice. As the research projects developed, we became more and more convinced of the fragility and permeability of the borders between research, theory, and practice. When researchers initiated the first project, we assumed that the roles of researchers/theorists and activists/practitioners were separate and distinct. For the most part, we assumed that activists and practitioners did not reflect much on their actions so we would need to provide this for them. In William Foote Whyte's (1984) words, we were all set to conduct ourselves as if "we theorize, they behave." As the research efforts continued and we worked more closely with activists and organizational leaders, we became more knowledgeable in understanding their perceptions and their own cycles of processing research, theory, and action. What we learned paralleled many of the views of Donald Schon (1983) in his important work The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. We now understood in a more profound way that activists have unspoken theories which include assumptions and ideas about how to win adherents, how people are motivated to become involved in social movements, what actions are likely to be successful, and leadership’s role in handling workplace conflict. The context in which activists and practitioners operate often requires them to take action even when they themselves do not have a comprehensive or well-developed plan or theory under which to operate. Nevertheless, they must act or lose the opportunity to create change. Even when our subjects claimed not to have theories, we recognized that there are assumptions which guide the behavior of activists and their assumptions were based on some theoretical propositions. As we worked with our research target groups, we became increasingly aware of the process that Schon (1983) describes of "reflection in action" - that is, going through procedures like a) framing the problem, b) testing procedures, c) looking for common features, d) analyzing the results, e) repeating performances that produce positive results, f) feeding information about negative or surprising results into a new set of assumptions and theory, and starting again. As we understood more about how activists and practitioners thought, felt, and behaved, we not only adjusted our appreciation of them and their world, but we became more convinced of the perniciousness of the

18

Chapter One

commonly-held assumption that the worlds of theory and action are almost totally separate and distinct. We concluded that, although the formalization of the thinking process might be different, people we commonly refer to as researchers and activists all construct hypotheses, continually test and revise those hypotheses and theories, and represent those findings to different audiences by different means, such as writing for publications, conducting skill training workshops, conducting nonviolent struggle, or dealing with organizational conflict (Katz and Thorson 1988).

Building Bridges to Scholarship of Engagement There is no doubt that research projects such as the four referenced in this chapter combine many of the salient elements of action research, participatory action research and participant observation. From action research they are consistent with the mandate that research could be connected to pressing social issues of the day. Just as today’s headlines dramatically publicize the contested issues and actions of the Occupy Wall Street Protesters and of nonviolent movements in the Middle East and beyond against dictatorial regimes, protesters in the cases described here tackled compelling issues of their time, such as: the potential dangers of nuclear power; the implications of producing, storing, and relying upon weapons capable of mass destruction; the urgency of making serious efforts toward nuclear disarmament; and the benefits of learning and adopting more creative methods of managing conflicts in today’s highly stressed workplaces. Congruent with guidelines both from action research and participatory action research, these research efforts also demonstrated a commitment to client-centered research and dealt with “practical problems of importance to the client and the organization” (Whyte 1989, 382). In addition, to a varying degree each of the projects had the “participants being studied play a central role in the formulation and execution of the research project” (Kemmins 1980, 30). Our research teams also followed some of the guidelines of participant observation methodology by spending considerable time and energy building a trusting relationship with the various clients. Further, our willingness to organize ourselves as a “Clam affinity group,” stay on-site with the Seabrook protestors, march for two days with the Great Peace March, and develop rapport with the Seneca Protesters with several on-site visits, all helped us build credibility with

Participatory Action Research Efforts and Scholarship of Engagement

19

the groups we were studying, as well as experience some of what it was like to be a member of the group. What is more open to debate, however, is whether the social protest movement studies such as the ones described here would qualify today as Scholarship of Engagement, since they were more clearly designed to build the target protest group’s awareness of their effectiveness of their decisions and actions, as opposed to raising awareness in the community or public at large by more traditional means. I believe this is an important question. As Scholarship of Engagement becomes more accepted and rewarded in academia, I fear that “public good” and “community” might become defined in ways that would marginalize or even denigrate people actively fighting the status quo. I therefore want to promote the view that research on social movement groups such as these should qualify for meeting the standards of Scholarship of Engagement, since the research findings are available to the wider public both in formal and informal forums, the issues raised offer the opportunity for constructive dialogue and action among citizens, and nonviolent struggle is an acceptable practice of voicing opinion and expressing democratic principles and decision making to an informed and engaged public. Recent December 2011 news reports proclaim “The Protester” as the Time Magazine “Person of the Year,” particularly citing nonviolent social protest movements in the Middle East and North Africa that have now spread to Europe, Russia, and the U.S. More importantly, in recognizing “The Protester” as “the person or thing that has most influenced the culture and the news during the past year,” Time Magazine cited “The Protester” as a significant actor in “reshaping global politics” and “redefining people power around the world.” Indeed, as Time Magazine’s managing editor Rich Stengel proclaimed on announcing the choice on NBC’s Today Show, “these are the folks who are changing history.”3 Although these kinds of research efforts might legitimately be accepted as Scholarship of Engagement, it still behooves scholars and activists to pay attention to the some of the new guidelines of this emerging practice. At the Fall 2010 North Carolina State University 11th Annual National Outreach Scholarship Conference on Sustaining Authentic Engagement, the concepts of partnership and full collaboration of students, community, and faculty as co-educators and co-generators of knowledge to address 3

“The Protester named Time ‘Person of the Year.’” Palm Beach Post, Dec. 15, 2011, 14A; “Time’s Person of the Year is ‘The Protester,’ Beating out Kate Middleton, Steve Jobs.” New York Daily News, Dec. 14, 2011.

20

Chapter One

questions of public concern were continually emphasized. Had our earlier research efforts on social protest movements followed this guideline as closely as Scholarship of Engagement suggests, we not only would have benefited from knowledge of the protesters, their opponents, and the surrounding community in the design and implementation of our previous studies, but also might have found even more interest and receptiveness for our findings from our chosen populations. Building on former traditions of action research, participatory action research and participant observation, Scholarship of Engagement can provide enhanced support for social protest movement research, as well as for many other kinds of peace and conflict resolution research, to meet Ernest Boyer’s plea that universities meet their “civic responsibility” by dealing with “pressing social, economic, and moral problems” of the day (Boyer 1996).

References Ackerman, Peter, and Christopher Kruegler. 1994. Strategic Nonviolence Conflict. Westport, CT: Praeger. Ackerman, Peter, and Jack Duvall. 2000. A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict. New York: St. Martins Press. Andersen, Kurt. December 14, 2011. “Person of the Year: The Protester.” TIME 178, no. 25. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2101745_ 2102132_2102373,00.html Auerback, Jerold S. 1983. Justice Without Law. New York: Oxford University Press. Barker, Derek. 2004. “Scholarship of Engagement: A Taxonomy of Emerging Practices.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 9 (2): 123. Boyer, Ernest L. 1991. “Highlights of the Carnegie Report: The Scholarship of Teaching from Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professions.” College Teaching 39 (1): 11-13. —. 1996. “The Scholarship of Engagement.” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Science 49 (7): 18-33. Gamson, William. 1975. The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press. Katz, Neil, and Linda Flynn. 2011. “Conflict Management Systems and Strategies in Broward County (Florida) Workplace.” Paper presented at the Association for Conflict Resolution Annual Conference, San Diego, CA.

Participatory Action Research Efforts and Scholarship of Engagement

21

Katz, Neil, and John Hunt. 1984. Nonviolent Protest and Third Party Public Opinion. Citizen Participation in Science Policy, edited by J. Petersen. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Katz, Neil, and David List. 1981. “Seabrook: A Profile of Anti-Nuclear Activists, June 1978.” Peace and Change: A Journal of Peace Research 7 (3): 59-70. Katz, Neil, and Averell Manes. 1988a. “The Use and Effectiveness of Mediation on the Great Peace March.” Working Paper No. 4. Syracuse, NY: Program on the Analysis and Resolution of Conflicts (PARC), Syracuse University. —. 1988b. “Resolving Conflicts within an Experimental Community: Keeping the Peace on the Great Peace March.” Breakthrough 9: 1-3. Katz, Neil, and Stuart Thorson. 1988. “Theory and Practice: A Pernicious Separation.” Negotiation Journal 4 (2): 115-118. Kemmis, Stephen 1980. “Action Research in Retrospect and Prospect.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney, Australia. Kriesberg, Louis. 1982. Social Conflicts. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, Inc. Kriesberg, Louis, and Bruce Dayton. 2012. Constructive Conflict from Escalation to Resolution. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Mack, Natasha, Cynthia Woodsong, Kathleen M. MacQueen, Greg Guest, and Emily Namey. 2005. Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector’s Field Guide. Triangle Park, NC: Family Health International. McCarthy, James D., and Mayer N. Zald. 1977. Resource Mobilization Theory and Social Movements: A Partial Theory. American Journal of Sociology 82: 1212-1241. Schon, Donald A. 1995. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Ashgate. Sharp, Gene. 1973. The Politics of Nonviolent Action. Boston: Porter Sargent. —. 2010. From Dictatorship to Democracy. Cambridge: Albert Einstein Institute. —. 2011. Dictionary of Power and Struggle. New York: Oxford University Press. Tarrow, Sidney. 1989. “Struggle, Politics, and Reform: Collective Action, Social Movements, and Cycles of Protest. Western Societies Series Program Occasional Paper No. 21. Ithaca, NY: Center for International Studies, Cornell University. Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

22

Chapter One

Whyte, William F. 1984. Learning from the Field. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. —. 1989. “Advancing Knowledge through Participatory Action Research.” Sociological Forum 4 (1): 367-385.

CHAPTER TWO ENGAGING SOCIAL MOVEMENTS IN CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION TORAN HANSEN

Introduction This chapter examines how conflict transformation practitioners and scholars can engage with social movements and their participants. The chapter looks specifically at social movements that occur in Western democratic societies. Conflict transformation and social movement scholarship are thus considered, followed by some ways that conflict transformation practitioners and scholars can empower social movement participants in their work. My own research with the peace movement of Minnesota is then discussed as an example. Therefore, the chapter is organized in six parts: 1) a discussion of engagement in conflict transformation practice and scholarship; 2) a description of transformation processes; 3) an outline of conflict transformation’s special features; 4) a description of social movements; 5) an illustration of engagement in social movements using conflict transformation; and 6) an example from my own research with the peace movement in Minnesota.

Engagement in Conflict Transformation In his book Scholarship Reconsidered, Boyer (1990) suggested that American universities were becoming decreasingly connected to the needs of American society and that faculty members were conducting scholarship that was so specialized that it did not benefit surrounding communities, address pressing social concerns, or promote civic responsibility to the extent that it used to. He therefore suggested that scholars should strive to reinvigorate the Scholarship of Engagement in American universities (Boyer 1996, 1990) and use university resources to

24

Chapter Two

address our “most pressing social, civic, and ethical problems” (Boyer 1996, 32). The Scholarship of Engagement calls for universities and faculty members to recognize their duty to promote civic responsibility, by participating in collaborative relationships and reciprocal learning opportunities with community partners when conducting communitybased research, engaging in useful forms of community practice, and teaching students how to live up to their civic responsibilities (Fogel and Cook 2006; Hollander and Saltmarsh 2000; Rice 2002). Conflict transformation as a theoretical framework is highly compatible with the aims and aspirations surfaced by this call to reinvigorate the Scholarship of Engagement. The ultimate goals of conflict transformation are reducing or eliminating both violence and injustice (Lederach 2003), which are considered the roots and the fruits of intractable conflict. Violence is holistically defined as being comprised of direct, structural, and cultural forms. Direct violence is visible physical or verbal acts that are intended to harm another party, whereas structural violence is the largely unintended destructive consequences of social and political structures on individuals and groups (e.g. political repression, exploitation, and alienation), and cultural violence legitimates the other two forms of violence through words, images, or values (Galtung 2000). Injustice is likewise defined holistically as the denial of basic human needs or rights, unequal participation in society or societal decision-making, the inequitable distribution of resources, and/or the perpetration of systemic forms of violence (Hansen 2011). The elimination and reduction of violence and injustice are very consequential goals that call for scholars and practitioners to deeply involve themselves in the conflicts that they enter. Conflict transformation involves a broader, deeper, and longer conflict analysis than is called for by either conflict resolution or conflict management. Analysis is broader in the sense that there is greater attention to context and, hence, there are a wider range of issues considered in conflict transformation (e.g., Miall 2004). Analysis is deeper in the sense that there are a greater number of actors that are considered in conflict transformation, beyond the obvious conflicting parties themselves (e.g., Galtung 2000). Analysis is longer in the sense that the conflict and its potential remedies are examined within a long time-frame, looking beyond immediate concerns and resolutions to the historical roots of conflicts and the potential means to address them well into the future, though present

Engaging Social Movements in Conflict Transformation

25

concerns are analyzed as part of the overall conflict landscape, as well (e.g., Lederach 2003). To engage in conflict transformation is to think about a conflict’s causes and effects at multiple levels, from individual, relational settings to local community contexts through to national and international levels, considering the effects of both the social structure and wider cultures on the conflicting parties involved (Fischer and Ropers 2004; Galtung 2000; Lederach 2003; Miall 2004). Thus, conflict transformation analysis and practice are comprehensive and demand a high level of engagement from practitioners and scholars. This precludes addressing conflicts that call for quick-fix solutions, as well as conflicts that involve relationships between conflicting parties that are not likely to be ongoing, conflicts where parties are not sufficiently committed to the process, or circumstances when parties in a conflict have insufficient resources to follow-through with the approach (Lederach 2003). Conflict transformation practice and scholarship should also be a personal, and even a spiritual vocation for practitioners and scholars, of whom it demands a high level of dedication to social justice and the stakeholders in a given conflict, conviction to nonviolent principles, and the personal development of skills and values that nurture relationships (Curle 1995, 1990).

Categories of Conflict Transformations In order for conflict transformation practitioners and scholars to benefit from the comprehensiveness of their analysis and work as catalysts to help transform conflicts that they are involved in, they must strive to assist the parties in conflict to achieve several types of intentional transformations. Intentionality is important because all life processes, including conflicts, result in change. Conflict transformation practitioners and scholars recognize that they are intentionally attempting to transform conflicts away from violent or unjust expressions. Intentionality also implies that conflict and conflict transformation processes result in unintended consequences that conflict transformation practitioners and scholars must be wary of. Lederach (2003) has specified four distinct categories of intentional transformations that conflict transformation practitioners and scholars should strive for in the course of their involvement in conflicts: structural, cultural, relational, and personal. The term ‘agent’ is be used in this chapter in place of ‘personal’, recognizing that many types of social actor can be transformed by conflict processes (such as: groups, organizations, networks, social movements, countries, or even the

26

Chapter Two

international community), not just individuals (Galtung 2000; Miall 2004; Parlevliet 2009). The term ‘social actor’ wasn’t chosen here because the transformation of an ‘actor’ evokes imagery associated with the acting profession. Miall (2004) has also suggested that transformations of issues are possible in conflict transformation. Agent transformations are the psychological and spiritual changes that conflict agents undergo over the course of conflict transformation processes, including, but not limited to, changes to: their emotions, values, norms, beliefs, ritual life, life skills, and identities. Adam Curle (1999, 1995, 1990), for instance, suggests that agents becoming aware of the false illusions of the permanence of life processes and independence from their opponents and humanity in general, along with their ignorance, craving, fear, anger, and hatred can result in more peaceful societal relations, particularly if agents share their self-awareness with others. He terms this process “awakening” and suggests that this self-transformation is required of all humanity, if we are to overcome the “global culture of violence”. While, for the most part, Curle illustrates his work with political leaders, awakening conflicting agents at all relevant levels is necessary (including any participating conflict transformation practitioners and scholars), or the conflict process will not be genuine and any perceived transformations away from violence and injustice will not tend to endure. In general, identity transformations are central to conflict transformation processes, which allow agents to reflect on their emotions and traumatic experiences associated with a conflict, potentially shifting their vision of who they are in relation to other conflicting agents and the narratives and language that they use to describe that vision (Lederach 2003). Conflict transformation practitioners and scholars frequently provide agents with forums to develop their identities and nurture a positive sense of self, particularly using within-group dialogue, though sometimes dialogue between groups becomes possible later in the process (Lederach 2003; Ropers 2004). Relational transformations are the changes that conflicting agents’ interactions undergo over the course of conflict transformation processes, including, but not limited to, changes to: the quality of relationships, the distribution of power in relationships, the interaction process, the degree of interdependence among conflicting agents, and social capital. New patterns of communication and interaction can affect how people perceive their conflict and each other, so efforts to maximize the understanding among conflicting agents and their ability to engage in constructive communication efforts can help to reduce their reliance on violence and

Engaging Social Movements in Conflict Transformation

27

injustice (Lederach 2003). Power imbalances are characteristic of and fuel many intractable conflicts, so any power asymmetries must be identified and addressed in order to transform relationships of dominance and oppression (Dudouet 2008; Francis 2004). These power asymmetries may require conflict transformation practitioners and scholars to empower of weaker agents by assisting with their mobilization, access to resources, skill development, or political actions (Dudouet 2008). Cumulatively, these actions may result in the escalation of the conflict, which can be necessary in conflict transformation to make latent conflict, structural violence, or cultural violence more visible (Dudouet 2008; Francis 2004; Galtung 2000). In fact, oppressive relationships and asymmetrical societal power can indicate that a latent conflict exists and may later erupt into a visibly violent conflict (Francis 2004; Galtung 2000). Social capital can emerge from conflict transformation processes as well. It is the trust, resources, and opportunities for collaboration embedded in social relationships, which increase the capacity of interacting agents to accomplish tasks and support one another (Hansen 2011). It is important to note that conflict transformation processes themselves can be thought of as an outcome, when various agents are given voice and opportunities to express their views, they are legitimized and granted standing in disputes, or they participate in deliberation and decision-making processes, which represent important transformations in many intractable conflicts (Lederach 2003, 1995). Structural, cultural, and issue transformations represent special types of instrumental transformations, which are changes to societal processes and products external to the conflicting agents and their relationships that occur over the course of conflict transformation, including, but not limited to, changes to: public policy, the policy process, political practice, cultural values, norms, beliefs, and rituals, societal discourse, and the specific issues of concern in conflicts. Cumulatively, instrumental transformations can increase the capacity of conflicting agents to creatively address their conflicts nonviolently, as well as arrive at just, sustainable conflict outcomes (Galtung 2000; Miall 2004). Societal institutions and governance must facilitate these transformations, reflected in public policy and political practice, to realize this capacity (Clements 2004; Galtung 2000; Miall 2004). Cultural transformations that lead to a shift in the cultural understandings of conflict in general, the specific conflict at hand, other agents in the conflict, or humanity more broadly, can help to shift the cultural underpinnings of conflicting agents away from cultures of violence (Curle 1999) and domination (Francis 2004) that are challenged

28

Chapter Two

by conflict transformation, when positive, just visions of peace are nurtured (Curle 1995, 1990; Galtung 2000; Miall 2004). For instance, conflict transformation practitioners and scholars who engage the media to report on stories that expose violence and injustice, humanize all people in conflict, counteract hate speech and stereotypes, and provide open forums for dialogue and reconciliation, can help to foster societal discourse that is conductive to conflict transformation (Galtung 2000; Melone et al. 2002). Issue transformations resemble the desired outcomes in conflict resolution and conflict management, by reformulating the positions, interests, and narratives of conflicting agents, problem-solving instrumental concerns, and finding ways to meet the needs of conflicting agents (Lederach 2003; Miall 2004).

Special Features of Conflict Transformation Processes On an interpersonal level, conflict transformation provides a means for individuals entrenched in intractable conflict to overcome the obstacles of hate, greed, and ignorance, the illusions of permanence and independence, as well as the threatening spirals of conflict that make their difficulties seem insurmountable (Curle 1999, 1995, 1990; Galtung 2000). For example, when the policy of Apartheid was challenged and ultimately revoked in South Africa, individual South Africans were able to transform their lives and patterns of behavior to begin to re-create their society into a less oppressive one as they sought to overcome obstacles that previously seemed insurmountable. In order to overcome these seemingly overwhelming challenges, Galtung (2000) suggests that conflict transformation processes must dis-embed conflicts from their current structures and cultures before they can re-embed them, which offers conflicting agents new opportunities to creatively view their problems and potential remedies for them. To become more creative, Galtung indicates that agents can spend time identifying their problem and the parameters engulfing the problem. Then a particular parameter can be changed as a sort of societal experiment. When fostering creativity among conflicting parties, it is essential that conflict transformation practitioners and scholars help to build and maintain egalitarian relationships throughout transformation processes (Lederach 2003, 1995). On a societal level, political, legal, institutional, and social frameworks (structures) and cultures that support participatory democracy and human rights are naturally amenable to reducing and eliminating societal violence and injustice (Clements 2004; Curle 1995, 1990; Galtung 2000; Parlevliet

Engaging Social Movements in Conflict Transformation

29

2009). True participatory democracy provides citizens with avenues for participation in deliberation and decision-making on the societal decisions that affect their day-to-day lives and holding their politicians and decisionmakers accountable to them through processes such as voting. This makes politicians and decision-makers less likely to establish and maintain exploitative or violent societal structures and gives them a strong incentive to provide citizens with human security and structures that promote their well-being (Clements 2004). Societal constitutions, practices, discourses, and values that are based on human rights offer a means to understand social injustice and potential remedies for any unjust acts or social structures, to ensure that governments are held to internationally accepted standards (Parlevliet 2009). The denial of human rights harms people and can lead to direct, structural, or cultural forms of violence (Galtung 2000; Parlevliet 2009). As challenging injustice is a foundational goal in conflict transformation and agents in intractable conflicts frequently do not have equal power, power analyses and nonviolent resistance are core features in conflict transformation work (Dudouet 2008; Francis 2004; Parlevliet 2009). Before official mechanisms of conflict resolution can be used, such as negotiated or mediated diplomacy, weaker agents may need to gain power and/or intensify conflicts to gain standing in forums of deliberation or become a viable partner in problem-solving (Dudouet 2008; Francis 2004; Parlevliet 2009). Such power imbalances are often based along certain “fault lines” that are common to the inequitable distribution of societal power, including: gender, race, ethnicity, age, class, concern for the environment, marginalization due to lifestyle or distance from the societal center, colonization, or other forms of societal domination (Francis 2004; Galtung 2000). Therefore, conflict transformation practitioners and scholars must analyze how any power imbalances based along these fault lines fuel and result from conflicts that they are involved in (Galtung 2000; Hansen 2008). Nonviolent resistance can be an effective means to address such power imbalances, when weaker agents become able to gain sufficient power and leverage to effectively participate in problem-solving efforts (Dudouet 2008; Francis 2004; Parlevliet 2009). Nonviolent resistance is compatible with other conflict transformation processes because it underscores the importance of achieving transformation nonviolently, matching the ends that conflict transformation aims to achieve, and often produces outcomes that are more durable, just, and likely to blunt feelings of humiliation or revenge (Dudouet 2008).

30

Chapter Two

The two processes of dialogue and education, both formal and informal, are foundational processes in conflict transformation. Dialogue, as opposed to debate, is the process of sharing non-judgmental words and feelings, respectfully listening, and nurturing a climate of openness, psychological and physical safety, and tolerance for diversity, which can result in greater empathy among conflicting agents (Galtung 2000; Ropers 2004). Indeed, eliciting and discussing diversity through dialogue can become a key resource for creatively addressing conflict (Lederach 2003, 1995). Conflict transformation work should provide many opportunities for dialogue, both intra-group and inter-group, at many different levels (e.g. multi-track diplomacy), providing all conflicting agents with opportunities to participate in meaningful dialogue (Galtung 2000; Lederach 2003; Ropers 2004). Different types of dialogue can be useful, to foster intra-group identity or mobilization, inter-cultural exchange and learning, problem-solving, or constructive conversation (Lederach 2003; Ropers 2004). Dialogue can also be enhanced with more holistic forms of exchange and interaction, like sharing meals, artistic endeavors, cultural rituals, or humor (Boege 2006; Lederach 2003). Education is also central to conflict transformation work. In fact, Adam Curle (1999, 1995, 1990) has suggested that all conflict transformation work is to some degree educational, when conflicting agents awaken to the illusions of permanence and independence and the obstacles of craving, hatred, and ignorance that fuel their conflict and violence. In addition, consciousness-raising education, to illustrate the structural nature of individual problems, unite constituencies and allies, and challenge systems of oppression, is an important means to make latent conflict more visible and empower disadvantaged or vulnerable agents in conflicts where power is asymmetrical (Francis 2004; Freire 1997). Critical peace education, either in schools or informal settings like youth centers, can also be an important means to expose and challenge prejudice, oppression, and systems of dominance, as well as providing students with the competencies, values, and knowledge that support participatory democracy, human rights, and nonviolent means to address conflict (Curle 1995; Hansen 2008; Schell-Faucon 2001). In addition, critical peace education can instill students with human dignity and respect for the dignity of others (Duckworth, this volume). Thus it can lay the groundwork for cultures of peace (Schell-Faucon 2001).

Engaging Social Movements in Conflict Transformation

31

Social Movements In this chapter, when I refer to social movements, I am referring to recent movements in Western democratic society. This is not to diminish historical movements or movements in the Global South or East, but rather because their characteristics differ from social movements in contemporary Western democratic societies in important ways and exploring them is beyond the scope of this chapter. Social movements are agents in societal conflicts, but they have proven difficult to define because they are quite variable and different scholars coming from different disciplines have used their unique theoretical orientations to define them (Diani 2003). They are often even difficult to identify as a “social movement” because they have such pluralistic actors, goals, and priorities, which are sometimes in conflict or incompatible with one another (Meyer 2005). However, social movements have become fixtures in the political process in Western democracies and they are compatible with conflict transformation, which, like social movements, values and seeks to foster participatory forms of governance. While it is clear that social movements represent unique reactions to particular social circumstances, there has been some continuity among the social phenomena identified as “social movements” since the mid 18th century. At this time, national collectivities began using tactics like demonstrations, strikes, and petitions to react to circumstances brought about by industrialization, contact with new cultures, unstable political power, and resource distribution inequities (Meyer 2005; Tarrow 1998). In the mid 18th century, the increased use of the printing press allowed information to be more easily distributed to more literate populations, who more closely associated in organizations and associations, creating a greater potential for previously disconnected individuals to politicize and collectivize their individual concerns, as well as demonstrate their worthiness, credibility, and unity (Tarrow 1998). In recent times, social movements in Western countries have become more pluralistic and increasingly common, with greater numbers of people participating in them, though this trend has varied from country to country (Kriesi 1996; Putnam 2000; Snow et al. 2007). Frequently social movements are thought to be aligned with the political left (e.g., Piven and Cloward 1979), but many successful movements in recent years have come from the political right (like evangelical movements) (e.g., Putnam 2000) or have come about as counter-movements responding to leftist social movements (e.g., Whittier 2007).

32

Chapter Two

Overall, social movement theorists have tended to emphasize the structural aims of social movements over their cultural aims. Structurally, social movement participants seek to: mobilize resources, secure placement of issues on political agendas, receive benefits, gain standing policy debates, acquire political allies, favorably change policies and governmental institutions, and have favorable policies enforced (Amenta and Caren 2007; Giugni 2004; Mettler 2005; Meyer 2005; Tarrow 1998). Culturally, social movement participants seek to: change societal values and public opinion, create and strengthen favorable societal identities, innovate social movement tactics, alter cultural symbols, language, and practices, increase the prominence of movement frames (slogans reflecting their overall ideology), and change perceptions of societal power (Earl 2007; Rochon 1998; Swindler 1995; Tarrow 1998; Zald 1996). Many social movements have become more professionalized and less radical in recent years (Kriesi 1996). To accomplish their goals, professionalized social movements tend to emphasize “insider” tactics such as lobbying, building relationships with politicians, initiating court cases, and testifying in congressional hearings to a greater extent, rather than resorting “outsider” tactics like demonstrations, strikes, and petitions, in order to gain acceptance in the policy process and provide policy makers with alternative visions of social problems, constituencies, political agendas, social priorities, resource allotments, and implementation strategies (Jenness et al. 2005; Kriesi 1996; Meyer 2005; Mettler 2005; Saunders 2007; Taylor and Van Dyke 2007). Protests, petitions, strikes, and other forms of nonviolent resistance have become an important corresponding part of the policy process as well, demonstrating numerical support for a movement and providing novel dramatic, non-institutional forms of political participation, but they are part of a range of strategies available to social movements (Taylor and Van Dyke 2007). Professionalized movements using predominantly insider tactics have become increasingly common and effective, though they often compromise radical aims and movement “purity” (Kriesi 1996; Mettler 2005; Putnam 2000). Piven and Cloward (1979) refer to a collectivity employing outsider tactics to induce societal change as a “protest movement,” but because social movements also use insider tactics, a definition of social movements should include these tactics as well. Various theorists have depicted social movements as: political networks, mass opinions, arguments against prevailing common sense views, bundles of narratives, dense relational networks, conversations and

Engaging Social Movements in Conflict Transformation

33

discourse with opponents, collectivities that co-opt civic and state infrastructure to serve their purposes, and the list could go on almost indefinitely. Ultimately, a central feature of social movements is that they provide individuals and groups with minority views, limited power, and limited access to the political system a means for bringing attention to their collective concerns and potential remedies for those concerns (Diani 2003; Jenness et al. 2005; Meyer 2005). In recent times, social movements have become global in scope, drawing on global constituents and challenging transnational political institutions and multinational corporations (e.g., Smith 2007). These aspects of social movements are considered in the following general, inclusive definition of social movements: collectivities acting with some degree of organization and continuity outside of institutional or organizational channels for the purpose of challenging or defending extant authority, whether it is institutionally or culturally based, in the group, organization, societal, or world order of which they are a part (Snow et al. 2007, 11).

This definition illustrates that social movements challenge authorities and achieve their goals at multiple levels, both structurally and culturally. It also implicitly acknowledges that social movements are part of a conflict structure consisting of allies and adversaries that is mediated through and by media discourse, public opinion, political parties, and special interest groups (Gamson 2007; Rucht 2007). It is important to note that while social movements in this chapter are considered to be agents in intractable conflict, this does not imply that they are homogeneous or always cohesive. In fact, different social movement participants (individuals, groups, and organizations) operate at different levels (local, regional, national, and transnational), struggling for wideranging objectives using tactics, ideologies, and frames that vary widely under the banner of a “social movement.” It is their very complexity as agents in intractable conflicts that make conflict transformation (which also offers a comprehensive analysis by including many issues simultaneously in a multi-level context over long time periods) an ideal approach with which to engage social movements. Social movements do have the capacity to act in solidarity at times and represent certain themes that are relatively stable, enabling them to act as agents in conflicts. Indeed, it is their very capacity to mobilize “people power” in support of a cause that makes them so important in conflict transformation, particularly when power asymmetries are central to the intractable conflicts that they are engaged in. In fact, frequently social movements are engaged in

34

Chapter Two

struggles to gain social justice and reduce or eliminate structural and cultural violence for their constituencies, as is the overarching goal in conflict transformation. For instance, women’s and civil rights movements demand equal pay for equal work, social welfare benefits, human rights, greater participation in society and political decision-making, the right to control one’s own body, and so on. According to conflict transformation scholarship (e.g., Galtung 2000), the structural, cultural violence, and injustice that movements draw attention to may also indicate that direct violence may be ongoing or forthcoming.

Engaging Social Movements in Conflict Transformation In Beyond Neutrality (2004), Bernard Mayer suggests that the field of conflict resolution has reached a crisis point. This crisis is evidenced by the field’s peripheral role in large-scale public conflicts (like the Iraq War or major policy debates over social issues) and the limited role conflict resolution practitioners have in important, ongoing social conflicts that address broad, systemic concerns that have no potential short-term “resolutions.” Social movements are agents in many of these large-scale, ongoing, and systemic public conflicts. For instance, the peace movement has voiced concern over American military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the women’s and civil rights movements have striven to achieve equal rights and opportunities for women, African Americans, and other oppressed groups, and the environmental movement has sought greater environmental protections, initiated habitat conservation efforts, and advocated for reduced carbon emissions to fight global warming. Roy and her colleagues (2010) have gone further to suggest that the field of conflict resolution has much to learn from social movement scholarship and practice (the analyses of power, the politics of voice, and how to interpret violence) and conflict resolution practitioners and scholars can offer social movement scholars and activists analyses of organizational dynamics and negotiation to support movement participants. These latter forms of analysis provide a basis for engaging social movements as agents in conflict transformation processes. Conflict transformation practitioners and scholars have the potential to engage with social movements in a variety of ways. Conflict transformation practitioners and scholars have the potential to link social movements to other conflicting agents. Francis (2004) has suggested that conflict transformation practitioners and scholars may be able to support social movements in their efforts to create solidarity with public groups, monitor

Engaging Social Movements in Conflict Transformation

35

or map conflicts, advocate for a movement’s cause to power-holders, or build relational bridges with public officials or elites to lay the groundwork for future dialogue. Galtung (2000) has also suggested that practitioners and scholars can support disempowered conflict transformation groups by fostering relationships with members of the media. After disadvantaged groups achieve enough leverage and sufficiently equalize power imbalances, conflict transformation practitioners and scholars may benefit social movements by creating venues for movement participants to engage in conflict resolution processes with other conflicting agents, by facilitating problem-solving workshops, mediations, pre-negotiation dialogues, and official negotiations. As conflict transformation calls for long-term structural, cultural, relational, and agent transformations, conflict transformation practitioners and scholars should also strive to ensure that there are official, ongoing institutional mechanisms for providing social movement participants with voice and standing in the decisions affecting their lives or any resolutions to reduce or eliminate direct, structural, or cultural violence or injustice. This vision of conflict transformation work accords very well with the Scholarship of Engagement and the call to address the most pressing social, civic, and ethical problems in society, as well as promote civic responsibility. Conflict transformation practitioners and scholars may have an even greater opportunity to empower social movement participants from within their groups. In general, conflict transformation practitioners and scholars can assist movement participants in their efforts to raise awareness of their concerns among potential constituents and allies, mobilize participants and resources, and coordinate movement activities (Francis 2004). More specifically, conflict transformation practitioners and scholars can utilize their unique perspective, knowledge, and competencies to assess communication patterns and relational challenges within a movement, evaluate the interests, motivations, ideologies, and identities of movement participants, facilitate discussions or dialogues, mediate disputes, or perhaps most importantly, provide training to participants. Conflict transformation practitioners and scholars can offer social movement participants training in research skills through participatory action research (e.g. Katz this volume), general communication skills and conflict analysis, facilitation, mediation, negotiation, nurturing dialogue, and nonviolent resistance principles and practice, depending on the needs identified by the participants (Curle 1995, 1990; Schmelzle 2006). All of these competencies can empower the participants and build their social capital, strengthening a social movement as a whole (Hansen 2011;

36

Chapter Two

Schmelzle 2006). Trainings should be conducted with cultural sensitivity, eliciting the innate knowledge of the participants, and ideally should “train-the-trainer” so that they empower as many movement members as deeply as possible (Lederach 1995; Schmelzle 2006). In accordance with the dictates of the Scholarship of Engagement, this work should entail truly collaborative interactions that facilitate reciprocal learning between practitioners and scholars on one hand, and social movement participants on the other. In working with social movements, an essential goal of conflict transformation practitioners and scholars should be to increase the capacity of movement participants, and ultimately entire social movements, to become more effective change agents. The term ‘change agent’ has often been used to reference individuals who work to change organizational structures and cultures from within (e.g., Olson and Eoyang 2001). However, the term can also apply to social entrepreneurs who engage in societal social change efforts, like social movement participants (Harper 1993). As change agents can occupy positions throughout a social system, they can provide a means to transform it (Harper 1993), which can be quite daunting for conflict transformation practitioners and scholars, given the nature, breadth, and magnitude of the transformations they seek, particularly when attempting cultural transformations. Change agents transform social systems in their interactions with other agents at all system levels by embodying the vision of the world that they would like to create, while at the same time being able to adapt their strategies to their individual interactions and the context that they occur in (Harper 1993; Olson and Eoyang 2001). In fact, research has demonstrated that complex ideas and values (like social movement ideologies and values) diffuse better throughout society via relationships than through the media, which is better at spreading facts, so relationships are primary conduits for diffusing social movement ideologies and values throughout society, making the change agent role critical (Centola and Macy 2007; Oliver and Myers 2003). Social movements with heterogeneous participants that have many friends, partners, and acquaintances can cast wider relational nets and are at a relative advantage in spreading movement ideologies and values (Centola and Macy 2007; Diani 2007; Soule 2007). Working together, social movement participants turn their movement into a societal change agent, which diffuses their identities and values throughout society to initiate widespread grassroots social change.

Engaging Social Movements in Conflict Transformation

37

An Example: The Peace Movement of Minnesota I will illustrate the potential for conflict transformation practitioners and scholars to engage social movements using the example of the Minnesota peace movement. I had the opportunity to work with and study the individuals and organizations in Minnesota that organized protest activities against the Iraq War in 2009. I participated in protest activities and strategizing meetings, formally collecting data using a survey and a follow-up focus group meeting. The survey asked study participants about their perceptions of their relationships with one another and the communication patterns within their movement that occurred over the three-month period prior to filling out the survey, which they completed from April 20 to April 30, 2009. The study participants were identified non-randomly by asking protest participants who the “leaders” and “organizers” of events were and then approaching those leaders and organizers to see if they would be willing to participate in the study. I tried to discover participants that represented a wide variety of peace movement participants (identifying individuals from student groups, women’s groups, socialist groups, religious groups, and veteran’s groups). Like conflict transformation practitioners and scholars, peace movement participants use comprehensive, multi-level power analyses that consider long timeframes when considering their concerns. Although peace movement members have very heterogeneous motivations, identities, and tolerance for different protest tactics, the movement participants do have a relatively unified vision, to oppose the militaryindustrial complex, the power it wields, and its actions on a structurallevel, while resisting the discourse and values that legitimate them on a cultural-level (e.g., Mattausch, 2000). Because peace movement change agents at all levels (individuals and organizations, as well as local, regional, national, and transnational movements) share this vision, they can adapt their tactics and cultural understandings of their common concerns without sacrificing their overall vision. Peace movement outcomes are often difficult to recognize, hard to measure, and hard to link specifically to peace movement activities (Chatfield 1992; Giugni 2004; Lofland and Marullo 1990; Marullo and Meyer 2007; Rogne and Harper 1990). Therefore, defining peace movement “success” is difficult, particularly given the tension between participants who engage in social movement activities as moral witnesses to violent acts perpetrated by the military-industrial complex and those

38

Chapter Two

who have the strategic aspiration of challenging the military-industrial complex (e.g., by getting large numbers of people to participate in demonstrations, getting favorable media coverage, and achieving political change) (Chatfield 1992; Rogne and Harper 1990). The peace movement historically has had little success directly influencing the political process and public policy (Marullo and Meyer 2007; Mattausch 2000). This is partly due to foreign policy and national security being among the most insulated policy domains, the military-industrial complex having a vast reservoir of resources to draw upon, challenging the military budget is uninteresting for the media and the public, and the irony that the best time for the peace movement to mobilize (when the country is at war) is also the time that legislators are least likely to be receptive to peace movement ideology (Chatfield 1992; Giugni 2004; Marullo and Meyer 2007). The peace movement also offers no legal strategy to speak of (McCarthy 1996). Therefore, the peace movement is better thought of as a cultural movement (diffusing peace movement ideologies and values throughout society), rather than a movement that influences societal structure directly through participation in the creation of public policy or in legal actions. Peace movement participants also tend to strive for an egalitarian, democratic, and nonviolent movement (Mattausch 2000). Hence, peace movement participants have a similar vision for their relationships as is called for by the Scholarship of Engagement and conflict transformation practitioners and scholars strive for, which makes supporting relational transformations in the peace movement such a potentially empowering opportunity for conflict transformation practitioners and scholars. Research has conclusively demonstrated that social movement participants tend to begin participating in movement activities through an invitation by a friend or acquaintance (Diani 2007, 2003; McAdam and Paulsen 1993; Passy 2003; Tindall 2007), participate to a greater extent when they have relationships with more active movement participants (Diani 2007; Passy 2003; Passy and Giugni 2000), and maintain their movement involvement when they have stronger relationships with other participants (Diani 2007; McAdam and Paulsen 1993; Passy 2003; Passy and Giugni 2001, 2000; Saunders 2007; Tindall 2002). Relationships are therefore critical peace movement resources, to influence society through the process of diffusion and to attract, engage, and retain peace movement participants. The Minnesota peace movement is very active in the state. Usually over the course of a week, peace movement participants organize several peace movement events (small protests, presentations on current events,

Engaging Social Movements in Conflict Transformation

39

and the like) and they often conduct a large protest or two each month. Many of the peace movement participants have been active in the peace movement since the Vietnam War. The Minnesota peace movement was in the national spotlight in the 1970s, for protests against the Honeywell Corporation, which produced landmine timers (Rogne and Harper 1990), and, more recently, for organizing protests at the Republican National Convention from August 31 to September 4, 2008, where over eight hundred arrests were made (Coleman 2008). The various Minnesota peace movement events and activities are attended by different individuals and groups, so each event draws its own participants that sustain it. On a weekly basis, there are groups of activists who protest arms manufacturers or involvement in the Iraq and Afghan Wars, church groups and veterans’ groups who discuss peace, and groups of individuals who plan occasional presentations or who bring in speakers. Every month, there are usually large protests (like annual protests against the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan), that attract many participants from the entire Minnesota peace movement. My research revealed that there were an abundant opportunities for conflict transformation practitioners and scholars to conduct the Scholarship of Engagement with the peace movement in Minnesota, when working within the movement. The peace movement participants were not in a position to engage in formal political or legal advocacy, so I did not feel that they would benefit greatly from training in negotiation techniques, and they had a very comprehensive knowledge of nonviolent resistance, so I did not feel that it would be valuable to offer them training in nonviolent resistance. In fact, I learned a good deal about nonviolent resistance and the merits of pacifism from peace movement participants and it was clear that the peace movement offers its participants and any conflict transformation practitioners and scholars that work with it ample opportunities for personal growth. This was a clear example to me of the reciprocal learning that comes from the Scholarship of Engagement. However, I determined that the participants in the Minnesota peace movement could benefit from facilitation and/or facilitation training, mediation and/or mediation training, training in general communication skills, and dialogue and/or training in nurturing dialogue, in order to build their social capital and enhance their capacity to be more effective change agents. In my research, I discovered that the movement was to a certain extent facilitated by individuals who, because of their inclinations or interests,

40

Chapter Two

facilitated peace movement strategizing and planning meetings, as well as movement-wide discourse. Furthermore, this facilitation had a statistically significant impact on the trust movement participants had with one another and their ability to coordinate their work together, which were considered indicators of social capital in the research. In particular, it was clear that conflict transformation practitioners or scholars could provide assistance facilitating strategizing and planning meetings, the peace movement facilitators could benefit from training in techniques to foster participatory discussion and decision-making, and the movement as a whole could benefit from training in providing social support. These dimensions of facilitation were all found to be statistically related to the indicators of social capital (trust and work coordination) and could therefore enhance the capacity of the peace movement participants to become more effective change agents in challenging a pressing social, civic, and ethical concern, the Iraq War. Over the course of my research, I also discovered that there were conflicts within the Minnesota peace movement that impacted the ability of the participants to work with one another and that there was very little conflict resolution occurring to mitigate the effects of these conflicts. For instance, one conflict occurred between two groups of organizations that approached the same high school students to take part in two different demonstrations at the Republican National Convention. Both groups felt that local high school students were their constituents and they both had different visions for their demonstrations and social change more broadly. After having gotten into an altercation over whose constituents the high school students were and the appropriate form of the demonstration and the social change efforts that should be sought with them, these two peace movement groups had a difficult time trusting one another and planning events together. Other peace movement participants revealed their lack of trust and discomfort with the tactics and ideologies preferred by more or less radical participants. It is important to note that these concerns were the exception and overall levels of trust among the peace movement members were very high, but it was clear that mediating the disputes or training peace movement members to mediate their disputes could improve the movement’s social capital and enhance the capacity of participants to become more effective change agents. Such prospects for mediating or training social movement participants provide excellent opportunities for conflict transformation practitioners and scholars to collaborate with them, as called for by the Scholarship of Engagement.

Engaging Social Movements in Conflict Transformation

41

In my research, it also seemed to me that the peace movement members could benefit from training in general communication principles and skills. It seemed that while many of the peace movement participants were very good at articulating their own viewpoints, they did so with a gusto and energy that came across as quite aggressive at times, like a sales pitch, potentially damaging possibilities to make and maintain relationships with others who did not completely concur with their views. It therefore seemed that the peace movement participants could benefit from training in assertion techniques, conversing in a non-judgmental fashion, and listening skills, to improve their ability to share their views in a conversational manner, rather than proselytizing. Such training in communication skills could enhance the peace movement participants’ ability to interact with individuals with more heterogeneous viewpoints, thus enhancing their capacity to diffuse their ideology and values more broadly through society. Over the course of my research, it also seemed to me that many peace movement participants artificially dichotomized themselves and the general public from the military-industrial complex and its representatives, failing to see humanity’s fundamental interconnectedness. Thus, conducting dialogues to explore our interconnectedness and/or compassionate nature might also benefit peace movement participants (Curle 1999, 1995, 1990). In addition, providing forums for discussing other aspects of the peace movement participants’ identities (Lederach 2003) would have the potential to lead to positive agent transformations. Beyond establishing forums for and conducting such dialogue, peace movement participants could be trained to conduct such dialogues for themselves. However, establishing in-group and out-group boundaries helps enable social movement participants to establish solidarity and a political consciousness, so a request for any such dialogues should always come from the movement members themselves, because they feel that it would benefit them. In general, conflict transformation practitioners and scholars should only offer to support social movement participants in ways that they request and the participants should be given full control over the process of engagement (as is characteristic of conflict transformation processes), otherwise they risk dis-empowering the people that they wish to empower. This type of interaction would then represent the true collaboration called for by the Scholarship of Engagement. Under those circumstances, such dialogues could serve to strengthen peace movement identities and help participants to think about their conflict in a more holistic fashion, thus

42

Chapter Two

enhancing their ability to articulate their message, even to opponents, and their effectiveness as change agents. The findings from my research suggest there are many opportunities for conflict transformation practitioners and scholars to use their unique perspective, knowledge, and competencies to engage with local social movements, like the peace movement in Minnesota, and enhance their capacity to be more effective change agents. This type of collaboration represents the essence of the Scholarship of Engagement, partnering with community members to support them to address particularly urgent civic, social, and ethical concerns and create reciprocal learning opportunities as part of those partnerships. While I found that there were some openings to assist individual peace movement members in agent transformations, by creating forums for dialogue or training peace movement participants to conduct dialogues, supporting peace movement participants with their desired relational transformations could be particularly empowering. Here I examined the potential to support peace movement members in building their relationships and social capital from within, while other scholars have considered ways of building, maintaining, and healing relationships to external agents like political policy-makers, societal elites, and members of the media. Nurturing relationships and social capital is critically important for all social movements to build and sustain participant involvement, but for cultural movements, whose principle mechanism for generating societal transformation is the diffusion of their ideology and values, relationships are necessary conduits for promoting social change. In cultural movements, like the peace movement as I have outlined it here, widespread grassroots cultural transformations can ideally open possibilities for political and structural transformations that are also essential elements of lasting and durable social change (Rochon 1998).

Conclusion There are ample opportunities for conflict transformation practitioners and scholars to engage with social movements, in accordance with the aspirations of the Scholarship of Engagement. To be truly collaborative, all forms of engagement with social movements should be requested by the participants themselves, who should be given full control over the process of engagement, lest conflict transformation practitioners and scholars unwittingly dis-empower those they seek to empower. Social movements in Western democratic societies have become invaluable contributors to the process of participatory democracy, illustrating our

Engaging Social Movements in Conflict Transformation

43

commitments to being able to publicly state our views and contribute our opinions to the policy-making process. Those movements that seek to reduce or eliminate social injustice or direct, structural, and cultural forms of violence represent a vision for the world that matches the ultimate goals of conflict transformation. Social movements thus address our most urgent social, civic, and ethical concerns, which the Scholarship of Engagement urges practitioners and scholars to consider. Engaging with those movements and their participants as change agents, in particular with those movements that are committed to nonviolent forms of resistance, can therefore be quite a valuable endeavor for conflict transformation practitioners and scholars. Other scholars have suggested that conflict transformation practitioners and scholars can use their knowledge and competencies to support social movement participants to connect to members of the public that are difficult to access, advocate for their cause, monitor and map the conflict, and establish and nurture relationships with the elites and policy-makers that they oppose or members of the media. As illustrated in my research with the Minnesota peace movement, conflict transformation practitioners and scholars can also seek to empower social movement participants from within, using their competencies in facilitation, mediation, or conducting dialogue and/or training movement participants in facilitation, mediation, dialogue, or general communication skills (or, perhaps, nonviolent resistance and negotiation in other settings). Conducting dialogues could result in important agent transformations, but conflict transformation practitioners and scholars may be especially empowering by supporting desired relational transformations in social movements, particularly in cultural movements like the peace movement in Minnesota. In cultural movements, building and nurturing relationships and social capital can result in social movements and social movement participants becoming more effective change agents, who can diffuse their ideology and values more broadly through society, potentially having great, positive societal consequences. This is the ultimate hope brought forth by the Scholarship of Engagement.

References Amenta, Edwin, and Neal Caren. 2007. “The Legislative, Organizational, and Beneficiary Consequences of State-Oriented Challengers.” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David A. Snow,

44

Chapter Two

Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Boege, Volker. 2006. “Traditional Approaches to Conflict Transformation.” In The Berghof Handbook of Conflict Transformation. http://www. berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/boege_handbook.pdf Boyer, Ernest L. 1996. “The Scholarship of Engagement.” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 49 (7): 18-33. —. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities for the Professorate. Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Centola, Damon, and Michael Macy. 2007. “Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 113 (3): 702734. Chatfield, Charles. 1992. The American Peace Movement: Ideals and Activism. New York: Twayne Publishers. Clements, Kevin. 2004. “Towards Conflict Transformation and a Just Peace.” The Berghof Handbook of Conflict Transformation. http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/ clements_handbook.pdf Coleman, Nick. 2008. “Wrong Place, Wrong Time, Wrong Lessons from the RNC.” StarTribune.com. http://www.startribune.com/featuredColumns/28035649.html Curle, Adam. 1995. Another Way: Positive Response to Contemporary Violence. Oxford, UK: Jon Carpenter Publishing. —. 1990. Tools for Transformation: A Personal Study. Stroud, UK: Hawthorn Press. —. 1999. To Tame the Hydra: Undermining the Culture of Violence. Oxford, UK: Jon Carpenter Publishing. Diani, Mario. 2003. “Introduction: Social Movements, Contentious Actions, and Social Networks: From Metaphor to Substance?” In Social Movements and Social Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action, edited by Mario Diani and Doug McAdam. New York: Oxford University Press. —. 2007. “Networks and Participation.” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Dudouet, Veronique. 2008. “Nonviolent Resistance and Conflict Transformation in Power Asymmetries.” The Berghof Handbook of Conflict Transformation. http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents publications/dudouet_handbook.pdf

Engaging Social Movements in Conflict Transformation

45

Earl, Jennifer. 2007. “The Cultural Consequences of Social Movements.” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Fischer, Martina, and Norbert Ropers. 2004. “Introduction.” The Berghof Handbook of Conflict Transformation. http://www.berghof-handbook. net/documents/publications/introduction_handbook.pdf Fogel, Sondra J., and James R. Cook. 2006. “Considerations on the Scholarship of Engagement as an Area of Specialization for Faculty.” Journal of Social Work Education 42 (3): 595-606. Francis, Diana. 2004. “Culture, Power Asymmetries and Gender in Conflict Transformation.” The Berghof Handbook of Conflict Transformation. http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/ publications/francis_handbook.pdf Freire, Paulo. 1997. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 20th Anniversary ed. New York: Continuum. Galtung, Johan. 2000. Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means: The Transcend Method, Participant’s and Trainer’s Manual. United Nations Disaster Management Training Programme. http://www.transcend.org/pctrcluj2004/TRANSCEND_manual.pdf Gamson, William A. 2007. “Bystanders, Public Opinion, and the Media.” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by D.A. Snow, S.A. Soule, and H. Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Giugni, Marco. 2004. Social Protest and Policy Change: Ecology, Antinuclear, and Peace Movements in Comparative Perspective. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Hansen, Toran. 2011. “Applying Social Network Theory and Analysis in the Struggle for Social Justice.” Peace Research: The Canadian Journal of Peace and Conflict Studies 41 (1): 5-43. —. 2008. “Critical Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 25 (4): 403-428. Harper, Charles L. 1993. Exploring Social Change. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hollander, Elizabeth L., and John Saltmarsh. “The Engaged University.” Academe 86 (4): 29-32. Jenness, Valerie, David S. Meyer, and Helen Ingram. 2005. “Social Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy: Rethinking the Nexus.” In Routing the Opposition: Social Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy, edited by David S. Meyer, Valerie Jenness, and Helen Ingram. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

46

Chapter Two

Kriesi, Hanspeter. 1996. “The Organizational Structure of New Social Movements in a Political Context.” In Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, edited by Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lederach, John P. 1995. Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across Cultures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. —. 2003. The Little Book of Conflict Transformation. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. Lofland, John, and Sam Marullo. 1990. “Introduction: Social Science and Peace Action in the Eighties.” In Peace Action in the Eighties: Social Science Perspectives, edited by Sam Marullo and John Lofland. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Marullo, Sam, and David S. Meyer. 2007. “Antiwar and Peace Movements.” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. edited by David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Mattausch, John. 2000. “The Peace Movement: Retrospects and Prospect.” In Global Social Movements, edited by Robin Cohen and Shirin M. Rai. New Brunswick, NJ: The Althone Press. Mayer, Bernard S. 2004. Beyond Neutrality: Confronting the Crisis in Conflict Resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McAdam, Doug, and Paulsen, Ronnelle. 1993. “Specifying Relationship between Social Ties and Activism.” The American Journal of Sociology 99 (3): 640-667. McCarthy, John D. 1996. “Constraints and Opportunities in Adopting, Adapting, and Inventing.” In Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, edited by Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald. New York: Cambridge University Press. Melone, Sandra D., Georgios Terzis, and Ozsel Beleli. 2002. “Using the Media for Conflict Transformation: The Common Ground Experience.” The Berghof Handbook of Conflict Transformation, 2002. http://www. berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/melone_hb.pdf Mettler, Suzanne. 2005. “Policy Feedback Effects for Collective Action: Lessons from Veteran’s Programs.” In Routing the Opposition: Social Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy, edited by David S. Meyer, Valerie Jenness, and Helen Ingram. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Meyer, David S. 2005. “Introduction: Social Movements and Public Policy: Eggs, Chickens, and Theory.” In Routing the Opposition: Social Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy, edited by David S.

Engaging Social Movements in Conflict Transformation

47

Meyer, Valerie Jenness, and Helen Ingram. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Miall, Hugh. 2004. “Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task.” The Berghof Handbook of Conflict Transformation. http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/ miall_handbook.pdf Oliver, Pamela E., and Daniel J. Myers. 2003. “Networks, Diffusion, and Cycles of Collective Action.” In Social Movements and Social Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action, edited by Mario Diani and Doug McAdam. New York: Oxford University Press. Olson, Edwin E., and Glenda H. Eoyang. 2001. Facilitating Organizational Change: Lessons from Complexity Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Parlevliet, Michelle. 2009. “Rethinking Conflict Transformation from a Human Rights Perspective.” The Berghof Handbook of Conflict Transformation. http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/ parlevliet_handbook.pdf Passy, Florence. 2003. “Social Networks Matter but How?” In Social Movements and Social Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action, edited by Mario Diani and Doug McAdam. New York: Oxford University Press. Passy, Florence, and Marco Giugni. 2000. “Life Spheres, Networks, and Sustained Participation in Social Movements: A Phenomenological Approach to Political Commitment.” Sociological Forum 15 (1): 119144. Passy, Florence, and Marco Giugni. 2001. “Social Networks and Individual Perceptions: Explaining Differential Participation in Social Movements.” Sociological Forum 16 (1):123-153. Piven, Frances F., and Richard A. Cloward. 1979. Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail. New York: Vantage Books. Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Touchstone. Rochon, Thomas R. 1998. Culture Moves: Ideas, Activism, and Changing Values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rice, R.Eugene. 2002. “Beyond Scholarship Reconsidered: Toward an Enlarged Vision of the Scholarly Work of Faculty Members.” New Directions in Teaching and Learning 90: 7-17. Rogne, Leah, and Bradley D. Harper. 1990. “The Meaning of Civil Disobedience: The Case of the Honeywell Project.” In Peace Action in

48

Chapter Two

the Eighties: Social Science Perspectives, edited by Sam Marullo and John Lofland. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Ropers, Norbert. 2004. “From Resolution to Transformation: The Role of Dialogue Projects.” The Berghof Handbook of Conflict Transformation. http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/ropers_ handbook.pdf Roy, Beth, John Burdick, and Louis Kriesberg. 2010. “A Conversation between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 27 (4): 347-368. Rucht, Dieter. 2007. “Movement Allies, Adversaries, and Third Parties.” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Saunders, Clare. 2007. “Using Social Network Analysis to Explore Social Movements: A Relational Approach.” Social Movement Studies 6 (3): 227-243. Schell-Faucon, Stephanie. 2001. “Conflict Transformation through Educational and Youth Programmes.” The Berghof Handbook of Conflict Transformation. http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents /publications/schell_faucon_hb.pdf Schmelzle, Beatrix. 2006. “Training for Conflict Transformation: An Overview of Approaches and Resources.” The Berghof Handbook of Conflict Transformation. http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents /publications/schmelzle_handbook.pdf Smith, Jackie. 2007. “Transnational Processes and Movements.” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Snow, David A., Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. 2007. “Mapping the Terrain.” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Soule, Sarah A. 2007. “Diffusion Processes Within and Across Movements.” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Swindler, Ann. 1995. “Culture Power and Social Movements.” In Social Movements and Culture, edited by Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Engaging Social Movements in Conflict Transformation

49

Taylor, Verta, and Nella Van Dyke. 2007. ““Get Up Stand Up”: Tactical Repertoires of Social Movements.” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Tindall, D.B. 2007. “From Metaphors to Mechanisms: Critical Issues in Networks and Social Movement Research.” Social Networks 29: 160168. —. 2002. “Social Networks, Identification and Participation in an Environmental Movement: Low-Medium Cost Activism within the British Columbia Wilderness Preservation Movement.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 39 (4): 413-452. Whittier, Nancy. 2007. “The Consequences of Social Movements for Each Other.” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Zald, Mayer N. 1996. “Culture, Ideology, and Strategic Framing.” In Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, edited by Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald. New York: Cambridge University Press.

CHAPTER THREE GROWING A GANDHI: CRITICAL PEACE EDUCATION, CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION AND THE SCHOLARSHIP OF ENGAGEMENT CHERYL LYNN DUCKWORTH

“I want you to see nonviolent conflict as a form of warfare—the only difference is you don't use arms.” —Sun Tzu

As any graduate student in a conflict resolution program learns, our field is dynamic, disparate, critically needed, often misunderstood, and frankly unwieldy. We have emerged from a diverse and sometimes even contradictory lineage of peace and human rights activists, international development workers, social workers, political scientists, mediators, and lawyers. Naturally we do not always see the conflicts we engage from the same perspective; nor do we need to. That said I will propose here that one of the more exciting trends in our field currently is a move towards engaging the structurally violent systems which drive entrenched, violent conflicts and war. Of course, this has long been a part of the work of some of our field’s founders, yet when one considers the phrase “conflict resolution,” one is still likely to consider tools such as mediation, process trainings, and Burtonian problem-solving workshops. These are essential tools of our field. Yet I will argue in this chapter, as I have elsewhere, that such skills as non-violent activism and political organizing and deconstructing war narratives should also be seen (and thus taught) as important and legitimate skills of a conflict resolution professional. Not even the most micro, interpersonal conflict occurs in a socio-economic, cultural, or political vacuum, an insight around which there is largely a consensus in the field of conflict resolution as well as two of our “parent”

Growing a Gandhi

51

disciplines, sociology and psychology. For this reason I argue that such skills are relevant no matter what path one traveled to conflict resolution or what specific professional area one might be working in. This leads me to the compelling and unique contribution that especially a critical peace education can make to sustainably transforming violent conflicts. Given the multi-disciplinary diversity of conflict resolution, clarifying a few definitions is necessary before proceeding further. Debates have been ongoing as to what exactly we as scholars and professionals in this field mean by conflict resolution and how it is different, if at all, from conflict mitigation, conflict management, or the term I employ here, conflict transformation. Do we envision an agreement signed? The cessation of violence? The presence of equity and justice? Do we mean the lessened likelihood of violent conflict recurring in the future, and if so, what indicators might suggest this? Some have argued that conflict transformation (as opposed to “resolution”) suggests significant change in the social, cultural, political, and economic systems that were at the root of a particular conflict. Scholars such as Lederach are most commonly associated with this tradition (Ramsbotham, et al. 2011, 9; Lederach 1997; Lederach 2005). Others have argued that the terminology is not as important as the results on the ground. Can we in fact consider a conflict “resolved” if the root causes themselves were not dealt with? Surely not, in my view. And if this is the meaning behind the term “conflict resolution,” how indeed is it different from “conflict transformation”? While I agree that we do well not to become too distracted by semantics, we are still a field too often poorly understood by those who view it as limited to mediating disputes to prevent them from having to be litigated or facilitating more constructive communication and organizational processes. This is why I dwell on the matter here. I do tend to use “conflict transformation” to suggest a change in both micro and macro-systems which are structurally violent—that is, systems which deny people the ability to meet their basic human needs of sustenance, safety, human connection, and dignity. What I find so compelling about the concept of structural violence is that it renders visible the impacts of unjust social systems which might otherwise remain invisible. While structural violence of course can result in the denial of human rights, cultural expression, and human dignity, it can also result in physical injury, the inability to meet basic physical needs, and death. As I have defined it for students in my conflict resolution theories classes, if someone dies where

52

Chapter Three

there was food to feed her, this is structural violence. Engaging and transforming such realities, I believe, is the essential vocation of our field; these skills are every bit as valid and important as mediation, facilitation, and negotiation. Indeed, as Kenneth Cloke recently argued at a talk given to the students and faculty of DCAR, before one can justifiably or ethically mediate a conflict where structural violence is present, it is vital to “stop the lynching” first. That is, when conflicts are not symmetrical because the parties do not have reasonably similar access to power, causing the dynamics to become more symmetrical, for example through civil disobedience, can help to ensure a more lasting peace. This is because all parties at the table will then be more empowered to achieve an outcome they can truly live with. This is what I have in mind when I use the term “conflict transformation”. What Galtung (1996), among others, has called cultural violence must be exposed and transformed; this is where I believe critical peace educators have the power to make significant contributions to engaging and transforming systems that are at the root of violence and war. What then is “critical peace education” and how can it contribute to conflict transformation? Further, how does all of this relate to the Scholarship of Engagement? A “critical theory” peace education is a specific approach to peace education that foregrounds the reality that no peace will be sustainable without the presence of justice. It focuses on challenging and working to transform unjust power structures. Drawing on critical theorists such as Paolo Freire (2003) and Jürgen Habermas (1989), a critical peace education would engage students in developing and applying key conflict transformation skills. Such skills would include an astute power analysis which would, through critical dialogue, empower students and teachers to become conscious of the structural violence around them. Educators often speak of using “essential questions” to center curriculum—compelling and relevant questions around which students can be usefully engaged. In critical peace education, the “essential question” would be who holds access to power and resources in one’s society and why? How did that occur? What sort of processes—historical, political, cultural, economic—are relevant? What are the dominant narratives that seek to justify the status quo? Who do they benefit? What other narratives are possible? This last question, I would argue, is especially key given that all too often, while critical theory can successfully “deconstruct” dominant social or political myths that reproduce structurally violent systems, it is in my judgment not as successful at fleshing out what should be reconstructed in its place.

Growing a Gandhi

53

Other skills and outcomes of critical peace education are essential to conflict transformation as well. One particular skill, collaborative problem solving, is not often described within the context of classic critical theory (Habermas 1989, Foucault 1995). Here is a key contribution of critical peace education to the project of global conflict transformation. Beyond engaging students in critical dialogues about their worlds and what must most urgently be transformed, critical peace education classrooms at their best immerse students in practical, localized, and multi-disciplinary projects through which students can simultaneously develop essential skills such as critical analysis, community-building, and collaborative problem solving (Bajaj 2008; Duckworth 2006, 2011; Salomon 2002; Salomon 2004; Salomon 2007; Ndura-Ouédraogo and Amster 2009). They design and implement programs which positively transform their communities and so experience themselves as powerful agents who can indeed impact society. Given that a sense of powerlessness is often part of the identity of those oppressed or marginalized, the importance of beginning to challenge that narrative by helping students experience themselves as effective agents cannot be underestimated. As numerous critical theorists note and as I have argued elsewhere, hegemonic narratives are essential to political and economic elites maintaining power. If people, either citizens or subjects, can be kept isolated from one another, the hegemonic narrative of the elites will not likely be challenged. Because of the above dynamic, I would argue that the ability to “unpack” the war narratives that a particular regime shapes and disseminates is an essential aspect of critical peace education (CPE), without which CPE would not be as able to contribute to conflict transformation. This chapter thus braids together three threads: conflict transformation, critical peace education, and the Scholarship of Engagement. The below discussion then can also serve as an example of what such a critical dialogue might look like in a CPE teacher training or curriculum design as a product of a Scholarship of Engagement project. Civics and literature classes would lend themselves naturally to CPE in settings where explicit conflict resolution or peace education courses are not yet offered. As an example of what such a deconstruction of a war narrative might look like, consider the narratives used recently by the Bush administration to generate and mobilize support for the invasion of Iraq. I use this example, as opposed to the example of Afghanistan, since Iraq was not connected to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and so its invasion needed far

54

Chapter Three

more effort in many American minds to justify. We can look to this example to identify cultural assumptions and socio-national narratives relevant in the contemporary American context. What were some of the deep, unexamined memes which the Bush administration employed to mobilize support for the invasion of Iraq? The narratives shifted some as it became clear that Iraq did not have WMD. Iraq as an example of democracy in the Middle East was one argument the administration made; Hussein’s brutality was another. Ties between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden, which never did materialize in fact, were even suggested. Yet underlying the specific, contemporary security arguments, the administration also clearly drew on some classic American values to make their case; their rhetoric often resonated skillfully with the story Americans such as myself like to tell ourselves about who we are as a people. All nation-states have such founding myths. Again, if critical peace educators are to successfully engage communities in resolving conflicts by transforming the cultural violence which serves to legitimize it, CPE students must learn to identify and deconstruct the socio-cultural, historical narratives at work in a particular context, especially those narratives deployed to justify violence. I do so with some of the founding myths of my own society here by way of brief example. Perhaps the most salient founding meme in this case is the myth of American Exceptionalism. The view that historical, geographic, or in the worldview of some, even divine forces, have enabled the U.S. to enjoy a legacy of prosperity and freedom that no other nation has been able to replicate, remains powerful. Indeed, it appears to be central to the GOP’s 2012 reelection strategy as a sort of litmus test for candidates. What this means in terms of justifying war is that the “last best hope” of freedom must be able to defend herself, and her allies, lest human freedom itself perish. America bears the responsibility for the world’s “security umbrella.” From the perspective of this narrative, there can hardly be a more powerful or noble reason for taking to arms. Related, perhaps as a “sub-myth” to this notion of American Exceptionalism, is the belief that America symbolizes the future and embodies modernity. As Edward Said (1979) so famously noted, the corollary of this is the idea that other nations, specifically Arab nations, are inherently backwards, even antimodern. Therefore military aggression can be (mis)understood as a defense of cultural, economic, and other forms of human progress. This is, for example, why the human rights of Muslim and/or Arab women are so inevitably a part of the conversation regarding recent wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. Said termed this Orientalism. Arjun Appadurai (2005) also

Growing a Gandhi

55

put it quite aptly: “larger global forces…have done much to show Americans that the past is usually another country” (31). It is not a far leap, then, to dispense with the past in order to create space for the future. American Exceptionalism also, of course, engenders a mistrust of multilateralism. From the starting point of this logic, if others will not act with us, our unique place in the world and indeed in history is sufficient to justify acting unilaterally. I once brought this dialogue into my classroom of high-school aged juvenile detainees. First we read Dr. Martin Luther King’s (1963) lesser known speech, “Beyond Vietnam”. I then asked them to discuss and write about what they thought Dr. King’s opinion of the invasion of Iraq might be. What I think of as an American bias for action is implicated as well. Call it the “can-do” spirit, which in my view has served Americans well in many instances; as with any other value, it can also mislead and be exploited. Intrinsic in U.S. culture is a refusal to take no for an answer (this may be changing post-Vietnam). Americans are raised on the belief that this sort of optimism and determination has helped to make us a great nation—and in many ways, so it has. Yet this impulse can also be called upon to engender an impatience with diplomacy and an instinctive mistrust of inaction, even when the consequences of action are at best unpredictable. This suspicion of “mere words” has been evident in our social and political culture even among our most celebrated “men of letters,” such as Twain, Emerson and Thoreau. Chris Hedge’s work, War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning (2002), examines the role of national myths and war-making as well. He focuses on the role of national myths and the state (re)shaping of collective memory in El Salvador and Bosnia. “National myths,” he writes, “ignite a collective amnesia in war” (46). They are often consciously crafted, or at least re-invoked, by a government regime needing support for a war that the people might otherwise find plenty of reason to question. Governments, for example, have engaged in dismantling statues, renaming historical sites, ‘disappearing’ dissent artists, academics and activists, and most importantly for our context here, mandating the teaching of the ‘correct’ version of history in schools (Hedges 2002; Passerini 2008; Oglesby 2004). This history is commonly known, at least in the peace education and human rights community; less widely understood are the socio-cultural, political, and economic processes through which regimes succeed in this erasing and shaping of history. Writes Hedges (2002), “when the visible and tangible symbols of one’s past are destroyed or

56

Chapter Three

denied, the past can be recreated to fit the myth” (80). He continues: “The effectiveness of the myths peddled in war is powerful. We often come to doubt our own perceptions. We hide these doubts, like troubled believers, sure that no one else feels them. We feel guilty. The myths have determined not only how we should speak but how we should think” (74). Through the silencing of other view points and the erasing or altering of evidence of history that contradicts the myth the war-state wishes to advance, support or at least silent consent is generated. In a parallel dynamic, dissent is crushed. Through threats and torture, of course, governments can silence the opposition; through the subtle social and cultural dynamics I am describing here, regimes can induce the opposition into silencing itself. I do not want to wander too far afield here; my purpose is to demonstrate the utility of the Scholarship of Engagement model for realizing critical peace education’s full potential to contribute to conflict transformation, not to analyze why my country invaded Iraq. Given that the ability to critically analyze the dominant narratives of one’s own society is, I feel, a vital outcome of critical peace education, I dwell on this theme here. In addition to being able to unpack one’s own socio-historical myths, in a process similar to the manner in which Peggy McIntosh (1988) invited us to “unpack the backpacks” of white and male privilege, it is important that students of CPE understand the processes of social and cultural manipulation at a more macro level as well (once developmentally appropriate). Students participating in CPE programs in public school classrooms or any other community venue should emerge, in my view, with a clear understanding of the processes of oppression and totalitarianism in general; they are hardly relics of the 20th century. Cultural manipulation through excess consumerism, atomized individualism, encouraging xenophobia, stoking fear of foreign enemies, policies which discourage education, and other such strategies should be “called out” as seeds of authoritarian oppression. Authoritarianism is at least as much of a mindset as it is a form of government. This makes us as citizens the last real defense against authoritarianism. This reality is what makes CPE relevant to conflict transformation, especially for the sorts of often terribly violent and entrenched conflicts which those of us in the field of peace education and conflict resolution most dearly wish to transform. By creating CPE programs and dialogues in schools and other community venues, the Scholarship of Engagement model is an exceptionally strong fit for encouraging such conflict

Growing a Gandhi

57

transformation interventions within the context of academia. As noted above, the Scholarship of Engagement model is centered on research and practice that is of service to local and global communities. This opens space for the possibility of praxis. In the case of CPE community engagement, as I suggest above, skilled scholar-facilitators can invite communities to undertake a critical analysis of why and how nations find themselves mobilized for war. Via this model of engaged scholarship, CPE curriculum can facilitate collective identification and deconstruction of harmful hegemonic narratives. CPE is focused on egalitarian, diverse, and locally relevant dialogues. Its curriculum is experiential in nature, and intended to increase justice locally and globally. Perhaps most importantly, because the CPE facilitator has not imposed an agenda from the outside nor made the mistake of attempting to “fix” another group’s conflict for them, the student-teachers involved in CPE curriculum develop skills essential to democracy. Because of this, CPE programs can generate what we might think of as a “virtuous cycle” of conflict transformation to the possible prevention of future destructive conflicts.

Reconstructionism Confronting structurally violent hegemonic narratives can be considered the “deconstruction” achieved by linking CPE and conflict transformation, as discussed above. The reconstruction which must necessarily follow, then, will be most transformative and sustainable to the extent that it focuses on human relationships. This is a second key contribution of CPE to systemic conflict transformation. Elise Boulding (2000) and Lederach (2005) both make this point powerfully in their calls for sustainable reconciliation and building cultures of peace. As noted previously, we conflict resolvers and peace builders, especially those of us with a critical-theory bent, are sometimes better at articulating what we do not want rather than what we do want. Our theory of deconstruction, if you will, is far better developed than our theory of what I am calling “reconstruction”. The values and techniques that are at the heart of CPE include nonviolence, justice, participatory collaboration, dialogue, and egalitarianism. Dialogue is especially key since one person’s justice is another’s chosen trauma (e.g., Volkan 2004). The pedagogy of CPE is experiential, consensual, local, and always interdisciplinary. Even more saliently, CPE (as distinct from peace education more generally) is focused on uncovering imbalances of historical, social, political, and economic power. This is why I believe it is able to make such an essential contribution to transforming the sorts of systemically violent institutions

58

Chapter Three

and regimes which are primary drivers of conflict in the early 21st century. Below is a model of how such a process might unfold. A Model of the Potential of CPE for Conflict Transformation

CPE results in not just local capacity-building, in the sense of collaborative problem solving, critical thinking, or the sort of critical analysis political and economic elites abhor. When at its best, it can inspire a new sense of dignity, which is a basic human need (Burton 1990; Duckworth 2011). I am defining dignity here as a sense of self-worth, as well as a sense of one’s ability to contribute to one’s community in a positive manner. Also inherent in dignity, I believe, is a sense, both individual and social, of some sort of say in one’s future. Perhaps such critical dialogues take the form of dialogues on alcoholism, labor, and the military junta, as in Freire’s foundational Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2003). Perhaps it takes the form of one group of young nonviolent revolutionaries from Belgrade teaching younger revolutionaries in Cairo how they overthrew a tyrant (Rosenberg 2011). Maybe communities in Colombia empower themselves by mapping the resources of their own local community (Bastidas and Gonzales 2008). Detained juveniles have

Growing a Gandhi

59

used writing and blogging to reflect on their communities, families, schooling, and choices (Duckworth 2011). As my own students in a U.S. juvenile detention home discovered, such writing and sharing of one’s experiences was more than therapeutic. Often it also leads to a collective discovery of shared struggles. As the graphic above suggests, I view this realization as the seed of the sorts of nonviolent social movements that have in recent history transformed some of history’s most brutal structurally violent regimes, to include Soviet occupation and British colonialism (Ackerman and Duvall 2000). The form a specific CPE program might take varies widely, depending on the needs, history, and resources of the particular students, as is implicit in the above examples. It is a classic truism of social movement organizers that power concedes nothing without demand. Given the collaborative, problem-centered, and local nature of quality CPE curriculum, it is readily suited to equip and inspire students of any age to realize a number of discoveries which are essential if nonviolent social movements are to emerge where needed and successfully build more just and peaceful societies. As I just noted, the discovery of shared grievances is vital. So too is the discovery of oneself as a person with dignity and agency. Often dominant narratives are shaped precisely to convince oppressed peoples of their own inferiority; hence their “need” for those in power to continue holding on to that power. Through applied scholarship that engages communities in critical peace education, confidence is enhanced. This sounds perhaps like an unimportant observation, but again, I would argue that since hegemonic narratives are maintained precisely to demoralize and thereby demobilize, building this confidence is critical to transforming structural violence. Further, participation in collaboratively developing and implementing solutions to shared challenges and injustices—the essence of CPE—builds essential skills and capacity necessary for selfgovernance. These include locally-appropriate leadership, strategic thinking and planning, communication, and creative, imaginative problemsolving. If we are to successfully reconstruct not just infrastructure and markets but social fabric (without which infrastructure will simply be bombed again and markets will continue to stagnate in corruption), we need to continue developing what I am calling here “reconstructionism.” These are the theories and practices of systemic conflict transformation and peacebuilding that have begun to help us understand not just what we do not want but also what we wish to put in place of what is swept aside. As the

60

Chapter Three

“Arab Spring” continues to unfold, this knowledge could hardly be timelier. Lederach (2005) writes, “the north of peacebuilding is best articulated towards becoming and being local and global human communities characterized by respect, dignity, fairness, cooperation, and the nonviolent resolution of conflict. To understand this north, to read such a compass, requires that we recognize and develop our moral imagination far more intentionally” (Lederach 2005, 24). In its invitation to, in collaboration with one’s community, understand and transform the structurally violent aspects of one’s reality, CPE inspires and sharpens this moral imagination. In its insistence on manifest equality and respect, and a genuine sharing of power between student-teacher and teacher-student, CPE facilitates students internalizing the values essential to conflict transformation. With its Freirian problem-posing, locally relevant, and interdisciplinary curriculum, CPE can inspire the curiosity vital to asking critical analysis questions to begin with. As suggested in the discussion of hegemonic narratives above, this shedding of false consciousness is essential to transforming conflicts that are driven by structural or systemic violence. CPE can facilitate another particularly useful transformation relevant to ending systemic violence, not mentioned often enough in the literature on CPE. This is the need to change the consciousness not just of those marginalized or oppressed but also of those who are most privileged. Our greatest thinkers in peace and social justice have seen this. Dr. King (1963) spoke of the “false sense of superiority” which the Jim Crow era in the U.S. afflicted some whites with and warned of this danger. Paolo Freire (2003) wrote of the need for the marginalized to free the oppressors from their own spiritual sickness by demanding equity and justice. If CPE is indeed to contribute to systemic conflict transformation in a particular context, we must not just focus on empowering those who have not. Surely we must also raise the critical consciousness of those most privileged and facilitate their abilities to collaboratively problem solve on locally relevant issues of justice. Otherwise the hegemonic narratives which sustain and reproduce physical, structural, and cultural violence will remain. Through the academic model of the Scholarship of Engagement, CPE programs can facilitate elites’ understanding of their own role and place in inequitable political, socio-cultural, and economic systems. For example, a program I had the pleasure of helping to design, LearnServe Paraguay, invited American students and teachers to partner with students and

Growing a Gandhi

61

teachers in Paraguay on local service and community development projects. These included, for example, access to technology, microenterprise, and community gardens. One Paraguayan student, as perceptive and thoughtful as she was economically privileged, noted in a group reflection session that she had had no idea that so much poverty existed in her city— fifteen minutes from where she lived! We had, she told us, shown her her own country. Of course one cannot generalize from one example, but I think this vignette suggests the power of CPE to usefully begin transforming the worldviews of elites as well as those marginalized and oppressed. With so much emphasis in the critical theory literature on empowering the oppressed, on building their capacity and confidence to advocate for themselves, one might overlook how critical it also is to transform elites whose worldviews, lifestyles, and behavior often contribute to and reproduce marginalization and inequality. (Nor, to offer full disclosure here, do I consider myself an exception to this.) Carefully designed CPE curriculum can begin this process. This discussion suggests a further aspect of CPE that can facilitate systemic conflict transformation: introducing students (and teachers) to systems thinking. Systems thinking is the ability to conceptually grasp the interplay between many different levels of analysis and many different social, political, economic, and cultural forces at once. It involves seeing their applications, implications and interactions. In the era of globalization, this higher order thinking skill is increasingly important to an empowered civil society. This is vital to understanding conflict transformation. As Ropers (2008) writes, “Applying systemic thinking in peacebuilding projects and programmes means framing the interaction with and among the conflicting parties as well as other stakeholders in the conflict region as a ‘learning space,’ which is characterised by three parameters: multipartiality in elaborating and reviewing processes and structures; constructive-critical engagement with the stakeholders, and envisioning multiple peaceful futures. These three parameters are useful guiding principles in the context of long-term processes in which conflict transformation is undertaken as a fundamental system transformation” (Ropers 2008). There is strong synergy between the collective, systemic conflict analysis Ropers describes here and critical pedagogy, whose goal is to facilitate a community’s understanding of the particular challenges and injustices they face, what forces and systems might have led to this currently reality, and what actions might be undertaken to transform these injustices. The conflict region as a learning space, indeed, and who better to facilitate this learning space than critical peace educators equipped with

62

Chapter Three

the facilitation skills and methodological expertise needed to encourage such learning to occur. A debate continues, both within the academy and at large, regarding whether social change can most effectively be achieved through programs that address structures or through programs that address individual morality and consciousness. A perhaps unique contribution of especially a critical theory approach to peace education is the potential to address both. This ability of critical peace education to bridge structure and agency is essential to its contribution to systemic conflict transformation. This is because CPE programs often address the stereotypes, hegemonic narratives, and enemy images that are at the root of so many violent, protracted conflicts at a socio-cultural level, while simultaneously working to develop “individual” values such as empathy, nonviolence, and tolerance. While clearly violent cultural, political, or economic systems will be drivers of conflict, those who focus on systems without confronting why individual human beings continually seem to produce and reproduce such systems, will continue to fall short. Similarly, those who attempt to teach mediation, communication, or conflict resolution skills, without reckoning seriously and honestly with the institutions, policies, and human systems which reproduce them, will fail. CPE provides a means of addressing not only an individual’s consciousness but also development of the necessary skills, attitudes, and values needed to work for systemic, transformative social change.

Engaging Schools for Peace This section will discuss contributions that the Scholarship of Engagement model can make to critical peace education, as well as the contributions CPE can make to the Scholarship of Engagement. While critical peace educators often reference engaging communities in selfadvocacy, self-examination (Salomon 2004, 2007), and projects which address well-being and advance social justice, I have not yet seen an explicit link made to the Scholarship of Engagement model. As noted above, this model of scholarship dispenses with false divisions between “theory” and “practice,” an advance I view as essential to the field of conflict resolution. CPE, and peace education in general, can struggle for recognition and legitimacy both in the academy and in most mainstream public school systems. While this has been changing in recent years, having a model of scholarship that expands the academic products one might craft with community partners is useful, particularly when those

Growing a Gandhi

63

products are developed in partnership with and for the betterment of one’s school community. The Scholarship of Engagement offers exactly this. Such “new scholarship” increasingly is being rewarded via revised institutional guidelines for faculty tenure and promotion (Sandmann, Saltmarsh, and O’Meara 2008). Academia has long, and I think rightly, been criticized for being too esoteric, purely theoretical, and disengaged from the daily realities with which people struggle. The Scholarship of Engagement offers a concrete and increasingly established model for addressing this critique (Barker 2004; Driscoll and Sandmann 2001). Some Scholarship of Engagement community projects might involve implementing and evaluating service learning in local schools, or partnerships with social work service providers to improve practice. Others might address a larger perceived problem, such as a lack of community engagement in public life. Still others might facilitate dialogues on resonant, controversial issues faced by a particular community (McIntyre 2008). I am proposing here the utility of this model of scholarship for critical peace educators. Recall that a cherished goal of critical peace education is transforming systems which are structurally (systemically) violent. Traditional edited volumes, monographs, and peer-reviewed articles might emerge from such a project, but the model of the Scholarship of Engagement offers us a whole range of other outcomes and products that would be considered equally valid academically and useful with respect to transforming structural violence via the CPE classroom. Here is our opportunity to implement CPE to effect conflict transformation, employing the rubric of the Scholarship of Engagement to enhance perceived validity and legitimacy in universities and other research institutions! Such products might include a CPE curriculum both designed and implemented, a training manual for teachers or administrators, and a documentary or student production of some sort. In the particular case of critical peace education, an academic product might include creating, implementing, and evaluating an experiential learning curriculum. A teacher/scholar-facilitator partnership might engage students in debate on vital current issues, such as the recent rationales for U.S. wars or rising economic inequality. The students then would be invited to research and propose solutions. The partnership with the university could enable students to present this publically. I used a similar curriculum, as best as possible, in the juvenile detention home where I taught writing, literature, and conflict resolution for several years. For obvious reasons we could not

64

Chapter Three

leave the detention center, but we certainly could research local community challenges, and write and present about solutions. Our (anonymous) class blog offered the opportunity to engage the community via publishing student work. Thematic units based on analyses of local schools and communities enabled my classroom to become a space for ongoing critical dialogue on what young people really experienced and what they believed must be done to better their lives. I believe there is an amazing opportunity for CPE to enhance the model of the engaged scholar: via CPE, not only are we engaging public (or private) schools, communities and organizations, we are engaging young students! A synergy offers itself here between the similar epistemologies of critical peace education and the Scholarship of Engagement. They both are centered on a desire to de-throne the Expert Scholar who claims a “god’s eye view” of the subject at hand. They both desire to democratize research and knowledge production. They both recognize that, as Mauthner et al. (2002) state so aptly, “knowledge produced is knowledge subsequently lived” (48). This basic point has been made in so many various disciplines in so many ways that one must ask what remains missing to explain why we do not in fact yet see more engaged, democratic (if you will) scholarship. This is a complex question, but one point the literature on the Scholarship of Engagement makes is that the needed institutional reform at universities remains patchy (O’Meara and Rice 2005; Barker 2004). Faculty rewards still typically center on traditional peer-reviewed publications, academic conferences, and monographs. Of course, engaging schools—or any other institution outside of the academy—is not possible with such limits on how scholarship is defined. Why, this model of academia asks, is there such a bright line between “research” and “service”? Perhaps this question itself still represents a viable question for community-engaged scholarship. The values and epistemology of critical peace education resonate productively with the model of engaged scholarship, thereby enabling the necessary transformation of institutions of knowledge production. Having engaged parents, community partners, local leaders, and most importantly classroom students for some time now, critical peace educators, inherently constructivist, understand that learning itself simply does not occur without sharing the power to define what “counts” as knowledge. As Freire (2003), commonly considered the founding father of CPE, argued, to name the world is a prerequisite to participating in it. Controlling what will and will not be considered valid knowledge (or valid

Growing a Gandhi

65

means of gathering data) has been, in its more extreme manifestations, a form of oppression. Interrupting and transforming this dynamic is the raison d’être of critical peace education. As critical peace educators, we therefore are in a strong position to exemplify and contextualize this argument. CPE can offer the Scholarship of Engagement not just the power to solve practitioner problems or offer students experiential education, vital as both of those undertakings are. At its finest, CPE through the Scholarship of Engagement, can empower universities and communities together to subvert and transform systems of oppression that are primary drivers of violent conflict. Another example of implementing CPE via the Scholarship of Engagement might include training students to facilitate dialogues on painful issues confronting their school community (which are bound to be related to issues confronting the community at large). Students might be invited to write and produce a musical examining the root causes of bullying in schools, as they did recently in a South Florida high school (see Duckworth et al. 2012). Alternatively, students might be invited to engage their research, math, and science skills to investigate local manifestations of structural violence, such as the shockingly high rate of AIDS in Washington, DC. Classroom communities could explore how the “Other” is represented in the history books and other textbooks that adults provide. Such a study has been undertaken regarding representations of conflict in textbooks from North Korea, Taiwan, Northern Ireland, and China, but as far as I am aware, students did not co-create this knowledge (Korostelina 2008). Such an activity within schools or a larger community forum would represent incredibly powerful critical peace education— though naturally a highly skilled and experienced facilitator would be needed to guide an inevitably painful dialogue. The Scholarship of Engagement model offers academics a means to initiate or partner with local organizations on such efforts while still meeting the rigorous criteria of review committees for tenure, retention, and promotion. Such projects are still all too rare but do indeed exist, as the foregoing examples illustrate; consider another example of one project that envisioned Hurricane Katrina as a science and social studies curriculum. Students studied the necessary physical science, built relationships with the local community impacted by this disaster, and lobbied Congress for the reconstruction funds that had had yet to appear (What Kids Can Do, Inc. 2011). My own childhood offers another example, although I did not fully realize the power of what I had learned until much later, after middle

66

Chapter Three

school. As an “Army Brat,” my family and I were stationed in (then West) Germany. A group of teachers and parents of middle schoolers organized a trip for approximately twenty of us to the “Evil Empire” itself, Soviet Russia. I returned from those two weeks wondering why I was supposed to hate the other middle schoolers, and consider to this day that this example of experiential education began fostering in me the beginnings of global citizenship, which in my view should be an outcome of critical peace education. Critical peace educators, citing the model of engaged scholarship, can partner with youth organizations and schools to begin such experiential programs. Of course, none of these examples are mutually exclusive of the more traditional products of scholarship. The ultimate desired outcome of such a CPE community project would be a classroom, or even a school or school system, equipped and inspired to confront local or global injustice and transform the system perpetuating it. The above examples, and the synergy of the values and epistemology that CPE and the Scholarship of Engagement share, demonstrate that the Scholarship of Engagement is an exciting lens through which those of us in the peace and conflict resolution field can hold ourselves accountable for the relevance and transformative impact of our work. This model can provide a means to facilitate the transformation of the structural violence still so present in too many communities while we simultaneously meet the demands of academic accountability. Indeed, most of us in the field of peace-building and conflict resolution are drawn to it precisely to transform current, ongoing conflicts. As noted in the introduction, the Scholarship of Engagement model bridges theory and practice, offering us an opportunity to engage communities in praxis. Praxis, of course, is the collective, social study of a particular shared problem which then leads to collective action on that problem. I would like to emphasize the collective aspect of this definition, as conflict transformation is inherently a social act. The basic impulse of the Scholarship of Engagement is to identify challenges shared by the community, study them, and then act on and evaluate the collaboratively-developed solutions. This again is what makes this academic model such a strong fit for those of us working to transform conflicts through a critical peace education classroom. Conflicts, both violent and nonviolent, escalate rapidly as our field continues to mature and evolve. The skills of nonviolent social transformation have perhaps never been more critically needed to empower oppressed groups and transform the worldviews of their oppressors. Critical, systemic power analyses, intercultural communication,

Growing a Gandhi

67

strategic problem solving, collaboration, and leadership will all be necessary as local and global communities confront history. The more globalized and interconnected the world becomes, the more this will be true. So how then, do we “grow a Gandhi”? Education and school systems must be understood by our field as key parties to and stakeholders in conflicts and conflict transformation (Ndura-Ouédraogo and Amster 2009). Further, critical peace education must urgently become mainstreamed in every classroom worldwide if we are to sustainably, creatively and nonviolently transform conflicts (Brantmeier in Malott and Porfilio 2011; Shacklee in Ndura-Ouédraogo and Amster 2009). We are, admittedly, a long way from realizing this need, but we must move with haste. Youth revolutions continue to build and burn throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Syria has recently used helicopters with gunships on protesting crowds as world leaders have finally called on President Assad to leave, as widely reported throughout the mainstream media. Democratic resistance continues in countries with massive populations such as Russia and China. Civil wars may well be reigniting in the Ivory Coast and Sudan. Poverty and systemic marginalization of indigenous peoples continues in North and South America. In my own country of the U.S., labor unrest, long-term unemployment, and economic inequality not seen for at least a generation has manifested in Wisconsin, Ohio, and elsewhere. Perhaps second only to faith institutions and families, schools (and universities) are primary shapers of both individual and collective identity. If we are to “grow Gandhis,” then fostering the kind of moral imagination, empathy for the Other, systemic power analyses, and collaborative problem solving that are the heart and soul of critical peace education are all essential to systemic conflict transformation. Further, because community engagement is inherent in CPE projects, the academic model of Scholarship of Engagement offers itself as an excellent fit for continuing to open space within higher education for such projects to be valued and validated as contributions.

References Ackerman, Peter, and Jack Duvall. 2000. A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict. New York, NY: Palgrave. Appadurai, Arjun. 2005. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of MN Press. Bajaj, Monisha. 2008. “Critical Peace Education.” The Encyclopedia of Peace Education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. http://www.tc.edu/centers/epe/PDF%20articles/Bajaj_ch16_22feb08.pdf

68

Chapter Three

Barker, Derek. 2004. “The Scholarship of Engagement: A Taxonomy of Five Emerging Practices.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 9 (2): 123-137. Bastidas, Elena P., and Carlos A. Gonzales. 2008. “Social Cartography as a Tool for Conflict Analysis and Resolution: The Experience of the Afro-Colombian Communities of Robles.” Peace and Conflict Studies 15 (2): 1-14. Boulding, Elise. 2000. Cultures of Peace: The Hidden Side of History. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Brantmeier, Edward. 2011. “Towards Mainstreaming Critical Peace Education in U.S. Teacher Education.” In Critical Pedagogy in the Twenty-First Century: A New Generation of Scholars, edited by Curry S. Malott and Bradley Porfilio. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Burton, John. 1990. Conflict: Basic Human Needs. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. —. 1998. “Conflict Resolution: The Human Dimension.” International Journal of Peace Studies 3 (1). http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol3_1/cover3_1.htm. Driscoll, Amy, and Lorilee Sandmann. 2001. “From Maverick to Mainstream: The Scholarship of Engagement.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 6 (2): 9-19. Duckworth, Cheryl. 2006. “Teaching Peace: A Dialogue on the Montessori Method.” Journal of Peace Education 3 (1): 39-53. —. 2011. Land and Dignity in Paraguay. New York: Continuum Press. —. 2011. “Restorative Writing: Critical Peace Education in a Juvenile Detention Home.” Peace and Conflict Studies 18 (2): 234-262. Duckworth, Cheryl, and John W. McDonald, Ambassador (ret.). 2004. “Demos Kratos: New Expressions of People Power Across the Globe.” Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy: Occasional Papers. http://www.imtd.org/publications/occasional-papers/ Duckworth, Cheryl, Teri Williams, and Barbara Allen. Forthcoming. “What Do Students Learn When We Teach Peace?” Journal of Peace Education. Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. Translated by Rupert Swyer. New York: Random House. Freire, Paulo. 2003. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th Anniversary ed. New York: Continuum Press. Galtung, Johan. 1996. Peace by Peaceful Means. London: Sage Publications.

Growing a Gandhi

69

Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Habermas, Jurgen. 1981. Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Vol. 2 of The Theory of Communicative Action. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Harris, Ian, and Mary Lee Morrison. 2003. Peace Education. 2nd ed. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Co. Hedges, Chris. 2002. War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning. New York: Public Affairs. Jabri, Vivienne. 1996. Discourses on Violence: Conflict Analysis Reconsidered. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. What Kids Can Do, Inc. 2011. “Katrina as a Classroom.” www.whatkidscando.org. http://whatkidscando.org/specialcollections/student_research_action/ur banarcade/index.html. King, Martin Luther, Jr. 1963. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html Korostelina, Karina. 2008. “History Education and Social Identity.” Identity 8 (1): 25-45. Lederach, John P. 2005. The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lott, John R., Jr. 1999. “Public Schooling, Indoctrination and Totalitarianism.” Journal of Political Economy 107 (6.2): S127-S157. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=162791 Mauthner, Melanie, Maxine Birch, Julie Jessop, and Tina Miller, eds. 2008. Ethics in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McIntosh, Peggy. 1998. “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” Working Paper 189. Wellesley, MA: Center for Research on Women, Wellesley College. http://www.iub.edu/~tchsotl/part2/McIntosh%20White%20Privilege.pdf McIntyre, Alice. 2008. Participatory Action Research. Qualitative Research Methods Series 52, vol. 50. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ndura, Elavie, and Makoba, Johnson Wagona. 2008. Education for Social Change in Burundi and Rwanda: Creating a National Identity Beyond the Politics of Ethnicity. In Ethnicity and Sociopolitical Change in Africa and Other Developing Countries: A Constructive Discourse in State Building, edited by S. C. Santosh, 59-76. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

70

Chapter Three

Ndura-Ouédraogo, Elavie, and Randall Amster, eds. 2009. Building Cultures of Peace: Transdisciplinary Voices of Hope and Action. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Oglesby, Elizabeth. 2004. “Historical Memory and the Limits of Peace Education: Examining Guatemala’s ‘Memory of Silence’ and the Politics of Curriculum Design”. Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs. www.carnegiecouncil.org http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/media/4996_Elizabeth_Oglesby_Work ing_Paper.pdf. O’Meara, KerryAnn, and R. Eugene Rice, eds. 2005. Faculty Priorities Reconsidered: Rewarding Multiple Forms of Scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Passerini, Luisa, ed. 2008. Memory and Totalitarianism. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Ramsbotham, Oliver, Tom Woodhouse, and Hugh Miall. 2011. Contemporary Conflict Resolution. 3rd ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Rigby, Ken. 2006. “Implications of Bullying in Schools for Aggression between Nations.” Journal of Peace Education 3 (2): 175-185. Ropers, Norbert. 2008. “Systemic Conflict Transformation: Reflections on the Conflict and Peace Process in Sri Lanka.” Berghof Handbook on Conflict Transformation. http://www.berghof-handbook.net/ Rosenberg, Tina. 2011. “Revolution U: What Egyptian Students Learned from the Students Who Overthrew Milosevic.” Foreign Policy. www.foreignpolicy.com http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/16/revolution_u? Said, Edward. 1979. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books. Salomon, Gavriel. 2002. Peace Education: The Concepts, Principles and Practices Around the World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. —. 2004. “A Narrative-based View of Coexistence Education.” Journal of Social Issues 60 (2): 273-287. —. 2004. “Does Peace Education Make a Difference in the Context of an Intractable Conflict?” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 10 (3): 257-274. Sandmann, Lorilee, John Saltmarsh, and KerryAnn O’Meara. 2008. “An Integrated Model for Advancing the Scholarship of Engagement: Creating Academic Homes for the Engaged Scholar.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 12 (1): 47- 63. Shaklee, Beverley. 2009. “Promoting Peace Education Through Teacher Education.” In Building Cultures of Peace: Transdisciplinary Voices

Growing a Gandhi

71

of Hope and Action, edited by Elavie Ndura-Ouédraogo and Randall Amster. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Volkan, Vamik. 2004. “Chosen Trauma, the Political Ideology of Entitlement and Violence.” Berlin, Germany. http://www.vamikvolkan.com/Chosen-Trauma%2C-the-PoliticalIdeology-of-Entitlement-and-Violence.php.

CHAPTER FOUR WORKING THROUGH ORGANIZATIONAL AND COMMUNITY CONFLICT WITH SCHOLARSHIP OF ENGAGEMENT: DRAMATIC PROBLEM SOLVING FACILITATOR MODEL (DPSFM) AND INTERACTIVE MANAGEMENT (IM) ALEXIA GEORGAKOPOULOS AND STEVEN T. HAWKINS

This chapter explores the role that facilitation processes play as facilitators work with innovative and creative approaches to promote empowerment and conflict transformation for individuals and groups within a variety of contexts. It specifically discusses the manner that the Dramatic Problem Solving Facilitator Model (DPSFM), which was previously termed and introduced as Dramatic Problem Solving (Hawkins and Georgakopoulos, 2010), and Interactive Management (IM) can both be applied across a variety of contexts. The strength of both the Dramatic Problem Solving Facilitator Model (DPSFM) and the Interactive Management (IM) is that they democratize facilitative processes while promoting ownership and commitment on the part of stakeholders who are working through conflict. Another salient feature of both facilitation models is that they are applicable for complex or class II conflicts that are not easily approached by traditional methods of problem solving (Broome 1997; Hawkins and Georgakopoulos 2010; Warfield 1982; Warfield 1995; Warfield and Cardenas 1995). This chapter discusses the implications that these facilitation models, which for simplification purposes will be referred to as DPSFM and IM for the remainder of this discussion, will have on dispute systems design across a variety of settings.

Working through Organizational and Community Conflict

73

The contemporary study of conflict resolution within Dispute Systems Design (Constantino and Merchant 1996) reveals that there are different perspectives when working with communities and/or organizations involved with conflict. It is clear, however, that effective alternative dispute systems designs should be fluid and in flux to change with the systems that surround them (Constantino and Merchant 1996). Emerging and innovative models of conflict resolution are necessary to improve or resolve ongoing conflict within organizational and community settings. This chapter argues for innovative and culturally-congruent facilitation models in the management of conflict within dispute systems design (DSD). Specifically, interpretive and critical perspectives are significant features of research when participants are involved with facilitation design in DSD. This is the case since participants function as significant meaning making agents and change agents respectively. Change is evidenced in action plan development as well as action plan implementation. These outcomes to facilitation workshops support change and improve status quo conditions in the site (Hawkins and Georgakopoulos 2010). The DPSFM and IM incorporate action research by supporting conflict resolution tasks and projects for each application within a site. The facilitator plays a key role and in this role the facilitator is viewed as the guardian of the process; however, participants are ultimately responsible for generating all the content, which is in alignment with other facilitation models (Schwarz 2002). Both DPSFM and IM have been crafted to be culturally-relevant methodologies that can be integrated with alternative dispute resolution systems. They are culturally-relevant methodologies by way of three primary characteristics. The first characteristic is that community or organizational members themselves are involved in design, idea generation, intervention, action plan, implementation, and amendment stages. The second characteristic is that they allow members to holistically address the dispute in a systemic and logical manner, so that members do not limit their examination of the problem only to solutions, but rather to a host of issues which include but are not limited to root causes, problem definitions, alternative solutions, and influence structures. Third, the methodologies engage members in the community or organization, so it is their collective democratic voices that are involved with consensus building and action planning. In effect, these methodologies generally promote a sense of ownership, collaboration, and commitment to the facilitation tasks and outcomes. These facilitation models provide powerful methodologies to unveil the complexity involved in understanding conflict and problems within community and organizational settings.

74

Chapter Four

What follows first is a critique of popular traditions of knowing. Second, the discussion will focus on an alternative and integrative-based tradition that has been coined Scholarship of Engagement. Thirdly, the roles of researchers and participants will be underscored in this tradition. Fourth, a description of assumptions, goals, methodologies, conceptualizations, and contributions of the theoretical perspectives involved with both DPSFM and IM will be provided, with the purpose of supporting their application in Dispute Systems Design for use within a variety of organizational and community settings. Finally, implications of DPSFM and IM, which are examples of research that follow the Scholarship of Engagement tradition, with praxis at their hearts will be discussed.

Literature Review Oftentimes social science research is conducted utilizing a particular method that is uni-directional, and the researcher completes a project and leaves the site with little impact to the individuals or site involved in the study. Many individuals have expressed disenfranchisement with the work of institutions of higher learning (Barker 2004; Boyer 1996) since academia has popularly been related with research from an “Ivory Tower” ideology where knowledge has been considered to be housed and disseminated for select audiences, rather than translated to pedestrians and to the masses. The Scholarship of Engagement is an alternative approach to the long critiqued “Ivory-Tower” ideology, as it engages academia with the community in a unique partnership to resolve contemporary moral, economic, social, and civic problems. The current research provides an example of how conflict resolution specialists and/or professionals within multidisciplinary backgrounds can engage community participants or organizational members in developmental facilitation. Developmental facilitation models such as DPSFM and IM have the likely potential to help participants resolve their own conflict in conflict situations even after the facilitator leaves the site (Schwarz 2002). The idea is similar to the popular adage that “If one catches a fish, one can feed a person for a day, but if one teaches a person how to fish, one can feed a person for a lifetime!” Professionals who study conflict, whether they are business professionals and/or social scientists, are often limited in their practices to discovery or analysis. These professionals have an agenda to conduct research or consult the client, be that client a community group or a multinational organization. However, the current chapter calls for professionals involved in conflict resolution to not only

Working through Organizational and Community Conflict

75

engage in the task of reporting findings to further advance research, but also to engage participants in the task of improving the human condition in a humanistic manner that respects the voices of people in communities across villages and cities in the world. This is possible when the developmental facilitator supports action plans developed by participants themselves (Schwarz 2002; Hawkins and Georgakopoulos 2010). It is argued that the close engagement between the researcher and participants in a study should promote positive impacts and outcomes in communities. The utility of Scholarship of Engagement is that it is well-suited to integrate with existing traditions such as positivist, critical, postmodern and interpretive research traditions, which will be discussed briefly below.

Disparate Traditions Related to Epistemology The first perspective mentioned is the traditional approach; it emphasizes the importance of observable, measurable, and quantifiable evidence in order to predict and describe. Information gained from this approach is considered to be representational. The traditional view posits that behavior is regular, as it is caused by and follows general laws. Under this assumption researchers aim for universal generalizations (etic approach), create methods that are objective, and develop hypotheses and propositions to ultimately prove or disprove hypotheses. This approach seeks truth through control of variables and repeated testing. The researcher’s epistemological rationale is that knowledge is out there to be discovered. The researcher is neutral and detached from the knowledge she or he seeks to gain. The goal of the empiricist is to present research that suggests truth until another can disprove his/her argument. Distinguished considerably, the second perspective is the interpretive approach which is considered the approach to understanding. This approach takes the stance that knowledge is created and subjective. Interpretivism stresses that the social interaction process is important; therefore, it is often related with the co-creation of meaning through social interaction, whereby the researcher functions as a volunteer. In the interpretivist approach, the researcher is interested in localized knowledge and not universal generalizations— it is an emic approach contrary to the traditional approach describe above. It focuses on studying things we don’t have to question and we assume to be true. It is based on the notion that we affect the world and are affected by it. Interpretivism stresses that meaning making is extremely complex and cannot be studied in measurable aspects like variables.

76

Chapter Four

In contrast to the other perspectives, the third perspective includes post-modernism. This perspective emphasizes the role of a new era which encompasses technological, economic, and scientific advances that influence thinking and representation. The postmodern perspective questions the idea of truth and emphasizes fragmentation, discontinuities, and incommensurate truth. It has been referred to as the discourse of vulnerability and multiple realities. Contrary to the other perspectives here discussed, it implies that the world is not objective (consisting of facts or natural laws) nor do meanings reside independent of people; instead, it is involved with ever-changing, fluid interpretations of meanings. Whether intentional or not, postmodernism suggests that consciousness is being shaped continuously, so there is no limit to the variety of interpretations individuals hold. It stresses that there is no coherence or linearity because we have different experiences and realities. Truth has many possibilities simultaneously. The fourth perspective includes the critical perspective for knowing, which argues that systems of oppression need to be viewed and that freedom from these systems cannot be brought forth by scientific techniques. The importance of context and power are central to this perspective. The goal of the critical perspective is toward emancipating research subjects from injustices that result from power, structure, and inequality. Researchers from this perspective operate on the assumption that all relationships are relationships of power and that all knowledge or epistemological claims are embodied in these power relations. Critical theorists thus work toward deconstructing these power relations. Critical theorists would not judge, or set goals by how effective a theory appears, but by how well it uncovers underlying power structures. The critical emphasis is on how behavior is shaped and controlled consciously or unconsciously by macro power relations. Critical researchers may argue that their ultimate goal is emancipation of the marginalized, while understanding would constitute the process toward this end. Although the above traditions of knowing differ dramatically, they are by no means incompatible or mutually exclusive if one can accept an integrative perspective where each tradition can lend itself to support a holistic understanding of reality. An analogy can be made of children who may be blindfolded when inspecting an elephant and each child makes a different interpretation based on their sensory experience. The child inspecting the elephant’s trunk might explain “the thing” as a hose, another child who explores the elephant’s legs may claim “the thing” is a

Working through Organizational and Community Conflict

77

trunk of a tree, the next child may conclude that “the thing” is a wall upon touching the elephant’s wide side, and yet another child may reveal that “the thing” represents large leaves upon inspecting the elephant’s ears. In this example, what is missing is the understanding of “the thing” as a whole, as understanding the parts without consideration to the whole prevents comprehension of the system. In fact, recommendations to pursue and advance research using multiple routes of knowing have been alluded to and underscored by scholars (Bernstein 1983; Hecht 1993; Martin and Nakayama 1999). Bernstein (1983) suggested that “insofar as we seek to advance scientific knowledge, it is methodologically prudent to be open to different types of research programs” (192). The ultimate impact of gathering different types of information is that it enables researchers to develop what Gadamer (1975) terms as “fusion of horizons,” which refers to a deeper gestalt understanding of a phenomenon that is made possible by viewing a range of visions from different vantage points. Aristotle suggested all humans desire to know, and this is evidenced presently when one views the variety of approaches that are available for making sense of the world. Bernstein’s (1983) notion of a dialogic community refers to different academic camps sharing in dialogue. His notion is that the hermeneutic approach to truth goes beyond objectivism and relativism and ultimately is about praxis, which Scholarship of Engagement ultimately supports as well. What follows next is a discussion of Scholarship of Engagement, which is an example of an integrative perspective that takes into account a systems perspective of approaching conflict in communities. The conflict resolution field like other social science fields is especially ripe for research that applies Scholarship of Engagement given that the core values of this field greatly involve transformation, action, and change.

Scholarship of Engagement The Scholarship of Engagement (SE) is not simply outreach or research in the community, rather it is true partnership between the community and academia (Burrage et al. 2005). Burrage, Shattel, and Habermann (2005) described it as community-based research, and Mitchell (2010) suggested it is a scholarship of community engagement. Often the Scholarship of Engagement refers to new partnerships that formulate (Burrage et al. 2005) between stakeholders (community members), experts (professionals working with or in the community), and

78

Chapter Four

researchers who specialize in a phenomenon within the community or the community itself. Barker (2004) argued that several of the core elements of the Scholarship of Engagement transcend or exceed traditional function of higher education. Research in this vein collectively supports that the goal for this form of scholarship includes deepening community involvement while advancing academic knowledge (Barker 2004). Similarly Boyer (1996) defined the Scholarship of Engagement as creating a climate in which civic and academic cultures interact continuously and creatively with each other, thus enriching and enhancing the quality of life for all involved (Boyer 1996). Boyer (1996) described four essential functions in the Scholarship of Engagement which all directly relate to knowledge: (1) the scholarship of discovery, (2) the scholarship of integration, (3) the scholarship of dissemination, and (4) the scholarship of application. Research that promotes positive impacts for communities has been coined the “Scholarship of Engagement” when the researcher engages with community members as co-participants, co-creators, and co-owners of the research. With this engagement approach to research, partnerships cultivate (participants with participants, participants with researchers, community with academia), understanding emerges, skills are honed, action plans are designed, and conditions ultimately change to improve the status quo. Thus, valuable tools are formulated during this unique partnership between academia and the public. This approach has the added value that it allows participants in a study to apply the techniques they have learned together and to generate activities with the assistance of the researcher during design phases. Burrage, Shattel, and Habermann (2005) suggested that the Scholarship of Engagement with communities will expand knowledge development. They concurred that scholarship of integration involves discovery, teaching, and application. Furthermore, Mitchell (2010) suggested that the Scholarship of Engagement, also referred to as the scholarship of community engagement, helps to provide evidence that universities and colleges are serving their constituents. He argued that it is based on collaborative, reciprocal relationship with a public entity and is essentially community partnership. He also argues that several organizations embrace this approach, such as the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities,

Working through Organizational and Community Conflict

79

and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. He concluded by outlining challenges to the Scholarship of Engagement, which include arrogance by academics, time commitments, and the nuances of intervention with disadvantaged communities (Mitchell 2010). The notion of where research should be conducted has been critiqued as well. Finkelstein (2001) stated that there is renewed emphasis on building bridges between higher education and communities outside of the academic environment, whereby a reciprocal relationship should exist in community-university relationships. The partnership is one in which they jointly address issues, questions, methodologies, and means to disseminate findings. She concludes that this approach is expanding the notion of community in higher education (Finkelstein 2001).

Role of the Researcher in the Tradition of Knowing Referred to as Scholarship of Engagement Before a researcher or practitioner, like a facilitator as specifically discussed for the purposes of this chapter, can engage in with the community, s/he must be reflective about her or his role in research and the ideology s/he holds in relation to the subscribed tradition. Aristotle (1943) posited that “experience seems almost the same as science and art, but in fact science and art come to men [people] through experience...” (5). This statement underscores the importance of an inquirer’s experiences and perception involved with discovery. Therefore, impressions have a great bearing on sense-making. Indeed, reflection informs inquiry. Introspection into the question “What does it mean for me to be both a facilitator and researcher?” is an important question the reflective facilitator practitioner should entertain in Scholarship of Engagement (SE). Understanding the largely implicit assumptions underlying discovery, exploration, meaning making, and understanding, the reflective practitioner-researcher should be especially mindful of members own meanings. Research-practitioners who subscribe to SE should critically examine their assumptions of truth and understand how they position themselves in relation to what they study.

Role of Facilitator in the DPSFM and IM Along with attention to who one is as a researcher, a facilitatorresearcher has to place a great degree of importance on context features of the site in both DPSFM and IM. Behaviors cannot be understood without

80

Chapter Four

the framework of culture and cultural context taken into consideration. People shape their context and are shaped by it. DPSFM and IM align with the positioned subject approach to inquiry, which is an approach that places trust in the site of the participant as the site of knowledge. The participant refers to people with particular needs, perceptions, and capabilities for action, and position refers to the context in which they are located. The meaning making that is derived from this approach places trust in how people make sense of their experiences and values the standpoint of the participants. The ebb and flow of information that is gathered via the hermeneutic circle opens many possibilities for truth to reveal itself. Kvale (1996) summarizes seven canons in hermeneutical interpretation which include the following: 1) look to part and whole in a circular manner, 2) find logical unity, 3) test the part with the whole and with other works of the author, 4) examine statements in relation to what they mean about the world view of the subject, 5) be sensitive to the context and the themes involved, 6) make presuppositions explicit, and 7) extend the meaning in creative ways. The hermeneutic canons can greatly benefit the researchpractitioner in meaning making in both DPSFM and IM as forms of Scholarship of Engagement. Overall the researcher-practitioner’s mindfulness and reflexivity in a partnership with participants is imperative. The chapter will now address how DPSFM and IM are examples of SE.

Dramatic Problem Solving Facilitation Model (DPSFM) The Dramatic Problem Solving Facilitation Model (DPSFM) is an interactive theater-based approach to group facilitation and conflict analysis and resolution. It blends the structure, planning, and logic of facilitated problem solving, and the openness, spontaneity and emotion of theatre and performance. Below is a general overview of the model followed by a concrete, succinct description of the DPSFM process. Later, a series of examples and possibilities for application of the model in the field are presented. Finally, the DPSFM is discussed in terms of its clear connections to the central tenets of Scholarship of Engagement. DPSFM is a facilitation process that is based on the work of Augusto Boal (1995) and the Theatre of the Oppressed. This form of theatre uses the power of performance and creative expression to help people express themselves, analyze and understand conflicts, and work to change them.

Working through Organizational and Community Conflict

81

The basic belief behind the method comes from the ideas of Paolo Freire (2003) and the concept of dialogic exploration of issues. Facilitators and educators come from the outside to offer services to help the development of communities instead of bringing a set curriculum or set of actions to take begin by asking the people questions. Out of this comes a dialogue that leads to the creation of generative themes. These are real, important issues that the community would like to work on in order to improve their lives. In Freire’s education work the content of the reading and learning activities springs from the identification of these generative themes. Boal (1979, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2006) and the Theatre of the Oppressed applied the same concept of dialogue in order to identify the generative themes that needed changing in the community. However, instead of using books and written language to bring about that change, Boal used theatre as the vehicle for the study of and eventual action for change. This took place through theatre exercises that asked people to boil down their opinions and experience of conflicts into silent, static images, human sculptures, stories, and eventually plays that spoke directly to the issue. These plays would then evolve in a kind of theatre known as “Forum Theatre” where the audience would be asked and encouraged to stop the play and change the action through their own, new actions. This generation of novel solutions and their immediate evaluation on stage provided communities with a chance to try new behaviors in the face of familiar conflicts, the overall goal being that the participants would then incorporate these changes done and seen on stage into their personal lives.

DPSFM and Conflict Resolution Practices Dramatic Problem Solving puts the Theatre of the Oppressed in the context of a set, nine-step problem-solving model (Schwarz 2002). The model comes from the field of facilitated conflict resolution. The steps begin with the definition of the problem, its root causes, and the criteria for solutions. The process then moves to generate, evaluate, and select alternative solutions to the problem. Finally, out of these proposed and selected solutions comes an action plan that is implemented and later reviewed. Theatre-based exercises are used to carry out each of these steps, with the exception of the implementation of the action plan (unless the action plan includes a performance as action). The DPSFM is a process that utilizes the concepts and practices of participatory action research (PAR) (Stringer, 1999). PAR follows a

82

Chapter Four

cyclical approach to research that involves three main steps. Those are: Look, Think, Act. The participants in a PAR process are the generators and evaluators of knowledge about themselves. Through an iterative process, PAR asks people to look at their current situations, think about the future, and act to make desired changes to that researched reality. DPSFM applies a performance-based approach to all of these phases of PAR. This iterative and cyclical process is presented graphically below.

DPSFM – An Overview of the Process The process begins with warm-up activities designed to build rapport among the group and facilitator as well as get people in touch with their own physical self and its expression. The “Look” phase is when the conflict to be is defined. A brainstorm of the key conflicts is conducted. From this list a series of exercises built to identify and create the definition of the problem or generative theme to be examined in the process the DPS process are begun. DPSFM uses a great deal of image theatre exercises. In image theatre participants make frozen images and human sculptures to

Working through Organizational and Community Conflict

83

express their thoughts about the conflicts. Relationships between different actors in the conflicts are explored through physicalizations. Key phrases spoken and the thoughts and hopes of the parties in the conflict are examined. The root causes, those things which are unspoken and unseen, are uncovered through a process by those who wish to create a human sculpture of a root cause of the problem. These images and sculptures lead to questions about what the image maker or sculptor was trying to describe or explain in their image. Others can then add their own opinions, make suggestions for changes to the image, or even create a new root cause sculpture of their own. As the generative issue is decided upon and defined, storytelling is done about the topic. The participants share stories from their personal lives that are related to the conflict. The other participants are active listeners in a storytelling process that takes the story and unpacks it for meanings and explores it in creative ways. The story listeners state what were the most important words and actions from the story. They then consider what about the story is similar in their own lives. This draws connections and builds empathy within the group. The creative process then begins by having the story listeners tell the opposite, comedy, and musical versions of the story they heard. These stories and their examinations are then added to the images and words discovered in the definition of the issue. The Think phase requires the participants to utilize their personal knowledge and experience of the current conflict along with creativity and artistic expression to put the issue into the context of a performance/theatre piece. This process is a result of more image theatre work along with improvisational theatre exercises designed to build dialogue and identify characters involved in the conflict. Participants must identify the key parties, their interests and needs, as well as prioritize which aspects of the conflict will be included in the play. In this way, the participants evaluate the participatory action research data they collected about themselves in the Look phase and think critically and creatively about it. The performance of the play as an interactive forum theatre piece is at once a “Think” phase activity and an “Act” phase activity. There is a great deal of overlap. The forum theatre presentation of the play generated by the DPSFM is an action in and of itself, an addressing of the conflict. It is

84

Chapter Four

also a time to analyze the conflict, and to generate and select alternative solutions. The Act phase has two parts. Once the solutions are presented in the interactive, forum theatre presentation, the action plan is created and implemented. While the energy is strong in the room following the forum theatre performance, the group (both audience and performers) commits to taking part in the defined action steps. The role of the DPSFM facilitator is to guide the group, through check-ins and established review meeting times, to complete the action plan steps. The DPSFM takes the concept of theatre as a place for analysis and rehearsal for change and builds it to a place of direct actions resulting from the performance. When the action plan has been completed, the participants are brought together once again. These follow-up sessions ask the participants to examine the ways the conflicts have been transformed by the actions. Using physical sculptures depicting the nature of the conflict prior to the action and the nature of the conflict as a result of the intervention does this. The participants then create a third sculpture of the new ideal, defining what change they still wish to see. At this point the group decides if they would like to continue to work on this issue or shift focus to another conflict.

Applications of DPSFM As the DPSFM is a developmental facilitation model, one goal is to guide a group through one or two of these cycles and then leave the group with a set of skills and leaders who can continue applying the process. This was seen in the application of the DPSFM in a marginal community in Costa Rica. A group of Nicaraguan immigrant women, sponsored by a well-respected NGO, were guided through the entire DPSFM on the issue of trash. When that Look, Think, Act cycle had ended, the group decided to take on a new issue, women’s health and breast cancer. During the second phase of the process, the women in the group began to take more ownership of the process. The result was the creation of a play and interactive theatre educational experience that has now been toured across Costa Rica. Following this success, this group asked for advice about how to begin a new process that they wanted to do on their own. Hawkins then moved into the role of consultant. The women took on the roles of facilitator, director, writers, and more importantly, critical and creative thinkers about their own lives. Following and adapting the DPSFM for

Working through Organizational and Community Conflict

85

their own needs, they created a new play about their personal struggles with poverty and immigration. This play has given them a forum to tell their own stories and begin a dialogue about the dignity of poverty and the choices behind immigration, which are both important dialogues that need to be explored. Over the past several years the DPSFM has been applied in diverse settings with positive results. The applications of the model are many. It is a very low-tech approach to conflict transformation that focuses on the dialogic relationship between the facilitator and the participants. Therefore, it can be brought to any location, and to virtually any kind of group. It is the group that defines the conflict and the knowledge about it. The process acts as a creative filter for these conflicts providing lenses of understanding that were perhaps previously unseen. In Ecuador the DPSFM was used as part of a summer camp for peace creation between Ecuadorean youth and Colombian refugee youth living on the border in Ecuador. The model was able to help youth relate to each other in novel ways. Through non-verbal, equal status activities and shared storytelling the groups were able to confront issues about stereotyping and discrimination. The immediacy of dramatic play, combined with the superordinate goal of creating a play, was key in bridging some of the gaps that existed between the groups. DPSFM has also been applied with groups in prisons in the context of alternatives to violence training. The use of images to share multiple perspectives on a single issue allows for voices that might not otherwise be heard in a setting rife with internal hierarchy and pressure. Forum Theatre, in which changes in behavior are tried to transform everyday violence, opens the door for new thinking and possible change. Many of the participants report not having thought about a different option, that violence was always the one and only way. The Forum allows them a place to see the impact of trying a non-violent solution in a safe environment. The prisoners report feeling free to try new things and grateful for the tools that they lacked in terms of listening, thinking, and acting non-violently. To apply the model effectively it is important that the group be bona fide, i.e. a group that will be meeting and working together outside of the facilitation session. This increases the shared knowledge and also the shared interest in the transformation of the conflict. Another key is to have

86

Chapter Four

a good point of entry with the group. In the past this has taken the form of a well-respected NGO or an important community leader introducing you to the group. It is also important to remember that while this is a theaterbased process, the focus is on the power of image and performance to crystallize, synthesize, and deepen the expression and understanding of a subject. Therefore, as a facilitator, the focus is on the process and the generation of knowledge, not on the acting or the aesthetic. Acting skills and aesthetic elements do emerge and powerful, wonderfully aesthetic performances have happened as a result of the DPSFM, but that is secondary to the transformations on the personal and community level that emerge.

DPSFM and Scholarship of Engagement DPSFM is a model of praxis, action informed by theory that in turn informs action, and so on. This praxis is also at the essence of Scholarship of Engagement. By taking the research agenda to the community for direct actions that are relevant to the community the researcher or university lives in, the academic community is asking that their professional lives become a point of praxis. DPSFM holds as central the power of performance, intentional action designed to provoke a response. These performances are a praxis born out of the metaxis, defined as the intentional examination of an event from within the event that happens in a workshop process, which occurs within the DPSFM. This praxis and metaxis is concerned foremost with engagement. The participatory nature of the model is driven to be one that brings the ideals and theories of academia to the community level where those living the conflict can give it visual and physical life, thereby transforming it.

Interactive Management (IM) In IM like DPSFM, the facilitator’s role is to perform as a guardian of the process who can help ameliorate complexities and conflict (i.e. the root “facile”, which means “to make easier”). Broome (1995) stressed several aspects of Interactive Management (IM) that have important implications for the facilitated group work. Two of these were: “learning through iteration” and “integrated nature of outcomes” (47). Learning through iteration signifies that the process builds upon itself. What is stated and shown in the beginning phases is later clarified and built upon in each succeeding phase. IM is a system-based facilitation structure that focuses on the integrated nature of the conflict: “participants learn about the

Working through Organizational and Community Conflict

87

systems nature of the problems they are facing” (47). Past studies have successfully applied Interactive Management to gain a better understanding of complex issues (Broome, Broome, and Cromer 1991; Broome and Keever 1989). IM is based on facilitation laws of variety, parsimony, and saliency so members can come to better understand and effectively address their issues. IM adheres to three important characteristics proposed by Broome and Christakis (1988) as being necessary for a culturally-sensitive methodology. The first characteristic necessary for a culturally-sensitive methodology includes a holistic approach where there is “recognition of the systems nature of combinations of ideas and entities” (221). Second, a process orientation must be adopted where “those who ‘own’ the issues become engaged and responsible for dealing with them, thus preventing the imposition of external perceptions on the definition …of the…situation” (221). A final characteristic that must exist is a collaborative problemsolving environment, which refers to a cooperative climate that facilitates problem solving. Because IM promotes collaboration of members in a group who share a commitment in addressing complex issues within a framework that utilizes systematic and logical reasoning, the design provides a powerful methodology to unveil the complexity involved in understanding conflict. Since organizational issues and community issues are among the most pervasive and complex issues facing societies, dispute resolution approaches merit attention for resolving these types of issues. The IM design requires individuals or stakeholders who are knowledgeable about the topic at hand, and often community members are most knowledgeable about the issues that face their own communities. The IM process utilizes individuals and groups as meaning making agents in order to gain a rich understanding of the phenomenon of interest. Interactive Management (IM) is based on responding to the demands of complexity (Cleveland 1973; Deal and Kennedy 1982). The implication of using IM is that it can provide a framework for understanding how a problem in conflict is constructed, aggravated, and influenced. In the same vein, the IM framework can aid understanding resolution in a conflict by assisting groups to identify support structures that influence positive solutions and even more importantly, prevention of conflict through analysis phases. IM involves Interpretive Structural Modeling, which is a process that both ameliorates the complexity when there are numerous

88

Chapter Four

elements involved with a complex issue, and also facilitates in understanding the links between elements. Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) is associated with the more global problem-solving design of IM, which was developed to deal with complex issues that are not easily approached by traditional methods of problem solving. This is a systems approach, unlike other popular systems facilitation approaches such as the Skilled Facilitator Approach (Schwarz 2002). The workshop generally begins with a context statement and objective statements after an orientation and icebreaker exercise. A generic context statement is provided below to provide an example: “In today’s communities, it is increasingly necessary to understand how social issue A contributes to social problem B. Many agencies have recognized the need for intervention programs that help community members, but many of these programs do not allow sufficient time for community members to voice and examine many of the critical issues involved, and community members are often not able to fully share their experiences and views. This workshop is designed to allow community members an opportunity to examine a wide range of factors that are important for social issue A, and it will help participants address how these factors influence one another to address the social problem B.”

Participants then are encouraged to collaboratively work with a facilitator to develop the objectives of the workshop. For example, an objective could include the following: 1. To develop an “influence map” representing the interrelationships among the set of major contributors in conflict their community members face currently. 2. To engage in mutual learning that leads to increased awareness and understanding about the conflict and characteristics that support peace in their community. A triggering question usually is presented to the workshop group in the idea-generation phase. This question can be crafted from the vision statements generated from the participants. The use of the ISM methodology is comparable to focus group sessions in several respects. First, like focus groups, ISM draws from gathering knowledgeable participants in the community or organization, depending on the context. While people might critique the power of a small group, the facilitation group is valued. For example, Blumer (1969)

Working through Organizational and Community Conflict

89

spoke of the power of utilizing a select group: he suggested “seeking participants…who are acute observers and who are well informed…A small number of such individuals brought together as a discussion and resource group, is more valuable many times over than any representative sample” (41). ISM functions like focus groups, in that they are managed by a trained facilitator who encourages members to communicate their thoughts and experiences. Although the facilitator has an important role in the ISM session, the most formidable role is that of the participants, who are responsible for the generation and contribution of their ideas in relation to a specific topic. Unlike the focus group, ISM is a computer-assisted methodology that has the advanced feature of software that uses “mathematical algorithms that minimize the number of queries necessary for exploring relationships among a set of ideas” (Broome 1998, 4; Warfield 1976). The ISM software program facilitates what otherwise might be an impossibly complex task of organizing items into a comprehensible set of relationships. The relationships of ideas are formed and displayed as a structure. “ISM can be used to develop several types of structures, including influence structures (e.g., ‘supports,’ or ‘aggravates’), priority structures (e.g., ‘is more important than,’ or ‘should be learned before’) and categorizations of ideas (e.g., ‘belongs in the same category with’)” (Broome 1998, 4). The ISM proceeds through several steps as described by Broome (1998) which involve: 1) generating and clarifying ideas pertinent to a topic via the method of Nominal Group Technique (NGT), 2) identifying and clarifying the “relational question” to be used for making judgments about the relationship between pairs of ideas (e.g., “Does idea A support idea B”); 3) creating a structure map; 4) displaying and discussing the influence map; and 5) amending the map if desired by participants. Most noteworthy, the relational question process is timely, as it engages participants in analyzing the ideas generated from step one in relation to other items—specifically it compares pairs of items. The relational question may appear in such a form: “Does idea (A) significantly support idea (B)?” Participants with the guidance of the facilitator vote by answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the relational question. The votes are inputted into the ISM program, which systematically organizes items in relation to the voting process of other items. The computer program visually displays rounds of paired items in the form of the relational question until all queries involving the relationship between items has been completed. Subsequently, the ISM program features the influence structure so that

90

Chapter Four

participants can view their results. Nominal Group Technique is often utilized during the idea generation stages, and it generally proceeds through these steps: 1) presentation of a triggering question, 2) idea generation of ideas, 3) serial recording of ideas presented to the entire group, 4) serial discussion of the generated ideas that allowed clarification and editing of ideas, and 5) selection by the participants of the more important items through a voting process (Broome 1995, 30). According to Broome (1998) the NGT process requires approximately 5 to 8 hours of consensus activities and is relative to the number of ideas in each set. Further, Broome (1998) suggested that “the ISM software is able to infer, on the average, approximately 75-80% of the judgments involved in relating the complete set of ideas” (5). Throughout IM, participants along with the facilitator are encouraged to incorporate innovative methods for generating ideas and action plans. Many suggestions can be drawn from Schumann’s (2005) IAF Handbook, which includes but is not limited to techniques such as facilitation, improvisation, imagery, graphic performance, and participative learning. IM is an open and fluid model, which allows application of innovative facilitation techniques and approaches within its framework.

Application of DPSFM and IM to Dispute Systems Design While sparse, past research has demonstrated that facilitators from the business world have incorporated improvisational theatre techniques into their facilitation practices. Kat Koppett’s Training to Imagine (2001) and Joe Keefe’s Improve Yourself: Business Spontaneity at the Speed of Thought (2002) have become increasingly popular among facilitators and trainers in the business world as facilitators look for new and innovative ways to work with their clients. Alain Rostain’s “Interactive Facilitation” (Kail 2004) heavily utilized theatre games and dramatic exercises in the facilitation process. Houden (1997) studied the use of theatre in organizational conflict resolution and reported that: “theatre was found to be an empowering technology that redressed the issue of power differentials in conflict stories” (5). Schwarz (2002) described the benefits of facilitation practices when he attended an improvisational theater course. He applied the necessity of being open and accepting of whatever the improvisational partner provides as a line in a scene to the need to accept participants’ input as, “the bases for your intervention if your interventions are to be related to their conversations” (Schwarz 2002, 253). This describes a dialogic model of facilitation and theatre, which links to the previously discussed theories of Freire (2003) and Boal (2006).

Working through Organizational and Community Conflict

91

Despite the positive impacts affiliated with these alternative approaches in facilitation, Dispute Systems Design researchers and practitioners rarely cite theatre, improvisation, or other performance-based perspectives when designing conflict management systems within a variety of settings. Also, IM applications in DSD have been sparsely used despite its successful application in addressing intergroup and international conflict (Broome 2002/2003). Often, a dispute systems consultant will recommend what is familiar, and in the U.S. this is likely to translate into conventional resources, such as linear problem solving and Western-based models of mediation, negotiation, and/or facilitation within a variety of sites. Yet, it is a grave mistake to import Western-based conflict resolution models or approaches and transplant them in culturally disparate contexts, without modification for culturally congruent features both domestically and abroad. It is clear that such congruence is an important principle of DSD, since Constantino and Merchant (1996) argued that it is essential to provide participants with “motivation, skills, and necessary resources” (61). They add that “[h]ere, the conflict management system is geared toward participation of stakeholders and the empowerment of disputants to resolve their differences themselves with the least escalation of costs and minimal third-party intervention” (61). The goal of dispute systems design is to provide participants with a set of skills so they have a local understanding of how to move through conflict and in what types of systems. DPSFM can be a potentially valuable resource in conflict management systems across communities (Hawkins and Georgakopoulos 2010), and it is clear that communities exist within organizational systems and structures (Constantino and Merchant 1996). With the 9am to 5pm average workday, it is clear that employees spend the majority of their day and life at work and with colleagues. It is clear that conflict and problems will emerge as the workplace exemplifies interdependence between individuals at all levels in the organization. Simply suggesting DPSFM as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) method in an organization may make an important impression on organizational members. An ADR approach taken by “organizational leadership signals that a new age of conflict management has arrived” (Constantino and Merchant 1996, 61). DPSFM and IM align effectively with the six principles posited by Constantino and Merchant (1996). First, they put the focus on interests, not positions. They center on members’ interest-based communication that is focused on personal needs, organizational needs, and societal needs.

92

Chapter Four

Second, they include loop-backs to a variety of procedures that allow members to use low cost alternative processes, that include but are not limited to storytelling, imagery, improvisation, performance, and/or other innovative facilitation techniques. That is, a one-size-fits-all approach is not the case with either model, as a variety of approaches are possible. Third, it allows for “low-cost and power backups” (Constantino and Merchant 1996, 46); when interest-based approaches fail, other processes can be employed in reasoning and systematically working through conflict. Fourth, it includes feedback before and after activities, so future disputes can be prevented or avoided. This is when the members entertain options, and it includes a facilitator who consults with the group at the beginning of the project and provides a feedback loop at the end of the project. Fifth, methods and processes should be organized from low-tohigh cost, so the most affordable methods can be used before more costly methods are used. Sixth and most notably, the dispute systems design model suggests that it is essential to “provide the motivation, skills, and resources necessary” (46) to ensure that the procedures are supported and therefore used. Since DPSFM and IM are fluid and flexible models that invite participants in the design as well as amendment phases, they can potentially be powerful methodologies over other DSD models that have placed more emphasis on the designer instead of the participants.

DPSFM and IM as Developmental Facilitation Schwarz (2002) delineated two types of facilitation: “basic and developmental facilitation” (8). Basic facilitation is where the facilitator comes in as an outsider and performs the task of helping the group solve a specific issue. When the issue is resolved, the facilitator leaves and the group returns to normalcy. In contrast, in the developmental facilitation model, while the participants are focused on a specific issue during the facilitation sessions, the skills learned in the process are transferrable to other conflict situations in their lives.

Summary of Implications The fact that both the DPSFM and IM models are best designed for small groups within communities or organizations is important to recognize. They can be finely tuned and repeated with grass roots groups that would like to become co-creators and generative agents of change in their communities. A small group can create the liminal space and the communitas (Turner 1979; Schechner 2003) that are necessary to provide

Working through Organizational and Community Conflict

93

positive examples in the lives of communities that often lack positive examples and direct action for change. Additionally, repeated application and workshops can provide for generalizations to other groups if this is an ambition for a group or researcher. The DPSFM process works to bring the power of the human repertoire, that which Taylor (2002) differentiates from the archive, to use story, art, and dramatic expression to transform conflict. While this may have been one of the performing arts’ central roles for centuries, in this study the repertoire, people’s stories, and images are explicitly used as the method of social science research. Past research (Hawkins and Georgakopoulos 2010) has shown that this model, which began from a theory of group awareness, has proven to be a key to conflict transformation when applied in a natural setting. It demonstrated how key components of facilitation such as action planning, awareness raising, empowerment, and problem solving could be accomplished thorough a performance-based model. Also, IM has shown the power that small group of individuals have on impacting change and promoting sustainable peace building activities. Facilitated problem solving has led to direct action and change in the lives of participants. Both models provide professionals with an example of praxis, whereby practice and theory mutually inform each other. Applications of both models are provided below.

Dramatic Problem Solving Applications and Outcomes DPSFM has been applied in various settings and with different outcomes. The applications and outcomes usually depend on the time of contact and follow-up with each group. Some concrete examples are described here.

Costa Rican Humanitarian Foundation (CRHF) and the La Carpio Women’s Group This application of the DPSFM was the most complete and has had the longest-lasting impact. This project began in partnership with a wellrespected and established NGO, the Costa Rican Humanitarian Foundation (CRHF). The participants were Nicaraguan immigrants living in a squatter’s community in Costa Rica. They were led through the complete DPSFM over the course of six weeks. This resulted in an interactive community theatre performance, a concrete action plan, and a series of

94

Chapter Four

successful actions aimed at combating the trash problem in the neighborhood. The DPSFM includes a follow-up portion. During this phase, the women’s group decided to take on a larger-scale issue: women’s health and breast cancer. The group went through the DPSFM with this as the central issue. The result was an interactive theatre piece that, when combined with a travelling clinic, was granted funds from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Global Initiative to present the play across the country. Emboldened by this, the La Carpio women’s group decided to take the DPSFM into their own hands and create their own analysis and performance about an issue of their choice. This resulted in the creation of a play dealing with immigration and poverty. This application demonstrated the long-term impact and the developmental approach of the model. The group has an identity and the creative and critical skill set learned in the DPSFM for confronting novel conflicts.

Alternatives to Violence Project and DPSFM The Alternatives to Violence (AVP) Project is a worldwide movement begun by Quakers in the United States in the early 1970’s. It is an experiential and humanistic approach to conflict resolution and nonviolence education with prisoners. This is normally a three-day workshop. In Costa Rica, the DPSFM has been applied as Day 3 of the AVP program in the prisons. By day three the participants are ready to take risks and try the creative approaches required for success with the DPSFM. In an 8-hour session people are able to analyze the roots of some common violence-producing situations, generate and analyze alternative solutions, and begin to make commitments for change in their own lives. This application demonstrates the adaptability of the model. In this setting the goals are to introduce participants to the concepts of thinking about the root causes of a behavior and to contemplation of several approaches for resolving a conflict prior to acting. The feedback has always been very positive. Long-term effects are difficult to measure at this point.

Colombian Refugees and Ecuadorean Citizens Border Project In August of 2011 the DPSFM was applied in a project with Ecuadorean youth and their Colombian refugee counterparts living along the border in Ecuador. The DPSFM was applied in a five-day workshop that took place in a jungle community away from the home community of the participants. The participants utilized the image theatre and storytelling aspects of the DPSFM in order to develop a greater level of understanding

Working through Organizational and Community Conflict

95

and unity. The levels of xenophobia and blatant stereotyping present in both groups were brought out into the open where they could be discussed, viewed physically, analyzed, and new understandings developed. This application demonstrated how the low-tech, dialogic approach allowed for the model to be applied in a very remote setting. It also showed how via an interactive and play/performance-based approach, themes and topics that are traditionally not discussed openly became the center of attention. By keeping the topics real and relevant within the safe space of a playful workshop, the participants were able to express long-standing prejudices and perhaps move beyond them. The foregoing examples are three varied applications of the DPSFM in the conflict resolution field. Others include three-hour workshops with university students to examine the need for dialogic approaches and a focus on increased consciousization. Students carry skills and techniques that they can use with communities and organizations they are working with. The DPSFM is also being combined with an appreciative inquiry (AI) model to help organizations move forward towards change. One such application was the creation of the new three-year plan for United World College in Costa Rica. Hawkins facilitated a process using DPSFM and the 4 D approach of appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider 2005) to guide college students in discovering their strengths, dreaming their desired futures, designing the actions to get there, and delivering actions. This combination of DPSFM and AI is a continuous work in progress.

Interactive Management Application and Outcomes Interactive Management applications have been far-reaching and varied as well. Since it is a valuable model for complex issues it has been applied in contexts where other alternative dispute models have failed. The proceeding discussion provides a flavor of past applications, but by no means does it provide a comprehensive summary as that is beyond the scope of this chapter.

Organizational Settings IM has and continues to be a valuable approach in resolving organizational conflict and problems. Researchers have addressed the complexity of diversity in multi-nationals by utilizing third party intervention with IM in organizations (Broome, De Turk, Kristjansdottir, Kanata, and Ganesan 2002). The findings revealed that facilitation

96

Chapter Four

participants can customize workshops so participants can define and discuss issues of diversity that are unique to their own organization, rather than having participants follow presuppositions or assumptions of an external consultant regarding the organization. This is a refreshing point, as this study showed how participants in the company came to understand, define, and work with the complexity of diversity in their own organization, which also led to solid action plans targeted to address their current issues. This approach differs dramatically from many traditional forms of diversity training. Facilitation with this approach is empowering for participants as there is an actual recognition that the product is owned by the parties and for the parties. Workplace bullying has been analyzed and approached using components of IM as well. An article by Georgakpoulos, Wilkin, and Kent (2011) revealed that the concept of bullying can be effectively addressed by organizations once root causes and influence elements are uncovered. This particular study was an example of Scholarship of Engagement, in that workshop members better understood their workplace but were also motivated to make immediate changes within their own organizations, as a result of their insights from the workshop.

Across Settings International conflict examples are pervasive with IM as an example of a model for the Scholarship of Engagement. Broome (1997) applied IM in seminal work when he was a Fulbright Scholar working in Cyprus. This research began with only a handful of people who were committed to peace in the country (Broome 1998), but it has evolved into a transformative peace building initiative and project that has attracted thousands of people who continue their commitment and work for peace building projects today. The application of IM proved to be valuable in that it identified major barriers that hindered peace and major influences that might support peace between Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots. The research called upon people from grassroots levels to develop action plans. These unique action plans involved a variety of peace building activities including but not limited to music performances, arts, education, and ongoing intergroup interactions. After decades the impacts of these IM workshops are still present, as many of the same individuals visit Cyprus and see that peace building activities that were crafted in the original workshops have evolved into pervasive, sustainable projects. Challenges in third party intervention using IM are often present, but the formidable

Working through Organizational and Community Conflict

97

roles of IM and its facilitator are documented (Broome 2003). As Schwarz (2002) stated, “developing an action plan increases the likelihood of the group implementing a solution effectively and on time” (230). Along with international conflict, the international classroom faces daunting challenges regarding how teachers can teach effectively amid complexities of multiple student learning modalities, teaching styles, and teacher communication delivery. A study by Georgakopoulos (2009) revealed that components of IM are valuable for capturing teacher effectiveness within a holistic, systemic approach that takes into account a variety of elements involved with the phenomenon of teacher effectiveness in today’s global society. While the study involved Japanese and U.S. students, only the implications for better understanding teacher effectiveness within blended cultures was discussed. Teachers involved applied the principles from the study to improve best teaching practices within their diverse classroom settings. This set of applications suggests that IM is an innovative approach that can be applied to a variety of settings to address disparate contemporary issues. It is a model that has utility and is quite valuable for complex problems that are not easily resolved by other alternative dispute resolution methods.

Summary The significance of facilitation workshops that utilize these models is that they provide transferrable skills to participants who can then own not only the content they generated, but also develop a nuanced understanding of facilitation processes for approaching conflict in the future. The measure of success can be evidenced in a group’s desire to implement learned facilitation processes and techniques of DPSFM and IM, albeit amended and customized to their own needs and situations. Facilitators who utilize these models approach conflict in a systemic manner, giving participants and researchers the ability to respond to the complexity of a conflict in terms of not only its parts but its whole.

Future Research Future research should concern itself with model development from different traditions and apply the integrative tradition of Scholarship of Engagement to be successful. Research also should test the effectiveness

98

Chapter Four

of models and their application in disparate sites. It will be interesting for future research to determine what aspects of model/process may have pancultural findings. Clearly it is expected that there will be unique preferences and perceptions tied with performance-based conflict resolution across cultures and particular communities The ultimate impact of examining performance theatre in conflict resolution via qualitative means is understanding. If, for example, one can understand “conflict and its impact” in particular communities, researchers may be able to draw awareness to social injustice, marginalized groups, and conflict issues that impact community members. Performance-based conflict resolution such as Dramatic Problem Solving should be tested as a theoretical framework for conflict resolution in a variety of communities to explore its impact. As well, the utility of action research within this framework should be examined to see the types of action plans and action steps that can be developed to resolve community conflict and social problems. We therefore call for researchers and practitioners alike to support leadership in the social sciences by following: 1) praxis in the site, 2) application to multiple perspectives (theoretical frameworks), 3) developmental models of conflict resolution, 4) action plan implementation, and finally 5) assessment of results and/or impact in the site.

Conclusion It is clear that a significant goal for the Scholarship of Engagement is praxis. The main purpose of this chapter was to offer DPSFM and IM as specific alternative dispute resolution examples for the Scholarship of Engagement. Both authors desire this discussion to inspire research with “praxis” in mind, since it is rather limiting when researchers do not engage themselves with “praxis” as society can improve and people can transform. All research should aim to benefit others while being insightful for the researcher. The Scholarship of Engagement can play a key role in the advancement of business and social science fields, as it has tremendous potential to translate research into practice for the betterment of society, communities, and learning institutions around the world.

References Aristotle. 1943. “Metaphysics.” Translated by J. H. MacMahon. In Aristotle on Man and the Universe, edited by L. R. Loomis. Roslyn, NY: Walter J. Black, Inc.

Working through Organizational and Community Conflict

99

Barker, Derek. 2004. “The Scholarship of Engagement: A Taxonomy of Five Emerging Practices.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 9 (2): 123-137 Bernstein, Richard J. 1983. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspectives and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Boal, Augusto. 1995. The Rainbow of Desire: The Boal Method of Theatre and Therapy, translated by Adrian Jackson. London: Routledge. —. 1979. Theatre of the Oppressed. London: Pluto Press. —. 1998. Legislative Theatre: Using Performance to Make Politics. London: Routledge. —. 2002. Games for Actors and Non-Actors. London: Routledge. —. 2006. The Aesthetics of the Oppressed. New York: Routledge. Boyer, Ernest L. 1996. “The Scholarship of Engagement.” Journal of Public Service & Outreach 1 (1): 11-20. Broome, Benjamin J. 1995. “The Role of Facilitated Group Process in Community-based Planning and Design: Promoting Greater Participation in Comanche Tribal Governance.” In Innovations in Group Facilitation, edited by Lawrence R. Frey, 30-34. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Broome, Benjamin J. 1997. “Designing a Collective Approach to Peace: Interactive Design and Problem-solving Workshops with GreekCypriot and Turkish-Cypriot Communities in Cyprus.” International Negotiation 2: 381-407. —. 1998. “Overview of Conflict Resolution Activities in Cyprus: Their Contribution to the Peace Process.” The Cyprus Review 10 (1): 47-66. —. 1999. User’s Guide to the GMU Version of Interpretive Structural Modeling Software for ISM Windows. —. 2002/2003. “Responding to the Challenges of Third Party Facilitation: Reflections of a Scholar-Practitioner in the Cyprus Conflict.” The Journal of Intergroup Relations. Special Issue on Intergroup Conflict, edited by Mark Orbe, 29 (4):24-43. Broome, Benjamin J., and Christakis, Alexander N. 1988. “A CulturallySensitive Approach to Tribal Governance Issue Management. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 12: 107-123. Broome, Benjamin J., and Irene L. Cromer. 1991. “Strategic Planning for Tribal Economic Development: A Culturally Appropriate Model for Consensus Building.” International Journal of Conflict Management 2: 217-234.

100

Chapter Four

Broome, Benjamin J., and David B. Keever. 1989. “Next Generation Group Facilitation: Proposed Principles.” Management Communication Quarterly 3 (1): 107-127. Broome, Benjamin J., Sara DeTurk, Erla S. Kristjansdottir, Tami Kanata, and Puvana Ganesan. 2002. “Giving Voice to Diversity: An Interactive Approach to Conflict Management and Decision-making in Culturally Diverse Work Environments.” Journal of Business and Management 8(3): 239-264. Burrage, Joe, Mona Shattel, and Barbara Habermann. 2005. “The Scholarship of Engagement in Nursing.” Nursing Outlook 53: 220-223. Cleveland, Harlan. 1973. “The Decision Makers.” The Center Magazine 6 (5): 9-18. Constantino, Cathy A. and Christina S. Merchant. 1996. Designing Conflict Management Systems: A Guide to Creating Productive and Healthy Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cooperrider, David, and Diana Whitney. 2005. Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Deal, Terrence E., and Allan A. Kennedy. 1982. Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. New York, NY: Perseus Books Publishing. Finkelstein, Marcia A. 2001. “The Scholarship of Engagement: Enriching University and Community.” Metropolitan Universities 12 (4): 7-9. Freire, Paolo. 1995. Pedagogy of Hope. New York: Continuum. —. 2003. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1975. Truth and Method. Translated and edited by Garrett Barden and John Cumming. New York: Seabury Press. Georgakopoulos, Alexia. 2009. “Teacher Effectiveness Examined as a System: Interpretive Structural Modeling and Facilitation Sessions with U.S. and Japanese Students.” International Education Studies 2 (3): 60-76. Georgakopoulos, Alexia, LaVena Wilkin, and Brianna Kent. 2011. “Workplace Bullying: A Complex Problem in Contemporary Organizations.” International Journal of Business and Social Sciences, Special Issue 2 (3): 1-20. Hawkins, Steven and Alexia Georgakopolous. 2010. “Dramatic Problem Solving: Transforming Community Conflict through Performance in Costa Rica.” Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences 2 (1): 112-135.

Working through Organizational and Community Conflict

101

Hecht, Michael L. 1993. “2002—A Research Odyssey: Toward the Development of a Communication Theory of Identity.” Communication Monographs 60: 76-81. Houden, L. 1997. “Co-Creating Sacred Space: The Use of Theatre in the Transformation of Conflict.” Diss., The Fielding Institute: AAT 9809587. Kail, J. (2004). “My Improv Odyssey: A Personal Journal.” Association for the Advancement of Improvisation in Business. www.improvinbiz.org/articles/kail.htm Kvale, Steiner. 1996. Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Martin, Judith N., and Thomas K. Nakayama. 1999. “Thinking Dialectically about Culture and Communication.” Communication Theory 9 (1): 125. Mitchell, Jim. 2010. “Continuing Education Modules and the Scholarship of Engagement.” Gerontology & Geriatrics Education 31 (4): 349-360. Schechner, Richard. 2003. Performance Theory, 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Schuman, Sandy, ed. 2005. The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation: Best Practices from the Leading Organization in Facilitation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwarz, Roger. 2002. The Skilled Facilitator. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Stringer, Ernest. 1999. Action Research. London: Sage. Taylor Diana 2002. The Archive and the Repertoire. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Turner, Victor. 1982. From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play. New York: PAJ Publications. Warfield, John N. 1976. Societal Systems: Planning, Policy and Complexity. New York: John Wiley and Sons. —. 1982. “Interpretive Structural Modeling”. In Group Planning and Problem-Solving Methods in Engineering, edited by S.A. Olsen, 155201. New York: John Wiley and Sons. —. 1995. A Science of Generic Design: Managing Complexity through Systems Design. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Warfield, John N., and A. Roxana Cardenas. 1995. A Handbook of Interactive Management. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

CHAPTER FIVE THE SCHOLARSHIP OF ENGAGEMENT: TRANSFORMING COMMUNITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH PRACTICUM AND OTHER COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS JUDITH MCKAY

Over the years conflict resolution has emerged as a dynamic field with scholars and practitioners engaged in work across the globe in a variety of settings and contexts. This work involves the skills of the field, including mediation, facilitation, negotiation, and dispute systems design, as well as a blending of other peace building skills, education, training, and research. It is therefore incumbent upon higher education programs training conflict resolution specialists to incorporate practicum and clinical opportunities for skill development and enhancement. While some of these activities may be identified as service learning, others can be seen as belonging to the Scholarship of Engagement. This author contends that education in conflict resolution must and should embrace the Scholarship of Engagement. This chapter explores the need for the Scholarship of Engagement in the education of conflict resolution specialists and provides examples of projects.

Conflict Resolution Programs in Higher Education While not always identified as such, conflict resolution has been around for thousands of years and has played a significant role in society as human beings have wrestled with various ways to prevent conflict, address ongoing conflicts, engage in post-conflict reconstruction, and learn to live more harmoniously with each other. As a field, Kriesberg (1997) identified four stages in its evolution. The first was 1914-1945 during which both World War I and II were fought, collective bargaining for

Transforming Communities and Organizations through Practicum

103

labor-management developed, and researchers became intrigued with interpersonal and larger-scale conflicts. The second stage was 1946-1969, during which much of the world was engaged in postwar reconstruction and its study, researchers examined and created theories of constructive and destructive conflict, and new theories and approaches to explain major sociological change were developed. Kriesberg identified the third stage as occurring between 1970 and 1985. This stage was especially active and saw the rise of social movement theory, as US society and those of other Western nations experienced the protests and other social actions of many young people protesting the Vietnam conflict and what they perceived as false societal goals centered around conformity and rigid gender and cultural roles. This stage saw the rise of feminist theories and the increased use of third party interveners. The fourth stage, 1986- to the present, has seen the further development and use of formal applied processes, such as mediation, facilitation, and systems design, the development and proliferation of conflict analysis and resolution academic programs, particularly on the graduate level, and even more mainstream reference to and use of conflict resolution skills and techniques. It is during this last stage that most of the current graduate programs in conflict resolution were established, including the program at Nova Southeastern University (NSU). The Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution (DCAR) at NSU was founded in 1992 as the Department of Dispute Resolution (DDR) in what was then the School of Social and Systemic Studies (SSS). Later SSS changed its name to the Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences (SHSS). The department had graduate certificate and master’s degree programs, and in 1994 a doctoral degree program was added, the second Ph.D. program in conflict resolution in the US. The DCAR programs were designed to be multidisciplinary to meet the needs of students across the US and around the world. In 1999 the department launched the first online doctoral program in conflict resolution. Our students come from a variety of academic and professional backgrounds and are primarily mid-career working professionals. Some students may be leaving or retiring from a career and seeking the tools and credentials to start a new career, and others are just starting a first career. We have students with professional backgrounds in government, social services, teaching, law enforcement, health care, corporate and not-forprofit organizations, mental health counseling and therapy, school and higher education administration, clergy and other religiously-based

104

Chapter Five

professions. The reason for many to pursue a graduate degree in conflict resolution has been their experience with workplace conflict as supervisors, mentors, and administrators, and their desire to be better equipped to address conflict (McKay 2004, 16). DCAR recognized from the beginning that the field of conflict resolution is one in which hands-on experience is key. Practicum was built into the programs to enable students to integrate theory, substance, and practice. Practice was seen from two pedagogical perspectives, the laboratory and the field. Applied process classes such as mediation, facilitation, negotiation, and dispute system design provide the opportunity for students to gain knowledge and skills and practice those skills in roleplays and simulations. Practicum classes and field sites provide the opportunity for students to take what they have learned in classes into the real world. Practicum is a student-centered learning experience supervised by professionals at a variety of local, regional, national, and international organizations as site supervisors. Practicum is dually-mentored with supervision in the field and in the department, via practicum classes with faculty and by the program Practicum Coordinator and Director. Students typically enroll in practicum during their second year of studies. This enables them to have gained sufficient knowledge and skills in conflict resolution to be able to bring them into a field site. Since many doctoral students seek to eventually enter academic positions, the program also has a Teaching and Training in Conflict Resolution and Teaching and Training in Conflict Resolution Practicum sequence. This provides a platform for students to learn the foundations of teaching and curriculum design and take that into the field through placements as teaching assistants and training interns. In addition to our student-driven practicums wherein students are encouraged to enter into sites based on their own professional goals and interests, the department also offers advanced practicums based on the teaching, research, and practice interests of our faculty. In an advanced practicum a faculty member designs and creates a specific practicum experience and invites students to apply to participate in the endeavor. Advanced practicums provide faculty development by allowing faculty to engage in their own projects here in South Florida, throughout the US, and around the world. A faculty member offering an advanced practicum plans it the year before so that details can be worked out and students can make their necessary personal, professional, and financial plans. Partnerships are usually formed with other universities, organizations and in some cases,

Transforming Communities and Organizations through Practicum

105

governments. Some of these practicums are Global Practicums situated in various international locations such as Northern Ireland, Israel, Ecuador, and Suriname. Practicum provides the student with the opportunity to explore employment settings and obtain a realistic feel for both the environment as well as the tasks performed. It also enables the student to assess where and how their skills may be used and to obtain a realistic feel for their level of skill and expertise in the field. It provides a preview of where conflict resolution is being used as well as where there is potential for its introduction. Practicum is a legitimate way to enter into a professional setting and experience the context of the setting and interact as part of the setting. Thus it allows a student to explore the field in an individually focused, yet supervised manner (McKay 2004, 18). Prior to entering practicum, students typically attend one or more Practicum Advising sessions offered multiple times each term in both residential and online formats and run by the Practicum Coordinator. The practicum program partners with NSU’s Office of Career Development to offer students career planning and advancement help. Students are encouraged to design a career development plan that considers the student’s own interests, professional and academic experiences, and career goals. In so doing the student can identify gaps in their professional experiences and academic and professional training that practicum can help bridge. Practicum also fosters the enhancement of career development planning and social marketing. Students are able to make new contacts and meet mentors who are already engaged in the areas of their interest. This can help establish the student’s personal and professional reputation within the community, provide entrée into previously closed circles, and in many cases has resulted in students being offered positions in the practicum site or through the contacts made in the site. Some of the graduates of our program established themselves professionally this way and are now practicum site supervisors mentoring those coming after them.

Service Learning and the Scholarship of Engagement In light of the above, it was clear at NSU that conflict resolution as a dynamic practice field needed to include field site placements. Therefore practicum became a core part of the curriculum. Originally when all of our

106

Chapter Five

students were residentially-based, students selected from a list of practicum sites located in South Florida. When the online programs were launched in 1999 (Ph.D.) and 2000 (M.S.), practicum expanded and distance sites were identified by students and asked to become a part of our practicum network. However, practicum as a means of career and skill development and enhancement is only one part of the pedagogical coin. The other side is the role of civic and social engagement and responsibility. Conflict resolution, according to Ackerman (2002), can play a significant role in “….advancing communitarian ideals” (29). If such advancement is viewed as desirable, then embedding this notion during graduate training would likewise be desirable. Thus practicum is not only an opportunity for skill-building and career development, but it is also a means by which students can engage in community building and bring to the community needed conflict analysis and resolution services and programs. The notion of service learning was not new and has been used in academic institutions for many years on both the undergraduate and graduate levels (Cohen and Kisker 2010, 499). It enabled students to take what they had been learning in the classroom and use it in settings such as schools, hospitals, and governmental agencies. Thus they literally learned while performing needed services, often in underserved parts of the community. In DCAR, many if not most of the practicum projects could fall under the category of service learning. Organizations and groups needing the skills and knowledge of conflict resolution could partner with the university and a win-win relationship could be forged. The organization and its clients receive the services and assistance they could not otherwise afford, and in return students gain real world, practical experience under the supervision of professionals. Here are several examples of service learning projects. First, students who wish to gain experience as mediators enter practicum sites at the court house or mediation center so they can observe mediations and ideally have the chance to co-mediate with experienced practitioners. This provides the site with additional staff without pay and provides the student with clients and mentors they would otherwise not be able to access. Second, students who wish to become conflict resolution trainers enter sites with professional training organizations, human resource departments in organizations, or social service agencies wishing to expand their limited training budgets. In

Transforming Communities and Organizations through Practicum

107

return for receiving additional mentorship and experience to improve their workshop development and training presentation skills, students provide the conflict resolution content to the trainings. Third, students interested in jobs as conflict analysis and resolution consultants in school settings enter practicum sites with local schools or with organizations working with conflict in schools. The students gain experience in schools with actual student conflicts and are supervised by onsite professionals and the sites gain additional staff or consultants. Service learning is a valuable part of the practicum experience and fulfills the goal of experiential learning and providing assistance to the community. It is not however, the same as the Scholarship of Engagement. According to Boyer (1996), universities should be partners with communities in the search for solutions to social problems (18). Barker (2004) posits that the Scholarship of Engagement “….reflects a growing interest in broadening and deepening the public aspects of academic scholarship” (123). Increasingly, I'm convinced that ultimately, the Scholarship of Engagement means creating a special climate in which the academic and civic cultures communicate more continuously and more creatively with each other, helping to enlarge what anthropologist Clifford Geertz describes as the universe of human discourse and enriching the quality of life for all of us (Boyer 1996, 33).

According to Barker (2004), the Scholarship of Engagement contains a specific and distinct set of practices and stresses the role of the public as a contributor to academic knowledge, not merely the recipient of that knowledge (125-127). This scholarship essentially is a departure from a parochial notion of the university as the “expert” and the community as the “novice.” This departure would suggest congruence with the thinking of many in the field of conflict resolution such as John Paul Lederach (1997), who believe that we should join with those we wish to help and see them as experts of their situation and first listen and observe lest we jump to unwarranted assumptions and conclusions. This creates partnerships and collaborations, with each bringing their expertise to the table, rather than a more patriarchal hierarchy wherein one is the holder or keeper of knowledge. Thus the Scholarship of Engagement calls for the university to become more a part of the community; in this way it can better engage that community in seeking a more comprehensive understanding of a social issue or problem and together work on discerning appropriate solutions.

108

Chapter Five

Barker (2004) sees five practices within the Scholarship of Engagement: public scholarship, participatory research, community partnership, public information networks, and civic literacy scholarship (128-132). While all pose multiple opportunities for conflict resolution scholars and practitioners, he identified community partnerships as the practice designed to address social change and structural transformation (132). This holds particular appeal for many in conflict resolution. Like others who study this newer scholarship model, Barker (2004) recognizes that service learning and experiential learning are still viable and need not be abandoned. However, being able to add this new dimension would provide a new way for the university to relate to and with the community. It also provides faculty a means to provide meaningful outreach, service, and research with and for the community.

Example of the Scholarship of Engagement: The VOICES Family Outreach Project The VOICES Outreach Project at Nova Southeastern University was established in 1997 through a two-year grant from the US Department of Justice to design and implement a trauma reduction prototype for use with families struggling with recurring conflict and low levels of family violence. VOICES takes a systemic approach to dealing with interpersonal conflict in the context of the family, law enforcement, the courts, the educational system, and the cultural community at large. VOICES developed a project designed to offer an intervention option for families. VOICES was able to develop a prototype treatment and intervention for families who were struggling with conflict and who were motivated to seek change. While many families were seeking services in order to remain together in an intact household, some families had already made the decision to separate or had been living apart at the time services were commenced. Approximately 50% of the families assisted experience conflict from a juvenile family member. VOICES implemented a co-mediation design. Studies reflect that families in situations involving continuing conflict usually require a variety of services. The VOICES design therefore incorporated family therapy and family education to support the mediation process, and served as a referral for client families who agreed they needed additional outside services for issues such as substance abuse and alcohol abuse. VOICES

Transforming Communities and Organizations through Practicum

109

served as a referral for families who contacted the project, but who presented issues and problems that were outside the scope of the project. In addition, VOICES offered training to law enforcement and service providers to better enable them to address the needs of their clients and to better acquaint them with the services of the project. Project designers hypothesized that mediation, coupled with opportunities for additional individual and family development, would support and enhance a family’s chances for sustainable change. VOICES research reflected areas of concern, including increasing juvenile family conflict, cultural contexts surrounding families’ understanding of how to handle family conflict, and a desire for new strategies and new techniques to deal with family conflict for law enforcement and service providers. As a direct result of this information, VOICES engaged in a process of internal action research to guide project construction and evaluation. The VOICES Mediation Model addresses the need for families to engage in an average of three mediation sessions, with wrap-around services offered by the project and by other service providers. The agreements reached are referred to as Family Action Plans (FAPs) and encourage participant families to co-create plans and solutions they believe will best enhance their communication and family well-being. Project designers hypothesized that mediation, coupled with opportunities for additional individual and family development, would support and enhance a family’s chances for sustainable change. At VOICES, families have the opportunity to receive family therapy to help them explore emotional issues related to violence. Through family education, families have the opportunity to learn and practice better conflict resolution and communication skills. The project was comprised of four components: 1. Family violence and conflict resolution training for target groups of professionals and paraprofessionals, such as law enforcement agents, school personnel, social service staff, emergency health care practitioners, and other front-line service providers who intervene in violent or chronic conflict situations involving adolescents and their families. 2. Trauma reduction, conflict intervention, and management using the VOICES three-part model of services for troubled families, including:

110

Chapter Five

a. Co-mediation, involving a dispute resolution specialist and a family therapist trained in mediation; b. Family therapy to support the mediation process; and c. Family education to help family members recognize, identify, and practice improved modes of communication and conflict resolution skills. 3. Development of multi-media resources for the aforementioned professionals and paraprofessionals, as well as for victims and community members through: the production of a newsletter directed at service providers and law enforcement; providing a web site to offer Internet users access to the newsletter; serving as a clearinghouse for articles, papers, research, community events, and conferences; providing a link to other Internet resource sites; and development of a video for use in the Training and Education components. 4. Research and report on the effectiveness of the VOICES comediation model for the reduction of family violence. In the first year, VOICES had conducted a survey of law enforcement agencies and five areas of concern for police officers responding to family violence calls emerged. First, family violence initiated by juveniles was becoming an increasing problem. Because of this, police officers arriving on a scene often found it difficult to determine who the actual victim was and who the perpetrator was in the situation. By the time of arrival, a parent may be physically restraining a violent juvenile, making it hard for police to determine whether the violence was committed by the youth or upon the youth. Second, traditional domestic violence statutes and procedures are clear regarding adult domestic violence abusers, but may be incomplete or inadequate in addressing trans-generational violence, or sibling-on-sibling violence. Thus, police officers may be unclear about the best way to handle a situation and, consequently, families are often unclear about what law enforcement and the courts can realistically do to assist them. Third, law enforcement and families were often unclear about appropriate remedies and resources available to them in the community. Many existing community resources were designed to assist in family deconstruction and separation, not in family reconstruction and regeneration. Law enforcement officers indicated they were not always aware of new programs or of the cessation of older ones. They often wanted to make

Transforming Communities and Organizations through Practicum

111

appropriate referrals, but felt inadequate to speak knowledgeably about services available to the community and which of those would be best for families in various circumstances. Some families, even with traditional domestic violence between partners or spouses, wanted to remain together but lacked the inner resources to construct a safe and healthy environment for themselves on their own. Fourth, cultural contexts surround families’ understanding of how to handle family violence, the disciplining of children, and how family conflict is handled. Traditions differ significantly among members of various cultural groups. Law enforcement staff indicated that with the influx of different cultural groups into Broward County, they were often unsure of how a family perceived what was going on and how they could best intervene in a meaningful way that would make sense to the family. Fifth, law enforcement indicated a desire for new strategies and new techniques to deal with family conflict and violence, both on the scene and in subsequent follow-up visits with the families. With police forces moving more into community policing and attempting to join with the community in making it a safer place for all, agencies felt that training in conflict resolution skills tailored to meet their needs would be useful. As a direct result of this information, VOICES engaged in a process of internal action research to guide project construction that was responsive to these compelling needs. In year two, VOICES targeted families with youth; it established a working partnership with the Margate Police Department and began to work with the Broward County School Board to assist them in reaching youth and to promote safe schools and communities. In year 2, VOICES began providing on-site services to residents of the City of Margate in Broward County through a pilot project with the Margate Police Department Neighborhood Policing Program. The Margate Police Department recognized the challenge of escalating family violence and wanted to offer alternatives for healthy family conflict resolution. They sought the assistance of VOICES to co-create a healthier and safer community. The goal of the police department was to collaborate by offering VOICES services to Margate families and to provide VOICES training to law enforcement officers. The police department worked closely with VOICES in providing the Margate Middle School as a location for the provision of services, and made direct referrals to VOICES.

112

Chapter Five

As part of the pilot project with the Margate Police Department, VOICES helped the police consider school initiatives as well as plans to offer parent and family workshops collaboratively with the Margate Police Department. This would enable the Margate schools and police, with the assistance of VOICES, to develop a continuum of services to prevent violence and create a safer school environment for the students. Margate police officers, as part of the Margate Pilot Project, received extensive training on a biannual basis. In year 2, The VOICES staff conducted 8 trainings to provide information to every police officer in that jurisdiction. The learning objectives were: 1. To continue to acquaint police with the services provided by VOICES, including referral procedures, appropriate referrals, information about other community services, and VOICES goals. 2. To provide information about the dynamics of violence and the nature of anger, the identification of warning signs, and cultural differences in expressions of anger. 3. To provide information about de-escalation strategies and VOICES strategies for de-escalation of family violence, which include crisis communication. Project educational services have a multitude of foci and formats. Unique services developed specifically for parents, adolescents, and families were offered in small groups, workshops, or multi-generation instructional formats. VOICES educators utilized an array of methods including interactive materials, VOICES-produced videos, hands-on exercises, and discussion groups. Issues addressed included: anger recognition and management, trends in family violence, conflict resolution, decision making skills, parenting skills, adolescent issues, and violence prevention. To reach a larger population and provide necessary supportive educational services to the Broward County community, VOICES participated in community events and fairs at which staff offer tips, hand out literature, and offer brief presentations. This component also enables law enforcement, juvenile justice, the courts, schools, and social services to partner with us by offering these services at their sites. The VOICES family and community education component was designed to meet the needs and specific abilities of clients at different sites. For example, self-awareness focused training is likely to be most

Transforming Communities and Organizations through Practicum

113

successful at raising an individual’s awareness and increasing his or her knowledge about a problem, thus promoting movement from the precontemplation to the contemplation stage. In the contemplation stage, people need more action-focused education. The family education component teaches people practical ways to surmount problems and to increase their competency in certain kinds of problem solving that are applicable to all types of situations. In an effort to inform law enforcement, service providers, and the public about VOICES services and to bring them current information about family violence research and trends, this project organized a newsletter called PARTNERSHIPS FOR PEACE. VOICES staff gathered and researched newsletters by other area service providers to define what needs are already being filled, comparing local support publications for their areas of focus, readability, and success at engaging the officers we support as readers. This way, VOICES can offer useful articles that do not duplicate the time and efforts that busy professionals have already spent on learning about support services and family violence. Staff members interviewed police officers at various Broward County departments about what they would like from a newsletter. The goal was to provide an informative, readable resource that provides officers with information and educational materials that support their efforts in dealing with family violence cases. The particularly effective partnership VOICES maintains with the Margate Neighborhood Policing Program has proved to be a valuable source of information in this endeavor, thanks to regular meetings with their personnel, who are adept at generating and articulating creative solutions. As VOICES has grown, the project's understanding of the way it can present and explain itself to the community has also evolved. The original VOICES web site was designed to inform the public about project services and to encourage contact with this office. Now VOICES is able to articulate a clearer and more comprehensive description of the project's identity, functions, and potential applications. Staff members have researched web sites from large organizations such as government agencies and from small service providers operating on a scale of service similar to this project's, as well as other Internet sites that prove to be particularly informative. With the support of trained web site designers and web masters in the university system, VOICES has evolved

114

Chapter Five

its site presentation and content while staying within NSU guidelines and subject to Bureau of Justice Assistance approval. A four-module parent education/support group program for parents with challenging adolescents has been designed. Modules include deescalation of family crisis, effective communication, parenting strategies, and family peace-making. VOICES is currently discussing this new program in Margate and hopes its implementation will commence shortly. Other topics of family education often used are: fair fighting, cool down techniques, anger management, and communication. A major thrust in follow-up was with the Margate Neighbor Police Pilot Project Law enforcement as that community worked closely with VOICES during the pilot. VOICES conducted 8 trainings with law enforcement in that community to enable officers to have a clear understanding of family violence trends, cultural aspects of intervening with families in conflict, and crisis communication designed to de-escalate situations. Crisis communication enables law enforcement to better understand families’ reactions to law enforcement intervention and to use language that will encourage a more rapid cooling down from a heated family disturbance, thus making intervention safer for police and for families. The Margate Neighborhood Policing Program worked closely with VOICES staff to explore innovative ways to communicate with families who are at risk. VOICES is providing law enforcement staff with information about intervening with families prior to a fourth repeat call for domestic violence. Officers are learning to engage families in a nonthreatening way to encourage their participation in the VOICES project or to seek other services to create healthier family situations. VOICES has conducted its level of engagement with the Margate Police Department in phases. These phases were also related to the level of service delivery in the community, as well as to the level of training provided. In Phase One, the following activities were pursued: x Planning and development x Discussions about service needs and provisions x Assessment of training needs

Transforming Communities and Organizations through Practicum

115

x Initial training of officers regarding VOICES services, information about family violence procedures, and community resources x Officers responding to a domestic violence call distributing program information x Client responsibility for contacting VOICES for services x Staff providing services directly in the community in collaboration with Margate Middle School through the Margate Police Department x Services provided one night/week In Phase Two, the following activities were pursued: x Greater VOICES/police contact was commenced with regular meetings x Greater organization-wide officer support x Development of trainings that would support police officers x Second round of training (4 sessions) on the nature of anger, anger management, and how this information can affect the way police intervene with families x Exchange of research information, i.e., repeat calls after family received VOICES services x Initial analysis of repeat call data to determine program impact x More active role on part of police in getting clients into VOICES service: fax reports directly to VOICES intake office for staff to contact clients directly to discuss participation about services based on at least three police interventionary visits to the home x Services provided two nights/week In Phase Three, the following activities were pursued: x VOICES staff commenced contacting families identified by Margate Police as needing services based on police visits to the home x VOICES began to explore other service providers in Margate or in contiguous communities for referral and partnership x VOICES partnered with the Margate Police in the submission of a concept paper for other funding that would support services to parties in conflict who are not family members, such as in neighborhood disputes As part of the work with the Margate Neighborhood Police, families who were referred to VOICES by the police were later tracked to see how

116

Chapter Five

many repeat calls to the homes occurred subsequent to going through the prototype treatment. It was found that repeat calls occurred in 30% of the cases. In 70% of the cases referred to VOICES by the Margate Police Department, there was no further need for police action. This was very helpful information for the police in planning their allocation of personnel. Therefore by being able to reduce or eliminate repeat VOICES’ services, numerous hours of police work were saved. This enabled law enforcement to concentrate on other cases rather than repeatedly call upon the same families. VOICES staff presented their findings and the project at several national conferences and embraced the multidisciplinary nature of their work. Since the end of their funding, the project has been continued on a smaller scale and work has been extended through the use of practicum students who have chosen the project as their site. VOICES became a part of Community Resolution Services (CRS), the largest practicum site for students studying conflict resolution in DCAR and students in the Master of Arts in Cross-disciplinary Studies (MACS) program in the Department of Multidisciplinary Studies (DMS). CRS seeks to engage the community and recognizes the need for stakeholder participation in order to more comprehensively explore social issues. The VOICES project used action research as a means to design its activities and interventions and to include the community. Action research is particularly appropriate when change is sought as well as the inclusion of those often marginalized (Chenail, St. George and Wulff 2007). This makes it especially attractive to those interested in pursuing the Scholarship of Engagement. According to Barker (2004, 125), engaged scholarship is concerned with three trends in higher education. First, information via traditional scholarship has become too specialized and technical, and is often unavailable in helpful ways to the public. Second, traditional scholarship has placed an over-emphasis on distance and neutrality, rather than on a criterion of effectiveness. Third, there is a need to redress corporate influence on higher education by bringing the public intentionally into scholarship. Increasingly, universities are recognizing and embracing the Scholarship of Engagement and have included it in the ways they evaluate and assess faculty. This permits and encourages faculty to branch out and consider

Transforming Communities and Organizations through Practicum

117

new and fresh approaches to their research and practice, and enables them to cycle this knowledge back to the classroom and the community (Driscoll and Sandmann 2001, 9). In universities offering greater choices to faculty regarding how they wish to conduct their teaching, research, and practice, the Scholarship of Engagement can provide a broader and deeper measure of success. It is not suggested that this scholarship will or even should supplant traditional research. Rather it appears to be an effective way to supplement traditional research and provide broader means for public participation and access to research designed for the public good. For fields such as conflict resolution, this is congruent with our notions of social justice, community development, and transformational change. It is also aligned with our pedagogical concepts surrounding practice, service learning, and experiential learning. Thus, adding the Scholarship of Engagement both promotes what we teach, and why we teach it. If conflict resolution and other related fields wish to produce the next generation of change agents, then it is recommended that students be introduced to this area of inquiry. What further supports this would be an increased number of universities recognizing this form of study. Proudly, NSU sought and has been awarded the Carnegie designation of Community Engagement. This imprimatur lets the faculty, staff, students, alumni, and the community know that we actively seek collaboratively-designed models of research and study.

References Ackerman, Robert M. 2002. “Disputing Together: Conflict Resolution and the Search for Community.” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 18 (1): 27-92. Barker, Derek. 2004. “The Scholarship of Engagement: A Taxonomy of Five Emerging Practices.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 9 (2): 123-137. Boyer, Ernest L. 1996. “Stated Meeting Report: The Scholarship of Engagement.” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 49 (7): 18-33. Chenail, Ronald J., Sally St. George, and Dan Wulff. 2007. “Action Research: The Methodologies.” In Nursing Research: A Qualitative Perspective, 4th ed., edited by Patricia L. Munhall, 447-461. Boston, MA: National League of Nursing Press. Cohen, Arthur M., and Carrie B. Kisker. 2010. The Shaping of American Higher Education, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

118

Chapter Five

Driscoll, Amy, and Lorilee R. Sandmann. 2001. “From Maverick to Mainstream: The Scholarship of Engagement.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 6 (2): 9-19. Kriesberg, Louis. 1997. "The Development of the Conflict Resolution Field." In Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques, edited by I. William Zartman and J. Lewis Rasmussen, 5177. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press. Lederach, John Paul. 1997. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute for Peace. McKay, Judith. 2004. “Practicum: The Bridge between Academics and Practice: The Nova Southeastern University Experience.” The Fourth R 1:16-17. Washington, DC: The Association for Conflict Resolution.

CHAPTER SIX AVOIDING THE RECESS EFFECT: THE DYNAMICS OF INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION TRAINING IN COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS CLAIRE MICHELE RICE AND LARRY A. RICE

The concept of community involvement in peacemaking is essential to participatory action research (or action research), wherein both researchers and the community members, all of whom are stakeholders, collaborate on problem-solving to address community issues and to inform solutions. They often do this in groups or community tables. Faculty involved with such projects must address the demand of acadème by combining their work as practitioners with research and publications. These activities are the bedrock of the Scholarship of Engagement (Barker 2004; Driscoll and Sandman 2001). The process must engage an understanding of how to build sustainable relationships among stakeholders. The faculty in their role as facilitators must engage community members in a series of activities that address their own concerns as well. Barker (2004) proposes that community partnerships would present better avenues for engaging such populations. The work of building such community partnerships is in essence the work of community organizing (Gittell and Vidal 1998; Homans 2004). Of interest here is the manner in which we teach our students at the university to broach such concerns while we conduct research for academic dissemination. We have taught courses in which we have asked university students, whether at the undergraduate, masters, or doctoral levels, to go out into the community to teach and train others in high schools, at community centers, or at a host of other organizations about a number of subjects, including community development, social problems conflict

120

Chapter Six

analysis, and conflict resolution practices. Along with our students, our task has been to assist people within organizations in our communities in finding possible solutions and even to assist them in garnering certain technical skills in the process (Howard, Taylor and Rice 2006; Rice 2001; L. Rice and C.M. Rice 2008). At times, we assist our community partners in understanding how concepts and techniques they learn in their community tables, through training and collaborative problem-solving, can be practiced in their daily lives, personally or while interacting with others. Invariably, we and our students engage community members in group exercises in which we ask them to work with one another in group settings or in teams in which they generally collaborate on the completion of relevant tasks. We and our students have engaged our community partners with our collective knowledge base—our research, our experiences, our theoretical and practice-based tools—to elicit the public’s assistance in finding common ground and enriching knowledge regarding the issues at hand, while simultaneously seeking to address the public’s own concerns (Homans 2004). We have been participant-observers who recorded insights from our community collaborators and whose observations and research were then recorded and later published. In his exposition of a taxonomy for the Scholarship of Engagement, Derek Barker (2004) suggests that there are five components: “public scholarship, participatory research, community partnerships, public information networks, and civic literacy scholarship” (128). These practices need not be mutually exclusive, and at times scholars may not know that they are actively applying them. Public scholarship, however, may not be appropriate for underserved or marginalized populations, whose mere involvement in public discussions might further marginalize them or stigmatize them, as an example, when discussing racism, ethnocentrism, sexism, discrimination or other forms of oppression. Of particular interest in our discussion is the work of establishing community partnerships. Barker draws a distinction between community servicelearning and activities related to the Scholarship of Engagement. In community service learning, students have an opportunity to reflect on the work that they do as volunteers in their communities, while on the academic side, faculty engage them in discussions of how their practice relates to the theoretical considerations raised in the classroom (Berson 1994; Cohen and Kinsey 1994; Rhoads 1997; Blank and Harwell 1997; Brandell and Hinck 1997; Battistoni 1995). With community partnerships, as faculty practitioners and students try to address social issues and engage in collaborative problem-solving, reflection is accompanied by a healthy

Avoiding the Recess Effect

121

dose of research. Additionally, Barker (2004) proposes that the work of community partnerships differs from the work of public scholarship; the latter can be achieved by having open forums wherein community members are queried about social issues and have the opportunity to deliberate over actionable solutions. However, this is not always possible in particular instance where community members might feel further marginalized should they give voice to their own oppression. Thus, the work of community partnerships affords a more personal setting where such discussions might take place. These notions parallel John Paul Lederach’s (1995) ideas about peacemaking within communities, wherein he contends that ideas generated by people within their communities are crucial to the sustainability of models for peace education and conflict resolution. It is the people in their own communities and cultural contexts who experience the conflict; therefore, an elicitive approach of necessity must explore the intersubjective realities (Burger and Luckman 1989) which inform their interactions and reactions to conflict. Similar parallels can be found within the context of organizational culture. Steven Ott (1989) describes organizational culture as “a social force that controls patterns of organizational behavior by shaping members’ cognitions and perceptions of meanings and realities, providing affective energy for mobilization, and identifying who belongs and who does not” (63). Some elements of organizational culture range from a company’s history and vision, to its ideologies, language/technical jargon, rituals, management practices and even the art it chooses to display within its halls (Ott 1989). All of these elements of organizational culture fall into broader categories: they are “artifacts,” “patterns of behavior,” “beliefs and values,” “assumptions” (62-63) or somewhere in between these major categories. It is obvious from this depiction of elements of organizational culture that it is not a very simple concept. In fact, Ott proposes that the concept itself is rather amorphous and notes that “there is no single true definition or concept of organizational culture” (69). Notwithstanding, it is helpful to note Ott’s typology above so that, as we think of ways to address community building and collaborative problemsolving for training purposes, we are more aware of what contributes to conflict among people and the organizations within which they function. Lederach proposes that “from the perspective of training, people are resources, not recipients…student and teacher discover and learn together through reflection and action, which are kept in direct relationship as the root of learning and transformation” (1995, 26). This is in essence an elicitive rather than a prescriptive approach to peacebuilding, which takes

122

Chapter Six

into consideration approaches that involve cross-cultural considerations rather than a strictly Western model to conflict resolution (Augsburger 1992). Essentially, peacemaking and transformation emerge from training, activism and alternative dispute resolution practices. This is in keeping with the work of community partnerships and the Scholarship of Engagement. Over the years, through our students’ and community members’ testimonies we have learned that these kinds of interaction often result in a reciprocal relationship that leaves us, the researchers and our students, with a greater depth of understanding of the human dimension of those ideas that were initially conceptualized through academic research. We also hear from community participants how enriching the experience was for them, for example, when they learned how to understand inter-personal conflict or when they grasped ways to manage conflict at a much deeper level and apply such learning to their lives. Notwithstanding, such interactions are not without their challenges. When we engaged people in those community tables (C.M. Rice 2001), there was a risk that they would not all share the same synergy and sense of purpose. Without proper guidance and training, some of people whose lives we seek to enhance may themselves feel marginalized if they are not given opportunity to serve their communities because of subtle practices of exclusion propagated by other group members. It therefore is our contention that a Scholarship of Engagement that involves community partnerships must also consider how the dichotomies of inclusion/exclusion and in-group/out-group dynamics affect relationship building among the individuals in the community being served. Consequently, in an attempt to reach individuals within communities through the Scholarship of Engagement, an interesting case could be made for linking the teambuilding exercises that conflict resolution practitioners use in training situations to efforts at community building and organizing, some elements of which parallel what Barker (2004) calls community partnerships. We have broadened the term community to not only mean people living in their cities and neighborhoods, which is generally understood in common parlance; the community is also comprised of people within their circles of influence, including the organizations within which they work and settings within which they ‘live’ and ‘play’ (C.M. Rice 2001; Rice and Hunt 2005; C.M. Rice 2004). In our view the community is a space where people hold shared values, wherein their individual goals and aspirations coalesce around a common goal, whether

Avoiding the Recess Effect

123

it is to promote a fundraiser for student scholarships, to assist in the completion of an organizational project, or to develop a program in schools or community centers that promotes inclusive community values (Rice 2001; Rice and Hunt 2004; Rice 2005). All organizations undertaking such tasks are themselves communities of people that form part of a subset of larger communities found within cities. In this chapter, we will discuss a phenomenon that we have observed in various training situations wherein patterns of exclusion invariably lead to conflict; Larry Rice has dubbed this phenomenon The Recess Effect (C.M. Rice 2004; L.A. Rice and C.M. Rice 2008). Of issue here is how to assist our faculty and students, trainers, and trainees in discerning patterns of exclusion as they undertake community partnerships and engage in various activities that will often involve people working together, in groups or teams. This phenomenon, often demonstrated and experienced by children on school playgrounds or in their classrooms, provides great insights into how teams form or how team members are selected within organizations and by extension, within communities, in the world of “grown-ups.” Consequently, we seek to link critical elements in teambuilding and group dynamics based on our observations of The Recess Effect to conflict management training in institutions. An exposition of the phenomenon we have dubbed The Recess Effect introduces the issues inherent in teambuilding where patterns of exclusion are present. It is followed by a discussion of how conflict resolution practitioners have tried to deal with conflict within organizations through alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems and the role that teambuilding within such institutions may play. From a broader perspective, our discussion will explore cases that examine important lessons we learned from observing The Recess Effect at work in our communities. The greatest of these lessons has been the need to stress inclusion in training future conflict resolution practitioners, students, teachers, civic and religious leaders, and businesspeople alike. These are but a few of a vast array of consumers of conflict resolution education, actively engaged in applying what they learn about patterns of inclusion and exclusion to the work of peacemaking within their own spheres of influence—where they live, play, or work. We propose that this is a crucial dimension to the Scholarship of Engagement as well. For years, we have worked with teachers and their students in public schools; trained administrators, faculty, staff and students in colleges and universities; engaged civic and religious leaders and their constituents; and

124

Chapter Six

worked with business and non-profit organizations on developing capacity in an area we feel is key to conflict management and resolution within organizations: relationship building. Implicit in the Scholarship of Engagement is the idea of relationship building, which encompasses a continuum of ideas, from understanding conflict and appreciating one’s role in the conflict, to considering how our perceptions of identity and diversity—the concept of otherness—impact our interactions with others (Avruch 1998; Augsburger 1992). As educators we have also had opportunity to observe how people work together, whether children or adults, and how their behaviors may either promote peacebuilding or conflict. Over time, we have sought to explain the phenomenon we call The Recess Effect to our students in an effort to engage them in problem solving and conflict resolution when working in groups. Whether in classrooms, in work groups, or in various workshops, we have used this concept to engage others in thinking more critically about their behaviors and those of others around them as they seek to build stronger working relationships. As previously noted, this inherently engages group dynamics and so we will entertain a conversation about the role of group dynamics and team work within our social institutions, the organizations within our communities. The following observations of teambuilding exercises through classroom and work group trainings have allowed us to formulate a model for understanding and addressing pattern of exclusion. We have then been able to arm our students and trainees with this information so that they can find ways to develop more improved working relationships.

A Classroom Exercise: The Case of ‘The Recess Effect’ in Classroom Work Groups It began with a classroom experiment at a university in which Larry Rice asked his students to divide into groups so that they could complete a class assignment. Rice had previously noted that consistently, there were some students who were left out when teams were being chosen to perform certain assignments, and so he decided to demonstrate to his students how easily they could fall into that pattern (C.M. Rice 2004; L.A. Rice and C.M. Rice 2008). At the start of the exercise, Larry illustrated for his students a scenario, which often takes place on children’s playgrounds during recess at schools. He had the students visualize the process for picking teams when children engage in play during recess. Normally, one or two children

Avoiding the Recess Effect

125

might emerge as the leader(s), who somehow take the helm in choosing teams to play a game. Those children who select their teammates are called “The Pickers.” Next, there are children who willingly go along with these team leaders’ selection process and join their teams. These children who are ‘the selected’ are called “The Picked” in Larry Rice’s scenario. Third, there always seem to be one or two children who are the last to be picked or worse, are not picked at all. Those who fail to make the cut are called “The Unpicked” in this scenario. While relating this scenario to his students, Larry queried his students regarding how they saw themselves relative to the three categories of children on the playground. He asked them to consider, as children, whether they were most often The Pickers, The Picked or The Unpicked. This question engendered a lot of discussion from students who identified with various categories and related how they felt about themselves now that they had become adults. After an animated discussion, Rice unfolded the classroom exercise and had his students volunteer to serve as team leaders. He asked for 5 volunteers who would then be given a list of student names in the class, from which they would pick their teams. Following brief deliberations with each other, each team leader chose several students for their teams from the class roster. To Rice’s surprise, there were still some students who had not been selected, even though the group leaders had a class roster to aid them in the process of selection. After the work groups had finished their class assignment and shared their work with the class, Rice took the opportunity to have a time of debriefing with the class about what happened during the group selection and to examine some of the conflicts that occurred. He wanted to demonstrate to the students how easily people can fall into a pattern of exclusion if they do not make a concerted effort to be inclusive in their team selection processes. The second lesson from this exercise centered on how to manage the conflict resulting from such exclusion (L.A. Rice 2004; L.A. Rice and C.M. Rice 2008). Both authors have repeated variations of this exercise in self-awareness in a number of classes. Often, the team selection process would take place around a class exercise in which volunteers would be given free rein to discuss among themselves who they would select to be in their work groups to complete group projects. Invariably, one or two students would find themselves left out of the selection process. Some of The Unpicked would casually insert themselves into a group while others would come to the instructors for assistance in getting into a group. Once in groups,

126

Chapter Six

students would be asked to complete an exercise pertinent to the topic they were covering in the classroom. This could take the form of a group project, a conflict analysis exercise, or an assignment. While the assignment is usually important in terms of the curriculum, the most important lesson for the day is not necessarily the completion of the assignment or project itself, but it is in how the students completed their task as a group. Therein are found the more profound lessons about inclusion, exclusion, and conflict management. In the initial scenario, Larry Rice queried his class about what happened in the group selection process. He noted that despite the fact that the student leaders were given a roster, some students were still not selected. Then he encouraged the group to recognize the pattern of exclusion, to discuss why this happened, to devise ways to manage the ensuing conflict collectively, and to explore what could be done in future projects to avoid The Recess Effect. The critical task was for the students to think creatively about how they could be more inclusive of all of their colleagues and manage conflict (L.A. Rice, 2004; L.A. Rice and C.M. Rice 2008). The process of debriefing is the moment at which a fuller realization of what took place can occur. Students can perhaps acknowledge how some of their colleagues—The Unpicked—might have felt disappointed at being overlooked; if they choose to, The Unpicked may share with the group their stories, reveal how they felt about the entire process, and provide their own ideas about ways that this can be remedied. Storytelling is cathartic in some instances, in that in allows those who share their stories to release deeply felt emotions, and it enlightens the listeners as to their shared experiences (Senehi 2002). Awareness of such intersubjective realities (Berger and Luckman 1989) and the commonalities among participants can lead to positive change. In essence, for both the trainer and participants the time of debriefing in this kind of exercise is one of introspection, reflection, and problem solving. Through their facilitator’s guidance, the participants are encouraged to find ways to avoid The Recess Effect, not only at school or at work, but also at all levels of relationshipbuilding in their communities. Undoubtedly, for practitioners in the field of conflict resolution, while The Recess Effect exercise teaches participants many lessons about group dynamics and patterns of inclusion and exclusion, it can at times be a source of distress for those who find themselves continually excluded and are perhaps forced to relive past childhood memories of earlier instances of exclusion, either on the playground or in the classroom. Interestingly,

Avoiding the Recess Effect

127

we have repeated this group selection exercise several times after Larry Rice’s initial observations, and The Recess Effect scenario played out even in instances when the authors fully explained the phenomenon to their classes and encouraged their students to discuss the phenomenon at length. Beyond the university classroom, we have unfolded this scenario to people working in organizations, many of whom have also testified of their own experiences relating to The Recess Effect. When conducting training for professionals working at various institutions, participants would be asked to share their experiences in childhood recess and to share whether they could relate to the three categories of children described in Rice’s scenario—The Pickers, The Picked or The Unpicked. Invariably, some audience members would share how they could relate to these same childhood recess categories even as adults. In one training session in a room full of workshop participants, we even experienced emotional testimonies from brave participants who would raise their hands and tell their stories; some would invariably start with the phrase, “I was one of the Unpicked.” Consequently, a clearer understanding of how patterns of inclusion and exclusion manifest themselves due to The Recess Effect phenomenon may also reveal how to manage related conflicts within community organizations, as researchers seek to facilitate change through engagement. We therefore next examine the exclusion and inclusion dichotomy associated with vectors of diversity and conflict.

Exclusion/Inclusion Dichotomy: Possible Roots of Conflict in The Recess Effect Scenario Much of what we know as adults and routinely apply as manifested methods of engaging or interacting with others in the workplace, we learned during our early days on the playground during our childhood. The theory of Transactional Analysis (Berne 1961; Woollams and Brown 1978) supports this assertion and confirms that our past influences impact our current behavior. Napier and Gershenfeld (2004) explain that by the age of 6, children develop a sense of worth for both themselves and for others. Through their experiences, both positive and negative, they grow into adults that harbor those same childhood perceptions. The impact of The Recess Effect phenomenon on the “Unpicked” category on playground children has significant implications addressed through Transactional Analysis theory. If as children, individuals were teased or denigrated, they may decide that they are indeed stupid or weird; at times they may even model behaviors that make them appear eccentric or awkward to others

128

Chapter Six

around them. They may live their lives thinking that they are not ‘cool’ but that others in their circles of influence are fine. These feelings or accepted scripts of social identity become self-fulfilling prophecies as these children become adults. These adults, having embraced the life scripts written for them by others, embed those scripts, labels and roles into their identities. They therefore may do the following: constantly look for approval and advice from others; try to mimic the behavior of those considered ‘cool’ and abstain from ‘being themselves’ to avoid ridicule; and/or stumble and make mistakes, fearing that those around them might once again reprimand and denigrate them by calling them names or shooting down their ideas; by all such behaviors thereby reinforcing social positions and roles imposed upon them as children (Napier and Gershenfeld 2004). Maynard (1985) suggested that it is as children, arguing over positions, interests, or status, that we learn how to form social organizations and political ties to achieve our desired goals and status. The question becomes, how do children fall into The Recess Effect categories—The Pickers, The Picked, and The Unpicked? Is it by happenstance or are there specific behavioral characteristics that allow for inclusion of some while permitting for the exclusion of others, during recess on the school playground and later within work groups in community organizations. Does this pattern of inclusion and exclusion stop on the playground or does it continue in the children’s classrooms and later on in their adult lives? After explaining The Recess Effect concept to a group of students, author Claire Michèle Rice asked the students to recall their own childhoods and how teams or work groups were selected in their schools. She asked them to try and consider the characteristics of The Pickers, The Picked, and The Unpicked. According to Claire Michèle’s students, while The Pickers and The Picked may have exhibited leadership skills and were seen as part of the in-crowd, easy to work with, what was quite revealing were the characteristics they ascribed to The Unpicked. The Unpicked were sometimes characterized as not being part of the incrowd, not skilled enough, as being nerdy, geeky, too short, too fat, awkward, too shy, or too eccentric in some way. Some students who participated in this classroom exercise admitted that they themselves were sometimes characterized in these ways. Whether these characterizations were warranted or not, they informed the decisions of group leaders in these school settings as they were choosing who would play on their teams or who would work with them on projects. We contend that these same patterns of decision-making influence adults as well. However, in adult situations, added to the ranks of The Unpicked within institutions might be

Avoiding the Recess Effect

129

individuals who do not share the same religion, color, sex, or sexual orientation as the team leaders or decision-makers. The very traits that provide us with much of our rich diversity can also serve as a doubleedged sword in that they can also become elements of conflict, which we call vectors of conflict. When these vectors intersect, they can engender much contention within groups and within organizations. In community partnerships, one aspect of engaging group members is assisting them in understanding how the perception of their own realities and the realities of others can either lead to conflict or to transformative change.

When addressing diversity, we are really speaking to the ways of life or culture that each vector of diversity lends itself to—ethnicity, race, nationality, gender, age, religion, occupation, social and economic status, or levels of education. These contribute to how each one of us think and behave. Essentially, these vectors form part of what constitutes our culture, and as some prefer, ‘worldviews.’ Because people make up community organizations, these worldviews inform how they operate within the organizations. In short, organizations are not only subject to cultural influences within the societies in which they operate, but they are also subject to the cultural worldviews of the people within them. Vectors

130

Chapter Six

of conflict may arise from what makes each human different from another. Sociologists refer to these human characteristics as achieved status and ascribed status (Thompson and Hickey 2005). The ascribed status is an identity into which each person is born. People have no control over those characteristics, whether their age, sex, phenotypical traits or even physical attributes—that is, whether they are born with a physical disability or not. Achieved statuses are those that people grow into, such as their social and economic statuses, which are variables that one could well inherit. Other ascribed statuses are characterized by the individual’s educational level, religious orientation, and ethnicity, the latter comprising factors such as nationality, geography, language, customs, and other cultural elements. In any case, both ascribed status and achieved status can lead to identitybased conflicts, which engulf the behaviors of individuals within organizations, and more broadly, communities. Those who are chosen to be part of The Picker’s teams, either because of their ascribed or achieved status, may exhibit a sense of confidence at being appreciated for who they are and for the skills they bring to the table. However, it is the third group of individuals that have the most difficult time adapting to this sometimes ritualistic selection process. The Unpicked may suffer from a sense of isolation and powerlessness as the ones constantly left out of the selection process. If left unchecked, such feelings of otherness may become embedded in the hearts and minds of these individuals, spiraling inward into feelings of anger and aggression or outwardly into acts of rebellion or withdrawal against society (Galtung and Jacobsen 2000; Galtung 2002). A range of emotions may sometimes overtly, more often subtly, manifest in the three categories of children and adults described in Larry Rice’s childhood recess scenario. Forty-eight professionals queried about this phenomenon were asked to write about their experiences in childhood recess and to discuss whether they felt that their experiences during childhood recess affected the way they work in groups or in teams within their organizations. Their stories reflect The Recess Effect categories and related characteristics that author Larry A. Rice has delineated in his model. For instance, Rice (2004) proposes that The Pickers tend to exhibit personality traits of self-confidence, extroversion, and risk-taking, and may often feel some degree of social awareness, assertiveness, and even a sense of entitlement in their ability to make selection. We propose that the phenomenon we call The Recess Effect may have far-reaching consequences, not only for children as they matriculate through primary and secondary schools, but later in their lives when they undertake post-secondary education and become professionals

Avoiding the Recess Effect

131

in the work place. Those consequences include conflict in work groups and, if left unchecked, an inability of teams to get their projects done effectively in the workplace, or more broadly, as citizens of their communities. In the following sections, we will discuss team building and group dynamics as we continue to explore the links between the Scholarship of Engagement, training, and research, exploring group work facilitated through community partnerships.

Teambuilding, Group Dynamics, Characteristics of Team Members We have thus far been speaking about the Scholarship of Engagement in terms of what Barker (2004) calls community partnerships. In various community organizing sessions wherein we were called to assist schools, non-profit organizations, or other community institutions in developing various programs, facilitations involving groups were commonly used. Thus, it is important to understand group dynamics and teambuilding strategies while exploring factors that might either contribute or detract from efforts at truly engaging community partners. Studies in group dynamics reveal that group members fall into particular personalities and modes of operation. Within any given group, when approaching certain tasks some group members will take the lead in organizing the groups. Others are characterized as social butterflies, who attach more importance to building relationships before they get to the meat of the work that they are assigned to do. Still others are seen as loafers, preferring to watch idly as other members of the group take on the bulk of the work. Napier and Gershenfeld (2004) propose that in any large group there will be a tendency for some people to become loafers; it is advisable to have work groups that number no more than 6 members. Beyond this threshold of 6 people, a group will invariably lose its ability to complete a task effectively. This model is used in the jury pool for a courtroom, where there is a maximum of 12 members of the jury so that, should they have to discuss issues in groups, they can easily break up into groups of 6. Each person within the work group brings with him/her certain ‘baggage’ that influence how they interact with others, their level of comfort with working in teams, and how they handle conflict within their teams (Napier and Gershenfeld 2004). Part of this personal baggage is related to The Recess Effect. For example, if a person is used to being a Picker in most instances where she or he has had to work in groups, then it is likely that this person will fall into the personality type identified as the

132

Chapter Six

group leader. At the other extreme, if a person is used to being marginalized in the group selection process (i.e. they are The Unpicked), it is likely that this person may demonstrate the characteristics of a loafer when it comes to individual work ethic. Alternatively, once groups are formed, a group trainer or team leader can diffuse acts of exclusion or discrimination by engaging group members in honest conversations about what has taken place. Often, public acknowledgment that some kind of discrimination has taken place provides affirmation for the individuals who feel victimized and can easily diffuse difficult group dynamics (Reichard, Siewers, and Rodenhauser 1992). Between those two extremes, among The Picked we may find a nuance of work habits, ranging from those who are worker bees to those who are social butterflies. These modes of operation sometimes cause friction between group members, as in cases where group leaders are so focused on completing a task that they neglect important aspects of relationship building, such as the inclusion of less-skilled group members who might need assistance and to be coached through certain tasks. On the other hand, the social butterfly might ruffle many feathers because of his/her insistence on socializing while others are more focused on completing given assignments. Napier and Gershenfeld (2004) suggest that after the socialization process has occurred and the socializers settle into a sense of ease with other group members, this allows them to start their work and complete assigned tasks. Of course, the work patterns of social loafers habitually anger the rest of the group members because they are perceived to not want to contribute much at all to the work group. Social loafers sometimes ignore communications among group members, fail to participate in meetings or to complete their assigned tasks in a timely fashion, and hence exacerbate tensions. Such conflicts are only compounded by the group selection process. Next we examine teambuilding. How many times have we walked into a university, a hospital, a center, a bank, or some other commercial enterprise in which customer service is emphasized by management, and we hear one of their representatives say: “A member of our Team will be right with you”? Nowadays, the term “Team” has many implications for both the service provider and the customer. It signals to service provider members the idea that they must work as a team to better serve customers, improve their effectiveness, or make a profit. On the other hand, it lets the customer know that the organization’s intent is to render “good” customer service through their attentiveness to detail and customer care. Although such may be the intent,

Avoiding the Recess Effect

133

this is not always the case in practice, however. Notwithstanding, teambuilding is but one of the tools used by institutions to improve organizational effectiveness (Kotter 1978). Organizations range from being non-profit to private entities, with each designation resulting in unique institutional goals, visions, cultures, and challenges. In the ensuing discussion, for our purposes the terms ‘institution’ and ‘organization’ are used interchangeably (Scott and Davis 2007). There are three stages to group development or teambuilding: inclusion, control and affection. Essentially, groups develop, consolidate, and mature (Reichard, Siewers, and Rodenhauser 1992, 19). Teambuilding is often seen as a “concerted response to keep team conflicts down and performance up. A team is created once a group of individuals begins to focus on a common vision, mission or goal and can direct their activities toward that purpose” (Jung 2005). They rally around an issue, a problem, or a task, which may require group members to engage in collaborative problem-solving to find solutions. Subsequently, the manner in which this is done may result in the growth of the group, its demise, or its restructuring (Bradford 1978). It is during the inclusion phase of group development that participants are preoccupied with joining the group and wonder whether they will be accepted by others within the group—thus the onset of The Recess Effect. Once the group is formed and members must work together, relationship building inevitably leads to positive and negative experiences; the latter sometimes result in serious conflicts. Jung asserts that “team conflict reduction and increasing performance are the focus of teambuilding” (Jung 2005). Given that nearly 20 percent of supervisors’ time spent in the workplace is used to address conflict and its impact (Thomas and Schmidt 1976), there is certainly a need for managers and team leaders to understand the dynamics of teambuilding. Conflict dynamics also suggest a need to leverage workplace performance by not avoiding but instead addressing the inevitable conflicts that occur when individuals are not strategically linked and rallied around common goals. Greenberg (2005) confirms the same and has made a distinction between the various types of conflicts which emerge in the workplace: substantive conflict, which is linked to employees having different viewpoints; affective conflict, involving personality and/or interpersonal struggles; and process conflict, which speaks directly to the intrinsic differences in tasks, workload, and capital management. Many organizations are faced with the challenges of how to effectively integrate teambuilding into their institutions and how to determine what

134

Chapter Six

kind of group work should be undertaken. Some teams consist of a subset of a department, while others consist of the entire department in an institution and still, as in the customer service example we cited earlier, the company itself sees itself as ‘the team.’ The organizational model, the adherence to certain beliefs and norms, and the design of evaluation and reward systems are three areas that contribute to unproductive teambuilding models (Roth 2002; Reichard, Siewers, and Rodenhauser 1992). Rideout and Richardson (1989) address the need to understand and appreciate differences among group members, and use the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to understand personality types in their teambuilding model. Some theorists suggest that it is necessary to infuse networking, social activities, ice-breakers, company parties, picnics, ropes courses, games, and service-learning into teambuilding programs. There are potential public relations and cost benefits associated with institutions putting the fun back into teambuilding (Gecker 2009). As noted earlier, the dynamics of The Recess Effect invariably play out within the team selection processes of organizations in our communities. To understand the role of cultural elements in teambuilding within organizations, a discussion of organizational culture is relevant as it impacts the context within which inter-group relationships are nurtured.

Understanding Organizational Structure, Conflicts, and Their Impact on Teambuilding There are a myriad of institutions in which team work is an invaluable resource. The example we used in The Recess Effect is that of a teambuilding exercise within a university classroom. However, the same scenario could have occurred in work teams within the university itself, in the selection of a taskforce within a government agency, in a business, or within the hallowed confines of a church or synagogue where groups of people are selected to get projects done. An organization’s goals are a motivating factor for the kind of business it wishes to do or the projects or programs it undertakes. The structure of the organization, including its leadership and decision-making processes, are based on its goals. According to Ott (1989), organizations are “complex systems of individuals and coalitions, each having its own interests, beliefs, values, preferences, perspectives, and perceptions” (165-166). He further proposes that conflict is unavoidable since coalitions fight with one another for limited organizational assets, such as funding, office space, access to those in power or to top clients, or for the time and training necessary to complete projects or programs. To some degree, teams or work groups can

Avoiding the Recess Effect

135

be seen as coalitions, and within coalitions, conflicts occur. Constantino and Merchant (1996) provide a simple definition of conflict within organizations: “[i]n the organizational context, conflict is an expression of dissatisfaction or disagreement with interaction, process, product or service” (4). They note further, “[t]his dissatisfaction can result from multiple factors: differing expectations, competing goals, conflicting interests, confusing communications, or unsatisfactory interpersonal relations” (4). Organizational goals also set parameters for what employees can and cannot do, or the kinds of actions that the organization as a single entity can or cannot take. Therefore, it is important for the organization to specify its goals—what it wants to accomplish as an institution. Otherwise, the organization might develop along ambiguous lines, with no branding, and this could spell trouble for the administration of programs, for the completion of projects, or for the bottom line in the case of businesses (Ott 1989). There are cases in which people organize around ambiguous or vague goals through social movements, such as human rights, environmental conservation issues, or animal protection. However, in order to truly effectuate change, organizations must be formed that tackle specific aspects of those issues, such as the AFLCIO or Green Peace or various animal protection agencies (Scott and Davis 2007). They focus on specifics in order to get others to work with them. In the process of achieving their goals, just as with individuals, organizations face conflict arising from competing goals amongst their employees. Consequently, sources of conflicts at the organizational level mirror those of interpersonal conflicts. It is therefore useful to elaborate upon our discussion about the levels of conflict within organizations. This is a broad discussion, of course, because conflicts differ from one institution to another. However, we propose that there are four broad levels of conflict, off the bat, that plague organizations and the operations of their teams: 1) conflict due to competition for scarce resources; 2) conflict due to power differentials; 3) conflict due to differences in ideology, philosophy, or values; and 4) conflict based upon issues of identity. Some may take a reductionist stance and declare that within organizational systems, everything is about economics (money). The former two levels of conflict over power and resources certainly relate to economics, while the latter two tend to lend themselves to issues of culture and cultural differences. Because conflicts in organizations parallel those at the individual level, organizations do

136

Chapter Six

experience conflict also, due to their people’s unmet needs and goals and a lack of communication. We propose that institutional dynamics affect group dynamics, and thus conflict management and resolution strategies. In Scott and Davis’s (2007) descriptions of the workings of such institutions there is a theme implicit, if not at times explicit, in their discussions; it is that of the manner in which people within these organizations communicate with and engage one another. The training and education utilized by conflict resolution practitioners to engage institutional stakeholders (e.g., employees, supervisors, clients, the community at large) should include a discussion about communication systems. For instance, an important part of the conversation about conflict management among employees in their work groups and in the company as a whole should include broaching the issues of communication, interaction, and relationship building. Scott and Davis (2007) frame the operation of institutions as on a continuum, from rational systems, to natural systems, to open systems, and to those that have overlapping systems. As an example, given the emphasis on ‘goal specificity’ and ‘formalization’ in rational systems, supervisors or managers tend to be less open to communication from employees that might challenge the way institutional goals are pursued (37). Such a disposition invariably impacts the organizational culture, which then impacts how employees form their teams and how they communicate within their teams to get their work done. With lines of communication only ‘ajar’ rather than open, conflict may occur due to simple misunderstandings. On the other hand, regarding natural systems, where organizational pursuits are driven by its employees, one is likely to see a ‘bottom-up’ style of communication within institutions. In such organizations, employee contributions are respected and there is a more democratic form of communication apparent in not only the management of tasks but also in employee communiqués. Scott and Davis (2007) propose that in natural systems, “[i]ndividuals are never merely ‘hired hands’ but bring along their heads and hearts: they enter the organization with individually shaped ideas, expectations, and agendas, and they bring with them distinctive values, interests, sentiments, and abilities” (63). In such systems, the lines of communication are not unidirectional but are rather multilayered. In open systems, “many heads are present to receive information, make decisions, direct action. Individuals and subgroups form and leave coalitions. Coordination and control become problematic” (106). Since interdependency within organizations and with surrounding communities is key, the communication of goals and values takes place

Avoiding the Recess Effect

137

‘within’ and ‘without’ the organization with members of the community, who are seen as stakeholders and integral parts of decision-making as well. With such dynamics at play, supervisors, managers, employees, trainers, or conflict resolution practitioners can better assess how to respond to group conflict through techniques suited to the pertinent institutional context. Within an educational setting, for instance, this principle can be adapted to work groups involving faculty and students in the classroom or staff in the office. Within a community-based organization such as a community center or a service agency, these concepts can be applied to work groups involving supervisors, employees, volunteers, and clients alike. This in turn assists in improving organizational effectiveness (Kotter 1978). As noted elsewhere, preventive strategies can certainly include engagement of stakeholders such as employees, managers, and community members through mentoring and coaching networks. Networks forming around mentoring relationships, inclusive community approaches, diversity training, and goals/value realignment can go a long way in curbing exclusionary practices within groups (Rice and Hunt 2004, Rice 2005). These networks are particularly important in developing community partnerships because they assist in building social capital (Gittell and Vidal 1998). In addressing the dynamics of relationship building, communication, and conflict within work teams, it is indeed essential to stress traditional alternative dispute resolution methods (e.g. mediation, negotiation, problem solving) in managing group conflict and interaction. However, such techniques can at times be responsive; equally important are proactive measures that can be implemented within the organizational structure itself to assist in preventing group conflict owing to exclusionary practices. The issues arising due to undoubtedly different ways of communicating within institutions related to organizational cultures, whether they function mostly as rational, natural, or open systems. Consequently, organizational culture impacts relationship building, and by extension, inclusion versus exclusion in team building processes. At this juncture, we can turn our attention to finding solutions to challenges in teambuilding given the aforementioned organizational culture concerns. In particular, we will examine the link between training approaches as we engage community organizations through the Scholarship of Engagement’s community partnerships and cultural considerations.

138

Chapter Six

A Model for Addressing The Recess Effect in Community Organizations It is our position that effective teambuilding in community partnerships involves strategically and deliberately engaging workgroups. There are core elements which must be embedded in a teambuilding model in order for it to be effective, and the model’s effectiveness in turn is measured based on equilibrium between increased performance and increased morale. Many teambuilding techniques are challenged, as often employees do not embrace traditional teambuilding exercises and find them to be mandated exercises which are at time boring but sometimes fun-driven; consequently, neither boredom nor fun can be forced. The core elements in an effective workplace-based teambuilding model would include a real and relevant institutional project. Goals of increasing inclusion, communication, transparency, and collaboration must also be embedded in the model. Joint facilitation using an external talent who specializes in developing individuals, creating safe environments, and building relationships to foster inclusion would be a prized asset. This external facilitator could facilitate the process in conjunction with a workplace liaison that partners with her/him. The facilitator should work in partnership with a manager or supervisor who is a content expert, whose role is to insert the competency of the task into the teambuilding model and to shift the work paradigm (if necessary) away from supervisors, managers, and leadership serving as participants in teambuilding practices. The facilitator’s involvement can lend instant credibility to the process (Constantino and Merchant 1996). An effective teambuilding model should also focus on a unitary process of engagement, wherein each individual goes through a process of self-awareness and self-assessment in order to develop alternative ways of contributing to a larger group while building on current skills. Individualized growth is essential and is often missed in teambuilding exercises. Napier and Gershenfeld (2004) state that feelings of anxiety can create self-doubt that ultimately mars the teambuilding process. Effective and responsive models for teambuilding should dismiss notions of group work as a burdensome exercise, but rather these models should focus on a process that begins with the individual, moves towards a shared vision/goal, and then to a stage where each group member participates. Lastly, there must be opportunity for reflection. As stated earlier, reflection is the most critical component to true teambuilding and by extension, to community partnerships. This provides an occasion for validation and true assessment of outcomes. That is, at the end of the day, where goals are accomplished (L.A. Rice and C.M. Rice 2008).

Avoiding the Recess Effect

139

Consequently, within the context of community organizing and training, to manage group dynamics and conflict we propose a psycho-social model for addressing patterns of exclusion resulting from The Recess Effect (TRE). In terms of the rationale for the training approach, the group/team is seen as an interdependent system and essentially operates as a small community. Thus the solutions for conflict management from a Recess Effect perspective must be two-fold. As noted earlier, training approaches that address TRE must address two dimensions of human operation, the attitudinal and behavioral responses to TRE. The psychological dimensions of the training address the attitudinal or inward responses and social/behavioral levels address action-oriented or outward responses (Bradford 1978; Kotter 1978; Reichard, et al. 1992); thus the psychosocial model. To counter The Recess Effect, in our own training with community partners the following are some steps we have implemented in our teambuilding training approaches: 1. Build awareness of patterns of exclusion due to TRE by outlining TRE—introducing the concepts of inclusion and exclusion. 2. Empower facilitators, trainers and team leaders to strategize creative ways of forming groups that decrease instances of TRE. 3. Empower participants to become roving mediators to assist in conflict management within their groups/teams. 4. Discuss steps toward effective conflict management in groups to avoid TRE. 5. Set ground rules for behavior to promote respectful communication practices within the group. 6. Encourage group members to employ coaching/mentoring for lessskilled members. Facilitators of research and group forums engaged in community partnerships must be willing to discuss instances of exclusion and set ground rules for avoiding them. Equally important are concerted efforts at fostering inclusion. It is always useful if participants are encouraged by facilitators to take ownership of the process of building their own inclusive communities, through their own strategies. They must also empower participants to serve as mediators when conflict arises among group members. The coaching and mentoring activities are behavioral activities that address structural holes discussed in social capital and network theories. Structural holes occur when people do not reap the benefits of interacting with others to gain valuable skills and resources (Gittell and Vidal 1998). Lederach (1995) and Augsburger’s (1992) ideas regarding

140

Chapter Six

the link of conflict resolution processes to cultural considerations apply equally here in the discussion of the work of community partnerships, if we choose to view social institutions/organizations as communities of people. Constantino and Merchant (2007) point out repeatedly that the stakeholders within organizations must take part in the development of the dispute resolution process. Additionally, facilitators may choose to select members for teams as well. While this solution might seem obvious, the onus for the facilitator should still be on monitoring the groups’ progress to ensure that they avoid patterns of exclusion. A simple example of this can be found once again on the school playground where teachers monitor children when they play. First, we are proposing that they actively monitor the children. Secondly, in an effort to prevent blatant patterns of exclusion among children, the teachers can ensure that children play fair, are inclusive of their classmates—even those that are perceived as shy or awkward. When there are instances of ‘meanness’ among the children, the teachers can address these through some form of mediation. Likewise, facilitators of community partnerships, following the training approaches based on TRE outlined above, can monitor work groups to ensure that patterns of exclusion do not persist. The authors’ experiences in addressing exclusion in teams and workgroups during community training and organizing efforts present a compelling case for studying patterns of exclusion in teambuilding, enroute to assisting community partners in working more collaboratively together. It is our premise that research devoted to understanding patterns of inclusion/exclusion is vital to addressing conflict within work groups, wherever they may be found in social institutions. Ultimately, in developing strategies for dealing with social problems, from a practical standpoint there seems to be agreement that people should be empowered to find ways to resolve conflicts within and without, locally or internationally, in such a way that the resolution of conflict is sustainable; hence the importance of community partnerships in the Scholarship of Engagement. This is where the fusion of research from academia together with community efforts and input plays a crucial role. The goal of various conflict resolution and peace building approaches is indeed to foster sustainability in any given resolution strategy. As such, in community partnerships, individuals (whether encouraged to do role-plays, to share their stories with one another, to engage in problem-solving workshops or community tables, or to engage in mediations or negotiations) must act understanding the dynamics of dealing with culturally different people and accepting the notion that cultural considerations play an indispensable role

Avoiding the Recess Effect

141

in the processes of conflict management, resolution, and/or transformation. With added considerations of conflict and culture in teambuilding processes, deeper patterns of cultural inclusion and exclusion are unearthed and offer us a micro analysis of the kind of discrimination that has taken place for generations in our societies. While much of the literature focuses on various behavioral factors that lead to teambuilding, such as the work group members’ personality types, leadership styles, and conflict styles, few authors address elements of conflicts based on diversity and the inclusive versus exclusionary dichotomy characterized by The Recess Effect. Regarding the Scholarship of Engagement, understanding the underlying issues facing people at the psycho-social level as they undertake Barker’s (2004) notion of community partnerships would further enrich our discipline in terms of scholarship, research, and practice.

References Augsburger, David W. 1992. Conflict Mediation Across Cultures. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press. Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace. Battistoni, Richard. 1995. “Service Learning: The Liberal Arts.” Liberal Education 81 (1): 30-35. Barker, Derek. 2004. “The Scholarship of Engagement: A Taxonomy of Five Emerging Practices.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 9 (2): 123-137. Beebe, Steven A., Timothy Mottet, and David K. Roach. 2004. Training and Development: Enhancing Communication and Leadership Skills. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Berne, Eric. 1961. Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy: A Systematic Individual and Social Psychiatry. New York: Grove Press. Berson, Judith. S. 1993. “A Marriage Made in Heaven: Community Colleges and Service Learning.” Community College Journal 64 (6): 14-17. Berger, Peter. L., and Thomas Luckman. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Anchor Books Doubleday. Blank, William. E., and Sandra Harwell. 1997. Promising Practices for Connecting High Schools to the Real World. ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 408191. Brandell, Mary Ellen, and Shelly Hinck. 1997. “Service Learning: Connecting Citizenship with Classroom.” NASSP Bulletin 81 (591): 49-56.

142

Chapter Six

Bradford, Leland P. 1978. Group Development. La Jolla, CA: University Associates. Bright, Shay Leslie. 2008. “Conflict Resolution.” In The Praeger Handbook of Human Resource Management, edited by Ann Gilley, Jerry W. Gilley, Scott A. Quatro, and Pamela Dixon. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Boyce, Lillian. 2007. “Poverty Alleviation and Citizens Empowerment.” Training and Policy Manual, edited by Claire Michèle Rice. Turks and Caicos: Ministry of Social Development. Cohen, Jeremy, and Dennis F. Kinsey. 1994. “’Doing Good’ and Scholarship: A Service Learning Study.” Journalism Educator 48 (4): 4-14. Constantino, Cathy A., and Christina Sickles Merchant. 1996. Designing Conflict Management Systems: A Guide to Creating Productive and Healthy Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. DePree, Max. 1989. Leadership is an Art. New York: Dell Publishing. Driscoll, Amy, and Lorilee Sandmann. 2001. “From Maverick to Mainstream: The Scholarship of Engagement.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 6 (2): 9-19. Gittell, Ross J., and Avis Vidal. 1998. Community Organizing: Building Social Capital as a Development Strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Galtung, Johan. 2002. Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means (The Transcend Method). http://www.transcend.org/pctrcluj2004/TRANSCEND_manual.pdf Galtung, Johan, and Carl G. Jacobsen. 2000. Searching for Peace: The Road to Transcend. London: Pluto Press. Homans, Mark. 2004. Promoting Community Change: Making It Happen in the Real World. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thompson Learning. Howard, Linda, Shanika Y. Taylor, and Claire Michèle Rice. 2006. Implementation and Evaluation of Strategies to Increase SelfEfficacy Perceptions and Academic Achievement in Teenaged Mothers Enrolled in an Alternative School. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Broward County School Board Research Services. http://www.broward.k12.fl.us/research_evaluation/RequestResults.html Jung, Rachel Anita. 2005. “Staff Teambuilding: From Theory to Technique.” Corrections Today 67 (7): 76-79. Kotter, John. 1978. Organizational Dynamics: Diagnosis and Intervention. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Lederach, John Paul. 1995. Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Avoiding the Recess Effect

143

Maynard, Douglas W. 1985. “On the Functions of Social Conflict Among Children.” American Sociological Review 50: 207-23. Napier, Rodney, and Matti Gershenfeld. 2004. Groups: Theory and Experience. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, Ott, Steven J. 1989. The Organizational Culture Perspective. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Reichard, Birge D., Christine M.F. Siewers, and Paul Rodenhauser. 1992. The Small Group Trainer’s Survival Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Rhoads, Robert A. 1997. Community Service and Higher Learning: Explorations of the Caring Self. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Rice, Claire Michèle. 2001. A Case Study of the Ellison Model’s Use of Mentoring as an Approach toward Inclusive Community Building. Dissertation published by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. UMI no. 3015938. —. 2005. “The Ellison’s Inclusive Community Building Model: A Functional System’s Approach.” FEF Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 1: 1. Rice, Claire Michèle, and Derryl G. Hunt. 2004. “The Ellison Unitary Model in Conflict Resolution Training.” Peace and Conflict Studies 11 (2): 35-54. Rice, Larry A., and Claire Michèle Rice. 2008. “The Role of Conflict Management Human Resource Development in the Hospitality Industry.” In Handbook of Hospitality and Tourism Human Resource Management, edited by D. V. Tesone. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier. Rice, Larry A. 2004. “The Recess Effect.” Training Manual. Plantation, FL: Rice Consulting Group. Rideout, Christina A., and Susan A. Richardson. 1989. “A Teambuilding Model: Appreciating Differences Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator with Developmental Theory.” Journal of Counseling Development 67 (9): 529-534. Roth, William. 2002. “Three Reasons Why Your Teambuilding Efforts Aren’t Producing.” Journal for Quality and Participation 25 (1): 3640. Senehi, Jesssica. 2002. “Constructive Storytelling: A Peace Process.” Peace and Conflict Studies 9: 41-63. Thomas, Kenneth W., and Warren H. Schmidt. 1967. “A Survey of Managerial Interests with Respect to Conflict.” Academy of Management Journal 19: 317-318.

144

Chapter Six

Thompson, William E., and Joseph V. Hickey. 2005. Society in Focus. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Woollams, Stanley, and Michael Brown. 1978. Transactional Analysis. Dexter, MI: Huron Valley Institute.

CHAPTER SEVEN SCHOLARSHIP OF ENGAGEMENT IN TRANSITIONAL CONTEXTS: AN AFRICAN FOCUS ISMAEL MUVINGI

There has been a significant surge of interest in the Scholarship of Engagement across US campuses as Weerts and Sandmann (2010) indicate, however this scholarship has been located primarily within the local national arena (703). Yet a Scholarship of Engagement is equally if not even more compelling in the global context. In defining community engagement as the “collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity,” the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching was intentionally including global communities in the spectrum of higher institutions’ larger communities (Carnegie 2006). However, the nature and shape of an international Scholarship of Engagement remains understudied and under-theorized, and the case for it has yet to be made. This chapter is an exploration of an international Scholarship of Engagement through the lens of transitional justice in post-conflict situations, with Africa as the area of focus. Conflicts are always situated within particular political, socio-economic and cultural contexts. Resolution and reconstruction therefore get equally embedded in the particularities of the conflict situations, even when there are external interventions. In the aftermath of violent conflict, societies perceive their needs and challenges through lenses shaped by their experiences. Perceptions of the problems, the possible solutions, and the processes of implementation can vary amongst different stakeholders and create roadblocks to transition, but the many perspectives also offer learning opportunities and possibilities for

146

Chapter Seven

collaborative problem solving. As many scholars have argued, a Scholarship of Engagement approach can maximize the benefits of multiple meanings and help yield outcomes that are relevant to the particular communities, as well as broaden the knowledge base of scholars, policymakers, and practitioners. (Guajardo, Perez, Davila, Ozuna, Saenz, and Casaperalta 2006: Cairns, Harris, and Young 2005). The chapter contextualizes and frames the problem of knowledge creation within the historical relationship between Africa and its external world. That serves to highlight the imperative for a Scholarship of Engagement model as reparative of an inherited and troubled relationship and constructive of mutual respect and learning. I focus specifically on post-conflict situations and the transitional justice initiatives that are often a contestation amongst several imperatives and knowledge bases. Two empirical case studies are offered: on the macro (national) level is the Rwandan gacaca system and on the micro (community) level are the Tree of Life initiatives in the ongoing conflicts in Zimbabwe. The analysis of gacaca is from a post-colonial perspective; I utilize boundary spanning theory as an analytical model with the scholar-researcher as illustrative of a spanning agent in the Tree of Life case. Both case analyses are grounded in pluralistic epistemology. The case presentation will be followed by a discussion of the possibilities and the challenges of a Scholarship of Engagement in distanced spaces. The conclusion is a case for more and deeper engagement between scholars, practitioners, and international communities in pursuit of mutual goals.

Scholarship of Engagement and Boundary Spanning The Scholarship of Engagement took root following Boyer’s call for educational institutions and communities to work in a two-way collaborative frame so as to develop knowledge in the context of relevant societal needs (Boyer 1996). The approach has grown to the point that the Carnegie Foundation (2010) has created a higher education institutional engagement classification. Engagement encompasses exchange, exploration, and application of knowledge that can address community-identified needs, deepen students’ civic and academic learning, enhance community well-being, and enrich the scholarship of the educational institution. It is in other words a bridging of academic scholarship and community needs. Boundary spanning theory offers an ideal analytical approach for understanding this relationship; it is therefore utilized here as a frame for possible scholarly engagement with African communities.

Scholarship of Engagement in Transitional Contexts: An African Focus 147

Boundary-spanning theory hypothesizes institutional and individual bridge making between an organization (higher education institution) and exchange partners aimed at information processing from the target environment, so as to provide representation to stakeholders outside of the organization (Aldrich and Herker 1976). Spanners operate at both the organizational and individual levels. Individual spanners interact with constituents outside the academy and engage with external agents to achieve mutual objectives. However, spanners also act as the bridges that represent the perceptions, expectations, and ideas of each side to the other. It is through the agency of spanners that mutual understanding is built. Faculty researchers and practitioners represent the spanners as they go into the field and engage with communities. There is also an organizational component to spanning that is embodied in institutional strategies, resources, mission statements, and other commitments that support engaged scholarship with external partners. It too is a critical element of spanning and engagement; however, here the focus is on the field experience. As bridge spanners, faculty and practitioners play a critical role which combines task accomplishment and relationship building. It is the researcher-activist faculty member that must decode messages between the two constituencies for effective communication, such that there is mutuality in defining goals and jointly creating knowledge. It is an exciting but difficult role that requires balancing loyalties: otherwise role conflicts can derail the mutuality of the desired joint enterprises. This delicate balancing is most apparent in post-conflict situations. In the field of transitional justice, the pressing needs that invariably follow the brutalities, exploitation, and deprivations of violence make it difficult for scholars to remain detached from the transition processes that post-war communities grapple with, yet one of the values of academic scholarship is the provision of objective analysis. Boundary spanning becomes therefore a complex and mixed set of activities rather than simple research or service. The illustrative case of Tree of Life in Zimbabwe shows how varied and complex the role of the spanner can be. Needless to say, a single case study cannot define the form of bridge spanning in all cases, but the case points to the possibilities and potential for engaged scholarship in distanced spaces such as Africa. Given Africa’s historical experiences with externally driven knowledge creation, Scholarship of Engagement will be illustrated as a critical reparative necessity as well as a beneficial basis for future engagement.

148

Chapter Seven

Knowledge Creation, Conflict and Engagement with Africa The need for a Scholarship of Engagement with Africa is rooted in history. The African experience with formal education has been defined by inequitable power relationships on several levels, an asymmetry that is the subject of a broader scholarship of post-colonialism. As Ntuli (2002) has argued, African knowledge systems were subjugated to European knowledge systems. As part of the larger colonial grand scheme, Europeans defined as part of their mission in Africa “to diffuse the benefits of Western science and education while actively attacking and eradicating African institutions they deemed retrograde” (Groff 1999, 489). The civilizing mission, with its twin strategies of religious conversion and education, buttressed by physical force, was based on incontestable presuppositions of the superiority of European ways of knowing. The introduction of a formal European-based education systematically eroded and excluded African knowledge and experiences. Europeans did battle against African knowledge, redefined African knowledge as ignorance that required elimination, and supplanted it with reproductions of Europeanness. That construct of European and later Western meanings as knowledge, to be transferred to an Africa devoid or lacking in knowledge, persisted beyond colonization. Traditionally, relations between European and North American higher education institutions and African higher education institutions even beyond the colonial era, have been characterized by a system of tutelage with many African universities as junior affiliates of the Western institutions. In research the relationship has been that of external scholar/researcher and African subject of study. Many European and North American scholars have made careers out of studying African societies, defining them from Western perspectives. Most studies come as entire systems of thought and disciplines of scholarship, and in this knowledge transference model, specialist expert knowledge trumps knowledge of the subjects, and in the process invalidates their knowledge as legitimate or fit for academic study (Fatnowna and Pickett 2002). Thus African communities have played host to and been the subject of study and source of data for Western knowledge creation, but rarely have they been participants in knowledge creation. In the process, African notions of the world have been lost or marginalized.

Scholarship of Engagement in Transitional Contexts: An African Focus 149

Said (1978) theorized that this type of relationship leads to the construction of the “other” that can be quite at variance with the other’s own self-perception. While not all Western scholarship of “others” would fall under Said’s critique of the creation of unconscious, static, unanimous, and untouchable certainty about the other, the Western study of the other has created misperceptions and at times overt conflict emanating from differing definitions of truth. Aware of this disjuncture, African universities have been examining their relationships with communities and calling for a Scholarship of Engagement, as a way of moving away from the top-down form of knowledge creation as well as in an effort to make knowledge more relevant to community needs (O’Brien 2009). There has however been little or no attention devoted to changing the relationship between the North American and European institutions of higher learning and African communities so as to foster an engaged scholarship. The problem is compounded by an ingrained research university culture that views communities as passive participants and not as co-creators of knowledge even in the local contexts, let alone the more distanced societies (Corrigan 2000). Yet the case for a Scholarship of Engagement is even more compelling in relationships with communities with different cultures and worldviews. There is as much need if not more, to explore frameworks for scholars’ engagement with distanced communities whose perceptions of reality may be at variance with Western world views. Besides the loss of knowledge, the unbalanced knowledge system denies African self-definition and inevitably perpetuates the insidious experience of what Ngugi wa Thiong’o (1986) has called colonization of the mind. The decolonization of knowledge will take more than greater numbers of African scholars in international universities or international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that actively engage with African communities. It will require the mutual exchange of knowledge between the academy, NGOs, and the African community, as Mekoa (2004) has posited (18). For African forms of knowledge to emerge, academics, practitioners and African societal actors must collaboratively seek, share, apply, and preserve knowledge (O’Brien 2009, 30). To the West-South dynamic must be added a further layer of complication in the African context. Significant ethnic and cultural diversity is a characteristic of African societies. In the transitional justice paradigm there can be disparities between official justice and traditional understandings and practices of justice. The encounters between universalistic retributive justice concepts and local understandings and

150

Chapter Seven

realities can lead to the trumping of local forms of justice, given the power disparities between the local and the international. However, African societies have demonstrated an ability to creatively call upon indigenous forms of conflict resolution and construct hybrid forms of justice when grappling with the challenges of post conflict transition. That provides an opportune space for a Scholarship of Engagement to capitalize on the hybridity and construct bridges in knowledge between the local and the international.

Transitional Justice The challenges that transitional justice (TJ) seeks to address are unfortunately the bane of post-conflict situations the world over, and TJ has claimed its place very firmly as a necessary component of postconflict transformations. In coining the field of transitional justice, Teitel (2008) defined it as the “self-conscious construction of a distinctive conception of justice associated with periods of radical political change following past oppressive rule” (1). From that inception in 1991, the field has grown exponentially, a reflection of the practical needs and the scholarly efforts to understand the emergence of societies from repression and violent conflict as well as the efforts to reconstruct. Now, redressing the legacies of repression and violence has become a more holistic effort incorporating trials of perpetrators, truth telling, restitution and reparations, recognition for victims, fostering civic trust, and promoting possibilities for peace, reconciliation, and democracy (Boraine 2006; Duthie 2011, 243) Additionally, as International Criminal Court chief prosecutor Ocampo (2007) noted, transitional justice is now applied even during ongoing conflicts (9). In instituting transitional justice processes, governments face both practical and conceptual challenges. They have to interpret and apply concepts and standards of justice in varied circumstances that test the appropriateness and validity of internationally predominant liberal concepts at the same time as they have to take cognizance of local understandings of justice, in addition to the many other equally compelling transitional imperatives. One of the lessons learnt from the fall of the former Soviet Union that has become a pre-eminent feature of transitional justice is that responses to violence are invariably and inevitably shaped by the particularities of each situation. Transitional initiatives have extended beyond institutionalized and formal judicial processes to include numerous informal processes and non-state actors. This is because of the

Scholarship of Engagement in Transitional Contexts: An African Focus 151

complexity of transitional imperatives. There is need to go beyond accountability for perpetrators and encompass building sustainable just peace, healing the wounds of war, and reconstructing the social fabric and its institutions. As Teitel (2008) noted, the result is anything but a harmonious and linear development but rather a clash of multiple values and processes (2). Through a Scholarship of Engagement, it is possible to peel away some of the many layers of complexity and different understandings and even conceptualizations that may not be reconciled. An engaged approach will at least foster mutual respect. The transitional justice moment mediates between a painful past and a hopefully peaceable future. It is a challenging period. Communities will be concerned with the toxicity of victims meeting perpetrators daily in the street or even living next door to them. Linked to that will be the potential for re-victimization and/or revenge. By necessity or by desire, societies have to engage in efforts to rebuild. It is a state of social flux in which conflict resolution can have a unique and collaborative role to play. In the fluidity of transition, societies, scholars and practitioners can find new ways of doing peace building as well as new ways of thinking about conflict resolution. Scholars try to respond to the needs of violence-affected communities by generating knowledge about the traumas, designing coping mechanisms, and mapping pathways into the future. The post-conflict context is almost invariably one in which the social infrastructure and most social services and institutions are in disarray, affected by displacement, physical injury, and structural damage. The temptation for external interveners to prescribe their own models is high but can be problematic, as it can marginalize local methodologies. Sensitive to the possible harm, practitioners in the transitional justice field are increasingly emphasizing the importance of paying attention to local perspectives (Baxter 2006). This comes from a recognition of conflict as inherent to social life, both within and between groups, and that every society has its own set of mechanisms for resolving conflicts. There are myriad local responses existing parallel with international processes of justice and reconstruction. While transitional justice scholarship and practice are taking a more contextualized approach, such an approach is making for contestation with strict legalistic and universalized approaches adopted by many in the human rights field. The Rwandan post-conflict situation is illustrative of

152

Chapter Seven

this contestation and shows the differences that can come out of adopting different approaches. Rwanda opted for a modified traditional form of justice, the gacaca. External interveners took differing approaches to gacaca: one a universalistic standards criticism and the other an engaged action research contextualized approach. The universalistic criticism triggered a counter-hegemonic challenge from the Supreme Court of Rwanda.

Gacaca The Rwandan genocide of 1994 placed that small country on the world map and transformed it into a global study case and experimental site for many post-conflict studies. The scale of the genocide left a deep and toxic pool of bitterness that made justice and reconciliation a dire necessity. It is a place where the knowledge and skills of the field of transitional justice have been severely challenged. Recovery and reconstruction have been particularly difficult because the protagonists were neighbors and the targeting and perpetration were identity-based with deep historical roots. The killers were members of the same population as the victims of the genocide. There was trauma of every imaginable form and at every social level. Over eight hundred thousand people were killed within the first few weeks of the genocide. Witnesses have testified to the genocide having been a systematic and well organized killing spree (Dallaire 2003). There was massive displacement with more than two million refugees fleeing into neighboring countries. The economy, already one of the poorest in the world, was devastated (Payne and Dagne 2002, 39). The post-genocide society had to deal with social polarization that had deep schisms, population-wide trauma, extreme poverty, human displacement, and infrastructures that had been severely disrupted. After the genocide, over one hundred and twenty thousand people were in jail awaiting trial. According to Schabas (2005) it would take more than eight years to bring all of them to trial (888). Others estimated that due to the enormity of the numbers, the poverty of the country, and the inadequacy of its judiciary, it would be closer to a century if all genocidaires were to be tried (Currin 1997; Parker 2002). The genocide had devastated Rwanda’s judiciary, leaving it with 244 judges, 12 prosecutors, and 137 support staff, numbers that were totally inadequate for the task (National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions 2006). The figures increased to 841 judges, 210 prosecutors, and 910 support staff after the intensive training sessions conducted in

Scholarship of Engagement in Transitional Contexts: An African Focus 153

1996, but even with these numbers, it would be decades before all the perpetrators could be tried through the criminal justice system. The United Nations Security Council set up an International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), based in Arusha, Tanzania. The tribunal started its first case in January 1997. While the jurisdiction of the tribunal is over all violations of international human rights that happened in Rwanda between January and December 1994, practically it could only target a few of the leaders of the genocide. By 2011, the tribunal had completed 69 cases altogether (ICTR 2011). Frustration with the Western justice model of retributive justice that was clearly failing to cope with the extensive demands of prosecuting the thousands of genocidaires led Rwanda to turn to a modern form of gacaca; a hybrid of the traditional Rwandan process and retributive justice. In Kinyarwanda, gacaca refers to the grass on which the community resolves issues. Traditionally Gacaca processes were structured for resolving issues in a restorative manner. They did not entail the punitive element of retributive justice. In common with many African forms of justice, gacaca was inclusive of community members in process with an objective of social harmony attained through a combination of affirmation and compensation for the wronged party and reintegration of the offender back into the community, all under the guidance of respected elders. What the government put into place following the genocide was a modified form of gacaca. The Rwandan government retained elements of the traditional practices with modifications to meet the exigencies of the genocide and the altered environment of relocation and urbanization. The jurisdiction of the new gacaca incorporated a retributive component. The gacaca were now constituted as tribunals of elected judges instead of elders. The judges were elected by the local communities and received training for administering the post-genocide law. The participation of the community was made mandatory and failure to participate was criminalized (Organic Law No. 16/2004). There was a multiple and collective mandate for the gacaca that included truth seeking, speeding of trials, eradicating impunity, reconciling and unifying the population, and demonstrating the feasibility and capacity of indigenous Rwandan justice forms. The recounting of personal stories was partially aimed at healing wounds through storytelling. Part of the objective was to make transitional justice a collective process.

154

Chapter Seven

The adoption of the reformulated gacaca triggered spirited condemnation from human rights NGOs predominantly from the North led by Amnesty International (AI) (Amnesty International 2002, 2004a; Meyerstein 2007). AI accused the Rwandan government of utilizing a reinvention of customary practices that was open to manipulation by powerful actors and that fell short of meeting international (i.e. Western) standards of due process (Amnesty International 2002; 2004a). The aspects that AI took issue with included lack of a fair trial, because of the exclusion of access to legal counsel for defendants as well as failure to operate on a presumption of innocence. Further, the impartiality and competence of the judges was seen as questionable. The criticisms were reinforced by a set of recommendations from AI that included international standard detention facilities for accused persons, provision of reasons for detention and legal representation, access to information, cross examination of witnesses, and a right of appeal (Meyerstein 2007, 480). The nature of the criticism raised a counter hegemonic response from the Rwandan judiciary, which argued that AI and others were seeking to impose Western style justice on Rwanda. The Rwandan Supreme Court challenged AI and others to suggest practicable alternatives that would be economically feasible and respectful of Rwandan conceptions of justice. I argue that a Scholarship of Engagement approach to understanding gacaca would have led to a more constructive engagement such as that attempted by another NGO, Penal Reform International (PRI). PRI adopted an action research approach (which Barker, 2004, also calls participatory research). From 2001 to 2009 several researchers from the NGO took residence in the areas that they were observing (PRI 2009, 9). PRI had its own critique of gacaca and it differed significantly from that of the AI. Rather than focusing on measuring up gacaca against international justice standards, PRI assessed gacaca on the basis of the visions that inspired it, from the local national perspective. Criteria used as indicators of success or failure included proximity of the sense of justice to the local population and the ideal of participation. PRI found that the gacaca system did a better job of giving a sense of justice to victims even compared to the ICTR that was located in Arusha, Tanzania. The assessment of participation was mixed. Participation was meant to bring participants in the genocide together as a start to reconciliation as well as to bring out the truth about the genocide, rather than to leave the victims to internalize the genocide and retreat into silence (PRI 2009, 17). PRI found that there were phenomena of silent participation and absenteeism that detracted from the attainment of the goals of the national project. PRI also

Scholarship of Engagement in Transitional Contexts: An African Focus 155

highlighted the uniqueness of gacaca’s mechanism of confession and community service that went further in addressing the needs of the communities that the South African confession and amnesty model (Karekezi, et al. 2004). The validity of confession as a process that relieves the perpetrator of the moral burden of what he or she did, and as a contributor to the establishment of truth, defined variously, is something that came out of a joint conceptualization of needs and objectives with the local constituencies, rather than as an external standard. It is here that a Scholarship of Engagement would be valuable, in that it could reveal different conceptions of truth and by so doing validate those truths that are not jurisprudentially defined by the West. While the testimonies and confessions obtained through gacaca do not conform with international legal standards, those confessions and testimonies contributed to collective memory, enabled survivors to know what happened to loved ones, and allowed for the society to bring out toxic resentments and hatreds into the open. On a more fundamental level, at issue in the differing perceptions of the Rwandan gacaca is the contestation between the universalizing project of human rights and the particularities of local worldviews. Lost in the pursuit of absolutist human rights dogma were the interests of those most impacted by the genocide. The criticism of AI was not based on local perceptions of justice; rather the standard used was international criminal justice as a superior or ideal form of justice. That became the basis of the challenge from the Rwandan Supreme Court. As Meyerstein (2007) has put it, “[t]he Gacaca have become emblematic of a larger global contestation over norms of justice and human rights and the continuing global experiment constituting the field of transitional justice” (469). A Scholarship of Engagement approach would require an engagement with local conceptualizations of justice and question the adequacy and fairness of processes in terms of locally defined justice goals. Questions such as whether social harmony, accountability, and healing are acceptable forms of justice and whether open participation of the community in hearings at which victims tell their story are listened to and everyone has a right to express an opinion, achieve those goals. As the Rwandan Supreme Court (2003) pointed out, local judges deciding on crimes committed in local communities did not need training in international law (6). From a bridging spanner position, one could compare community participation

156

Chapter Seven

and trial by jury in the Western system for example, instead of simplistically decrying the absence of a jury. The gacaca had their problems and they were many, but so do criminal proceedings anywhere. People harbored fears of retaliation if they spoke. The government focused on the genocidaires and not on the atrocities of the counter-genocide government militias. The demands of daily living such as the production of food and other necessities detracted from the demands of participation in the gacaca, as did trial fatigue and skepticism. The point is though, that without engaging with the process and the people on their own terms, the world could not learn of the other ways of meaning making, of different conceptions of justice, and of the different prioritizations communities might have that are not necessarily in keeping with the tenets of retributive justice. Gacaca also illustrates the adeptness of locals in adopting elements of retributive justice into an indigenous process. The Scholarship of Engagement, which intrinsically entails the interrogation of knowledge production and insists on collaborative construction of knowledge that is respectful and beneficial to the most immediately impacted stakeholders, would go even further in bringing to the surface joint understandings with local communities about what would work best for them. As PRI (2009, 34 and 39) discovered from interviewing victims and perpetrators, reconciliation, which is not a feature of retributive justice, was perceived by the society as pragmatic, realistic, and necessary, given the reality of social coexistence and the desire for social relationships. When local voices are ignored, transitional justice can easily exacerbate the increasingly vocal counter-hegemonic challenges that raise the specter of Western will to power as a new form of colonialism that silences and marginalizes the particularities of local meaning making. International legal absolutism would prescribe not just trial for all perpetrators, but trials that measure up to the standards of international justice, which in the case of human rights is an extension of Western definitions and legal standards. Taken to its logical conclusion, that would obliterate any local forms of justice. Aside from the neo-colonial problems of such an approach, retributive criminal justice has proven incapable of meting out justice to all perpetrators in mass violence. Only a very small percentage of perpetrators were brought to trial in post-war Germany, despite the availability of substantial resources. On a practical level, given the limitations of resources in the circumstances of Rwanda, calling for

Scholarship of Engagement in Transitional Contexts: An African Focus 157

international standards level trials for all the genocidaires appears unrealistic and disconnected from the situation on the ground. Over a decade later, advocates of international standards were not able to offer practicable alternatives to gacaca in response to the challenge posed by the Rwandan Supreme Court.

Tree of Life in Zimbabwe Scholarship of Engagement has great potential for fostering mutual creation of knowledge and practice in transitional efforts as well at community levels, even during ongoing conflict. That is a lesson learnt from the Tree of Life initiative in Zimbabwe. After gaining political independence from white minority rule in 1980, Zimbabwe prospered for two decades before going into meltdown due to a combination of inherited cultures of violence, economic mismanagement, and political repression. Increasingly, violence became the basis of governance as the state turned on its own people after losing popular support because of its multitude of failures. To ensure that it would retain political power in the second round of the 2008 elections, the ruling party Zimbabwe African National Union (Patriotic Front) (ZANU PF) unleashed unprecedented violence on the electorate (EISA 2008). Violence was aimed at either instilling such fear that opponents would not vote or that if they voted, they would not dare to vote for the opposition. Fear was refined as a weapon of politics; over 500 people were killed and tens of thousands were affected by the election violence. The modus operandi was simple enough: mobilize partisan local youth to commit violence and back them with police, army, and intelligence services. This strategy localized the source of violence and ensured the continuity of fear in local communities. The main targets of violence were the poorer communities (Amnesty International 2008). Somehow, in the midst of the repression and violence Zimbabweans engaged in a spirited public discourse on transitional justice (Muvingi 2011). In 2010, I went on a research project to investigate the motivations and nature of the public discourse on transitional justice when political transition was still so ambivalent. An interviewee from the NGO community challenged me to speak directly with the survivors of the violence, if I really wanted to learn about the experiences and the responses of victims. He and some colleagues offered to take me into Epworth, the epicenter of the 2008 election violence.

158

Chapter Seven

Epworth is a large sprawling semi-urban settlement. It started out with no planning and is located 12 miles out of the capital, Harare. Most of Epworth has no running water, no electricity and no planned streets. There are no street names or addresses. Estimates place its population figures conservatively at 123,000 and at the high end 300,000 (Muhomba 2008). The unemployment rate is extremely high and there is an over-abundance of idle, disaffected youth. Epworth’s high magnitude of deprivation, in terms of infrastructure, residents’ poverty levels, and its proximity to the capital Harare, rendered it extremely vulnerable to political manipulation (Chatiza and Mlalazi 2009, 16). At election time in 2008, politicians capitalized on the disorganization and disaffection to mobilize youth to beat up, rape, and pillage supporters of opposition political groups. Perpetrators were assured of impunity since the major instigator of violence was the governing political party. Victims’ houses were burnt, the occupants killed or maimed and raped without recourse to justice. Some of the rape victims were infected with HIV Aids. To add insult to injury, the victims were often arrested and accused of being the instigators of the violence. In desperation the victims started mutual support and healing groups. Some NGOs lent them support and they formed the Tree of Life initiative. The initial goal was to provide victim-to-victim support. In time the victims transitioned themselves into survivors whose goals shifted to engaging with the perpetrators who were their neighbors, in an effort to find answers to the causes of the violence. Victims also wanted to prevent a recurrence of the violence when elections came round again. It was these victims of government-sponsored violence with whom I engaged. Initially I attended planning sessions for victim and perpetrator mediation. The Epworth group was also trying to work out how they might respond to requests from other victimized communities that were requesting their assistance in setting up similar groups in their own areas. Upon hearing that I was a professor of conflict resolution on a research project, the Epworth survivors requested a full day workshop with me on conflict resolution. I was honored, humbled, and petrified. What resolution skills could I impart to survivors of rape and pillage who had confronted their victimization and were working on their community’s recovery and the prevention of violence? I took this to be for me more of a learning experience than a teaching workshop.

Scholarship of Engagement in Transitional Contexts: An African Focus 159

Half the day was spent fielding their questions: What research was I doing? How would that be of use to communities like theirs? What did conflict resolution have to offer by way of explanation of violence and especially its causes? How could communities like theirs guard against manipulation by politicians? What were the possible solutions to the poverty that made them so vulnerable to manipulation? The questions were thoughtful, challenging, and unending. Participants were keen to know what I thought of their healing and peace building initiatives. They wanted ideas on how they could counter the power of elites from disrupting community wellbeing in their particular context. Their strategies include targeting the disaffected and idle youth by organizing sporting events for them. Their logic is that as long as the youth have nothing to do, they will remain fodder for any politician willing to spend a few hundred dollars in materials rewards. The Tree of Life strategies can be framed as hybrid forms of local and external conflict resolution and peace building methodologies. The Epworth participants explained that they had borrowed from another initiative in an area called Chikukwa, that had avoided election violence by calling on traditional norms that prohibited the spilling of blood on the soil on pain of dire consequences from the ancestors. In light of the success of indigenous values, the Epworth survivors decided to base their initiative on local values and practices. They convened themselves along the lines of the dare, the traditional community gathering at which issues were hashed out. At the dare, everyone, even a passerby, had a right to have a say. Proceedings were presided over by the village head, who acted more as facilitator than judge. Epworth however, was no rural village with village heads, so they borrowed from the North American Aboriginal circle the use of the talking piece to facilitate discussion and level out power. They kept the traditional consensus decision making format and the ultimate objective of making things well in the community, rather than pursuing retributive justice. As they put it, their objective was to take Epworth back from outsiders and restore social order. I shared with them some of the principles of conflict resolution and some theories on the causes of violence. They had been puzzled in the most profound way as to why a human being would perpetrate on another the kind of violence they had experienced. Participants found some of the theories meaningful and helpful. I was in awe of their initiative to self-heal and to embark on prevention of violence. I proposed community-tocommunity support between them and my Canadian communities, one of

Chapter Seven

160

which (Rotary Club International) was endeavoring to support peace initiatives around the world. Upon my return to Canada, I co-wrote a grant funded by the Rotary Club of Winnipeg and the provincial government of Manitoba that is helping fund workshop sessions for an expanded Tree of Life initiative. Tree of Life has now expanded to other communities that were affected by the election violence. This to me represented the reciprocal and collaborative production of knowledge and relevance of research to the affected communities that Barker (2004, 126) advocated. .

As is evident from this experience, boundary-spanning roles are composite initiatives with multiple relationships between internal and external agents. The bridge building was not an individual effort on my part, but had been enabled by an institutional strategy to engage with external partners. My then university, Canadian Mennonite University (CMU), provided the institutional funding through a small grant that made possible the research project. It is part of CMU policy that faculty responsibilities incorporate teaching, research, and service to the community. The university encouraged and rewarded my local engagement in Rotary Club activities as well as in relationships with practitioners further afield. For its part, the Rotary Club values and benefits from the involvement and the contributions of professionals such as academic scholars. Rotary International desires engagement with communities that its members can have a direct relationship with. CMU counts the service to community in its assessment for tenure and promotion. Even though I had not initially engaged with the Tree of Life on the basis of a Scholarship of Engagement, my role was that of boundary spanner. By engaging with community members in dialogue I demystified research and theory and tried to relate theory to lived experience. This was made possible by institutional support that provided resources, encouragement, and academic reward. The outcomes were beneficial to all the stakeholders, the researcher/activist, the university, the local African community, and the Winnipeg community.

Challenges and Opportunities A Scholarship of Engagement is possible and beneficial; as already pointed out it is also necessary if scholarly engagement with Africa is to be more mutual. There are, however, a number of challenges to engagement: some general and others specific to Africa. Maurrasse’s (2001) list of critical elements in the development of building of bridges

Scholarship of Engagement in Transitional Contexts: An African Focus 161

between academic institutions and communities applies equally in the case of scholars to distanced community relationships, i.e., the historical relationships between universities and the target communities, power dynamics, funding, and the institutional culture of the home university. In addition, scholarly engagement with Africa requires taking into account the specific historical experiences between African communities and the West. Working with marginalized communities can be both exciting and challenging. The challenges can seem overwhelming. It is imperative therefore for universities to reflect and evaluate their relationships both individually and jointly with their partners, to acknowledge successes and to tackle the continuing challenges. As Bessaw, et al. (2011) concluded, “[c]ommunity development requires a major commitment of time, while community engagement takes patience and trust” (70). A major challenge for scholars is that definitions and criteria for research in general remain narrowly defined, with the traditional role of the scholar framed as an observer who then analyzes the behavior and experiences of research subjects (Corrigan 2000). Crediting the knowledge of local participants as the source of knowledge creation is not yet part of the general academic worldview. The spanning agent will have to grapple with discerning and working with community-originated epistemologies, making them understandable and acceptable to the academic community without distorting their meanings. At the same time, the boundary spanner has to navigate non-academic social networks. With distance, the problem is compounded because African communities will often have different perceptions of what is knowledge and how is it created. We live in a society that is drama saturated and media controlled. Funding tends to follow the most popular issue for the moment. Wars are dramatic; reconstruction is not. That makes for a huge challenge when it comes to Scholarship of Engagement funding. As discussed below, Scholarship of Engagement requires long term commitment because it can only be built on the basis of trust with communities. It is time consuming, because with distanced relationships the spanner/scholar/practitioner may have limited familiarity with the cultures, people, organizations, and systems with which the transitions will be taking place. Securing adequate funding for long term engagement with African communities can be challenging.

162

Chapter Seven

As Tushman (1977) points out, it is critical to establish effective lines of communication between internal and external agents. One way of bridging the divide and making access easier lies in partnering with local universities and faculty, NGOs, and community leaders. Scholarship of Engagement requires the facilitation of entry into the research locales. One way of addressing this is to network with local and international nongovernmental organizations, local university partners, and government agencies, in addition to the communities themselves. Instead of yearly short-term visits by students, for example, particular universities need to identify partners in specified locations and work with those partners on an ongoing basis. In transitional justice settings, the challenge of entry is even greater. As pointed out earlier, transitional justice seeks to address the needs of societies emerging from violent conflict and/or repression as had happened in Rwanda and Zimbabwe. Seeking to embark on research when people are just emerging from brutality and still suffering high levels of trauma can appear to be insensitive. Bombarding survivors who are trying to cope with life-loss traumas with research questions, surveys and other data collection efforts can cause significant resentment. Researchers will need to adopt data-gathering methodologies that local communities will not find objectionable or painful. Researchers also need to ensure that their research needs do not take precedence over the healing and reconstruction needs of the communities. Other challenges are common with local engagement initiatives. Students at the University of Idaho who sought to engage with a local community encountered numerous hurdles (Bessaw, et al. 2011). Although the students went into the community upon invitation by community leaders, they faced issues of lack of trust in part due to time constraints. They faced lack of enthusiasm and commitment from communities whose members had other pressing demands on their time. Community members are often faced with the demands of daily survival, as PRI found with regard to participation of the community in the gacaca process. Short forays into communities can also trigger resentment of the researcher/scholar, who can be viewed as a knowledge pimp seeking to enhance his career by utilizing locals who will gain nothing from the experience. In transitional justice contexts, engagement requires understanding of the nature of violence and its ending, the practicalities of what services are

Scholarship of Engagement in Transitional Contexts: An African Focus 163

needed, and the construction of better futures. There is need to study what mechanisms will give people a sense enough of justice, so that resentment will not trigger revenge and a return to violence. That can only be attained in collaboration with the affected communities. The identities and roles of institutions vary. Religion is often easily identified as engendering forgiveness in most cases because religion is structurally organized. Less studied are the effects of indigenous conceptualizations of social repair and reconstruction, and indigenous conceptions of justice and how justice is best attained. Even more interesting is hybridity, the intersection of indigenous concepts and Western universalistic models. In today’s world, before, during, and after war, no society is immune to external influence, thus bringing into play both local indigenous frames and foreign influences.

Conclusion Transitional justice pits local experience against international norms such as human rights. It is an uncomfortable encounter. International human rights groups’ claims of international law as neutral, impartial, and universal pitch battle with equally powerful claims of self-determination, self-consciousness, and evermore popular bottom-up prescriptions of peace building. As Meyerstein (2007) eloquently points out, gacaca lays bare the masking over of power within the claimed neutrality of international law, when local understandings and processes get judged by their deficiencies in measuring up to international prescriptions which may be alien to the local community (492). Handled in the power-over approach of institutions like AI, the rift between Northern activists and Southern clients can grow into a chasm. The imposition of external norms thwarts the emergence of a hybridity of forms which is exemplified by gacaca as revealed by the work of Penal Reform International (PRI 2005). PRI opted for an action research approach, engaging in extended field work and assessing gacaca as gacaca, rather than as a deficient version of international Western-style justice. Its findings were that the issues locals had with gacaca were not about lack of legal counsel, but rather about the insufficient training of judges in the Rwandan design of the process, the exclusion of Tutsi counter genocide crimes, and lack of resources. As the Supreme Court of Rwanda pointed out in its response to AI, the Rwandans accept international human rights but resist the hegemony of process. Rwandans insisted on communal reconstruction that is realistic in the socio-economic context of Rwanda and informed in part by Rwandan culture. A Scholarship of Engagement that recognizes the ability of

164

Chapter Seven

communities to engage in problem definition and construction of knowledge inherently would reject the totalizing effects of universalizing particular concepts (such as individualism) as sacrosanct, a tenet declared by Goodhart (2009) as essential to the survival of human rights (373). A Scholarship of Engagement approach helps us avoid the totalitarianism of universalizing doctrines, as well as it helps critique the utility of forms of justice that may be taken for granted. International criminal justice has many shortcomings, some of which can be cured by localization of form and process. Basing transitional justice on international tribunals that have no hope of holding accountable local perpetrators miserably fails the ordinary citizen, who has to live next door to the perpetrator who murdered a loved one. International justice systems are largely symbolic, targeting only top perpetrators (Stover and Weinstein 2004, 335) As peace building has demonstrated, many other processes are required. If those processes are to meet local needs, they need to be constructed in collaboration with local people. They require a Scholarship of Engagement to inform those efforts; not only do locations differ, the circumstances will always keep changing. Engagement will help counter the continuance of neo-colonialist relationship, which Mbembe (2001) has characterized as denying Africans’ creative agency by viewing African forms as deficient and abnormal, an approach that is bound to trigger counter hegemony rather than foster compliance (8). Several scholars have pointed out that the declaration by international legalists that relativism is dead and human rights have triumphed through the adoption of human rights treaties by states has not settled the issue, especially in the lived realities of people on the ground. Treaties are elitist policy making; as Klug (2002) and An Na’im (2001) have argued, human rights can only truly triumph when implemented through culturally sensitive empirical work that will construct local, hybridized solutions responsive to the needs of local actors. Scholars can also contribute by initiating engagement of communities in the North that are devoted to peace building with projects in the South, as happened with Tree of Life. They need not own the relationship. As Bratton (2011) has pointed out, most transitional justice scholarship has focused on macro-level initiatives driven by elites (357). A Scholarship of Engagement approach would contribute tremendously to the field of transitional justice by driving down to the micro level, collaborating with

Scholarship of Engagement in Transitional Contexts: An African Focus 165

local people in constructing the meanings of their experiences of violence, and understanding the mechanisms they build, in order to cope with legacies in the particularities of their circumstances. Arguments for the benefit of collaborative scholarship and practice have been well presented by a number of scholars. Research can be combined with service-learning (which has been the main focus of the Scholarship of Engagement to date), and expand academia’s access to indigenous knowledge systems. Engaged research that is discursive with local knowledge frames can contribute to the production of applied knowledge; because it is a joint product with communities, that knowledge would be relevant to community needs. Such an approach is empowering for communities because it brings them into the knowledge-making arena, and validating for scholars and practitioners because it more genuinely reflects a representation of the subjects’ world and places emphasis on mutually constructed social transformation.

References Aldrich, Howard, and Diane Herker. 1977. “Boundary Spanning Roles and Organizational Structure.” Academy of Management Review 2 (2): 217–230. Amnesty International. 2002. Rwanda—Gacaca: A Question of Justice. http://web.amnesty —. 2004a. Rwanda: The Enduring Legacy of the Genocide and War. http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engafr470082004 —. 2004b. Rwanda: Deeper into the Abyss—Waging War on Civil Society. http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/rwanda/document.do?id=80256 DD400782B8480256EC900405DD4 —. 2008. Post-election Violence Increases in Zimbabwe http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/post-electionviolence-increases-zimbabwe-20080418 An-Na’im, Abdullahi A. 2001. “The Legal Protection of Human Rights in Africa.” In Human Rights: Concepts, Contests, Contingencies, edited by Austin Sarat and Thomas Kearns. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Barker, Derek. 2004. “The Scholarship of Engagement: A Taxonomy of Five Emerging Practices.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 9 (2): 123-137.

166

Chapter Seven

Baxter, Victoria. 2006. “Challenges in Transitional Justice.” Anthropology News 47 (4): 7. Bessaw, Morgan, Genevieve Gerke, Melissa Britt Hamilton, and Liza Pulsipher. 2011. “Community Engagement: A Student Perspective.” Journal of Community Engagement Scholarship 4 (1): 70. Boraine, Alexander, L. 2006. “Transitional Justice: A Holistic Interpretation.” Journal of International Affairs 60 (1): 17-27. Boyer, Ernest L. 1996. “The Scholarship of Engagement.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 1 (1): 11–20. Bratton, Michael. 2011. “Violence, Partisanship and Transitional Justice in Zimbabwe.” Journal of Modern African Studies 49 (3): 353-380. Cairns, Ben, Margaret Harris, and Patricia Young. 2005. “Building the Capacity of the Voluntary Nonprofit Sector: Challenges of Theory and Practice.” International Journal of Public Administration 28 (9-10): 869-885. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 2010. Classification Descriptions. http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_e ngagement.php Chatiza, Kudzai, and Andrew Mlalazi. 2009. Human Settlement Needs Assessment in Zimbabwe: Critical Review and Proposed Methodology. Government of Zimbabwe and UN Habitat, Harare, Zimbabwe. www.mepip.gov.zw/index.php?option=com_docman...3 Corrigan, Dean. 2000. “The Changing Role of Schools and Higher Education Institutions with Respect to Community-Based Interagency Collaboration and Interprofessional Partnerships.” Peabody Journal of Education 75 (3): 176–95. Currin, Brian. 1997. “Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference Delegation to Rwanda.” Justice and Peace Annual Report 32. Dallaire, Romeo. 2003. Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda. Toronto: Random House. Duthie, Roger. 2011. “Transitional Justice and Displacement.” The International Journal of Transitional Justice 5: 241–261. Electoral Institute for the Sustainability of Democracy in Africa (EISA). Zimbabwe: Post-harmonized Election Violence in April 2008. http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/zim2008postd.htm Fatnowna, Scott, & Pickett, Harry. 2002. "Indigenous Contemporary Knowledge Development through Research." In Indigenous Knowledge and the Integration of Knowledge Systems, edited by C. A. Odora Hoppers, 209–236. Claremont: New Africa Books.

Scholarship of Engagement in Transitional Contexts: An African Focus 167

Goodhart, Michael. 2009. “Conclusion: The Future of Human Rights.” In Human Rights: Politics and Practice, edited by Michael Goodhart, 370-378. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Groff, David H. 1999. “A Mission to Civilize: The Republican Idea of Empire in France and West Africa, 1895-1930.” Journal of World History 10 (2): 488-491. Guajardo, Francisco, Delia Perez, Miguel A. Guajardo, Eric Davila, Juan Ozuna, Maribel Saenz, and Nadia Casaperalta, 2006. “Youth Voice and the Llano Grande Center.” International Journal of Leadership in Education 9 (4): 359-362. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. http://www.unictr.org/Cases/tabid/204/Default.aspx Karekezi, Urusaro, Alice Alphonse Nshimiyimana, and Beth Mutamba. 2004. “Localizing Justice: Gacaca Courts.” In My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity, edited by Eric Stover and Harvey Weinstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Klug, Heinz. 2002. “Hybrid(ity) Rules: Creating Local Law in a Globalized World.” In Global Prescriptions: The Production, Exportation, and Importation of a New Legal Orthodoxy, edited by Yves Dezalay and Bryant Garth. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Maurrasse, David J. 2001. Beyond the Campus: How Colleges and Universities Form Partnerships with their Communities. New York: Routledge. Mbembe, Achille. 2001. On the Postcolony. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Mekoa, Itumeleng S. 2004. "Embedded Knowledge versus Indigeneity." Ingede: Journal of African Scholarship 1(1). http://ingedej.ukzn.ac.za/viewissue.php?id=1 Meyerstein, Ariel. 2007. “Between Law and Culture: Rwanda’s Gacaca and Postcolonial Legality.” Law & Social Inquiry 32 (2): 467–508. Muhomba, Kizito. 2008. “Peri-urban Housing Management: Analysis of the Epworth Local Government Area Informal Settlements.” Dissertation, National University of Science and Technology, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. Muvingi, Ismael. 2011. “Transitional Justice and Political Pre-transition in Zimbabwe.” Conflict Trends 1: 3-9. National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions. 2006. Context or historical background of Gacaca Courts. http://www.inkiko-gacaca.gov.rw/En/Generaties.htm

168

Chapter Seven

Ntuli, Pitika P. 2002. "Indigenous Knowledge Systems and the African Renaissance." In Indigenous Knowledge and the Integration of Knowledge Systems, edited by C. A. Odora Hoppers, 53–66. Claremont: New Africa Books. O’Brien, Frances. 2009. “In Pursuit of African Scholarship: Unpacking Engagement.” Higher Education 58 (1): 29–39. Ocampo, Luis Moreno. 2007. “Transitional Justice in Ongoing Conflicts.” The International Journal of Transitional Justice 1: 8–9. Republic of Rwanda. 2004. Organic Law No.16/2004 of 19/6/2004, amended by Organic Law No. 10/2007 of March 1, 2007. “Establishing The Organisation, Competence and Functioning of Gacaca Courts Charged with Prosecuting and Trying the Perpetrators of the Crime of Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity, Committed Between October 1, 1990, and December 31, 1994.” Kigali, Rwanda. Packer, George. 2002. “Justice on a Hill: Genocide Trials in Rwanda.” Dissent 49 (2): 59. Payne, Donald M., and Theodore S. Dagne. 2002. “Rwanda: Seven Years after the Genocide.” Mediterranean Quarterly 13 (1): 38-43. Penal Reform International. 2009. “The Contribution of the Gacaca Jurisdictions to Resolving Cases arising from the Genocide: Contributions, Limitations and Expectations of the Post-Gacaca Phase.” Final Monitoring and Research Report on the Gacaca Process. London: PRI. Said, Edward Wadie. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon. Schabas, William A. 2005. “Genocide Trials and Gacaca Courts.” Journal of International Criminal Justice 3: 879-895. Stover, Eric, and Harvey M. Weinstein. 2004. “Conclusion: A Common Objective, a Universe of Alternatives.” In My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity, edited by Eric Stover and Harvey M. Weinstein, 323-342. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Supreme Court of Rwanda—Département des Jurisdictions Gacaca. 2003. “Mise au point au sujet du rapport et différentes correspondances d’Amnesty International.” [Developments on the Subject of the Report and Different Correspondences of Amnesty International.] Teitel, Ruti. 2008. “Editorial Note—Transitional Justice Globalized.” International Journal of Transitional Justice 2: 1–4. Thiong’o, Ngugi wa. 1986. Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. London: James Currey. Tushman, Michael L. 1977. “Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process.” Administrative Science Quarterly 22 (4): 587–605.

Scholarship of Engagement in Transitional Contexts: An African Focus 169

Weerts, David, J. 2010. “Community Engagement and BoundarySpanning Roles at Research Universities.” The Journal of Higher Education 81 (6): 702-727.

CHAPTER EIGHT GENOCIDE PREVENTION AND THE SCHOLARSHIP OF ENGAGEMENT JASON J. CAMPBELL

The 20th century was marred by unimaginable human rights violations and genocidal atrocities. The ceaseless slaughter of human lives was justified in the name of expansion, lebensraum, or conquest. It was justified by notions of physiological normalcy and biological supremacy. Consequently then, it was ultimately justified by the antiquated notion that “might makes right.” Political power was and still is used to target, convert, and eventually exterminate those the state deems as potentially threatening the supremacy of political power. The recursive nature of political abuses, as manifested in acts of genocide, require an equally vigilant and dedicated oppositional force, motivated by a recognition of human dignity and the preservation, rather than the willful destruction, of human life. This opposition must engage the community of countless moderates with the sole purpose of spreading genocide awareness. Through a Scholarship of Engagement and the systematic process of spreading genocide awareness, populations of moderates will be better informed. Their decisions will be fortified by alternative methods of interpretation. Where potential genocidal orchestrators would seek to dehumanize members of a targeted population, those embracing a Scholarship of Engagement must engage moderates to recognize the legitimacy and humanity of targeted group members. For these reasons, 21st century genocide scholarship must embrace a Scholarship of Engagement that is firmly grounded in genocide awareness and the ultimate preservation of human dignity and human life. As a convergence between theoretical contemplations on genocide prevention and international attempts to intervene on behalf of targeted group members, genocide awareness and prevention facilitates bridging

Genocide Prevention and the Scholarship of Engagement

171

the conceptual gulf between theory and action. Any discussion of a Scholarship of Engagement must bridge this gulf. With respect to genocide awareness and prevention, this gulf is further complicated by the inherent dangers and risks associated with genocide intervention. Recognizing the overwhelming difficulties in bridging such a gulf, attention must be paid to preemptive conceptual methods, which may be used to prevent an act of genocide. Thus, emphasis will be placed on prevention rather than intervention. Genocide prevention then, offers genocide scholars and peace activists the perfect opportunity to effectively engage the populations of both potential perpetrators and victims. For genocide scholars, a Scholarship of Engagement would actively incorporate various de-escalation strategies to mitigate conflict between perpetrators and potential targeted group members. Though the implementation of these de-escalation strategies would surely vary, the conceptual goal for such implementation would seek to: (1) regain or instill a recognition of the value of human life; (2) debunk depersonalization strategies used to justify the potential extermination of target group members; (3) facilitate the discursive space wherein grievances can be espoused; (4) educate the population of the likelihood for generational violence between groups, and thus the ongoing inevitability of generational conflict; and finally, (5) identify empathic modes of recognizing the plight and suffering of those targeted for extermination. In terms of genocide awareness and prevention, a Scholarship of Engagement can only unfold within the active process of understanding the nature of the conflict, which requires that preventionists and peacekeepers understand the conceptual justifications used by perpetrators to legitimize an act of genocide. This is not, however, to suggest that theorists give credence to such systems of justification. Rather, one must recognize that an effective Scholarship of Engagement requires theoreticians to understand the modes of "justification" used to legitimize the extermination of targeted group members, because insofar as theorists understand such processes, they are better equipped to debunk the fallacies and generalizations inherent in the system of justification. Understanding that such systems will invariably differ for distinct perpetrator groups in turn charges theorists with the responsibility of identifying the logical foundations for any conceptual argument used to legitimize the mass extermination of human life. A requisite aspect of genocide prevention then, is a theoretical understanding of the systems of justification used to dehumanize targeted group members. Understanding the mechanics of

172

Chapter Eight

such systems enable genocide scholars to skillfully discredit the coherence of the system itself. Without accessing and understanding the conceptual justification for the mass extermination of human life, no Scholarship of Engagement can properly be said to incorporate effective preventionist strategies. A system of dehumanization serves at least two important functions. First, it provides genocidal orchestrators with the necessary conceptual rationale needed to justify the wholesale slaughter of human life. The systematic process of dehumanization facilitates genocidal ends because the failure of genocidal perpetrators to see the humanity of their intended victims facilitates the ease of their extermination. Thus, the system of dehumanization, i.e., the socially constructed mechanisms implemented to legitimize the inhumanity of targeted group members, functions as a means of self-referentially justifying the process of dehumanization. Second, a system of dehumanization reinforces the perceived supremacy of the protected population at the expense of dehumanizing those targeted for extermination. The systematic dehumanization of targeted group members then, facilitates the process of genocide, by both justifying the system itself and constructing a perceived hierarchy of the supremacy of those protected by state authorities, while simultaneously seeking to legitimize the inferiority of those outside the protection of the state. Preventionists undermine those arguments that seek to defend systems of dehumanization by successfully recognizing the logical structures and justifications used to construct these various systems. Recognizing that the intent of genocide culminates in the systematic destruction of human life, preventionists can utilize a Scholarship of Engagement to spread awareness and intervene on behalf of those targeted for extermination, all of which can be achieved prior to an escalation into genocidal conflict. An inherent facet of genocide is the intent to destroy members of a targeted population. In terms of a systematic approach to a Scholarship of Engagement, the manifestation of genocide prevention must rest on the notion that any attempt to destroy a targeted group is itself contingent on the system of justification used to legitimize perpetrator intent. As part of a Scholarship of Engagement, preventionists must first recognize the potential for escalating the conflict, once perpetrators are seeking to legitimize the dehumanization of targeted group members. This is most effectively done by analyzing the discursive modes for describing targeted group members as the Other. Recognizing that the description of potential victims is situated within a hegemonic narrative of their collective sub-

Genocide Prevention and the Scholarship of Engagement

173

humanity, preventionists and peacekeepers can quickly mobilize their efforts to dismantle the inherent inconsistencies within the system of justification used to legitimize dehumanization. Thus, in terms of engagement, preventionists should be finely attuned to the narrative descriptions of the Other. This attunement can only unfold within the specific cultural context of a respective perpetrator group. Scholars must engage the population of potential targeted group members to identify the social narratives that describe the population. For example, these narratives may manifest in a variety of forms, albeit with the specific intent of subtly dehumanizing and generalizing across the population of targeted group members. Narratives and simple storytelling are arguably the most powerful forces for dehumanizing the Other. Complicated by state endorsement, a politics of discrimination unfolds as the process of dehumanization becomes institutionalized. The state then, becomes the apparatus with which moderates, i.e., those protected from extermination, are indoctrinated into a belief system, which essentially controls their perception of the Other. The perception of Others as potential victims of state-orchestrated genocide rests in the manner in which narratives desensitize the population of moderates to the plight of those outside the scope of state protection, while simultaneously absolving them from the moral obligation to care for their plight. An effective Scholarship of Engagement grounded in genocide awareness would require preventionists to identify those narratives that seek to desensitize those protected by state authority and legitimize an apathetic worldview. Conceptually then, an initial approach to implementing such a Scholarship of Engagement may manifest in terms of the systematic attempt to identify social narratives that facilitate the dehumanization of a specific segment of the population. Recognizing that these narratives serve as oil for a slippery slope, one that leads to the inevitable justification for the extermination of human life, preventionists can begin the arduous process of discrediting these narratives. Thus, and quite obviously, discrediting the conceptual justification for such narratives proceeds from identifying the occurrence of such narratives within the population. Since narratives of dehumanization are used to justify an act of genocide, preventionists cannot afford to overlook any occurrence of dehumanization that occurs throughout the society. More profoundly, an effective Scholarship of Engagement must recognize the overwhelming grandeur of the process of transforming one's system of socialization, especially in those circumstances where one is

174

Chapter Eight

socialized into a genocidal culture. Transforming the system of socialization is indeed no small task. Even more daunting than the mere identification of those discursive methods used to legitimize the dehumanization of targeted group members is the difficulty of restructuring the very system of one's socialization. Indeed, the process of socialization unfolds as an act of acculturating an individual into a respective society. Through the process of an individual's socialization, one is introduced to the social norms that will ultimately govern and seek to regulate the conduct of individuals within that society. If, however, individuals are acculturated within a genocidal society, the process of their socialization will undeniably include social indoctrination and acceptance of the dehumanization of targeted group members, which is compounded by the institutional and political drive to exterminate segments of their own society. Thus those narratives that seek to dehumanize and demoralize the Other serve as potential genocidal indicators. Preventionists, attuned to the discursive elements used to dehumanize the Other, are better equipped to de-escalate the potential conflict by identifying those narratives that exacerbate existing grievances throughout the population. A Scholarship of Engagement then, requires that genocide preventionists seek out those narratives that have strategically been constructed for the purpose of dehumanizing segments of the population. The preventionist effectively "engages" the population of perpetrators and potential victims by identifying the occurrence of those narratives. This may seem like a daunting task. Fortunately, however, there is a rich tradition of heterodoxy and heterodox counter-narrative discourse, which is always situated in antithesis to hegemonic and orthodox discourse. Heterodox discourse can simply be understood as the narrative of marginalized populations. It is a story of their marginalization, collectively and individually. The discourse of members from targeted populations can only be situated in terms of their resounding efforts to continually reaffirm the humanity of their people and the individual importance of their existence. A Scholarship of Engagement requires scholars to access these narratives. In accessing these narratives, the scholar engages the population. Engagement is facilitated by the accessibility the scholar has to the narratives from marginalized populations. The more accessibility an individual scholar has to these narratives, the more effectively engaged the scholar will be in compiling a heterodox counter-narrative. The less accessibility an individual scholar has to these narratives, the less effectively engaged the scholar will be in compiling these narratives. There is then a theoretical correlation between accessibility and engagement.

Genocide Prevention and the Scholarship of Engagement

175

As one's accessibility to these narratives increases so too does one's engagement. Conversely, as one's accessibility to these narratives decreases so too does one's ability to engage. Engagement then, is access. The compilation of these narratives in all their multifaceted articulations posits an antithetical, i.e., heterodox discourse. To support discursive attempts to legitimize the humanity of those targeted for extermination is the primary responsibility of a scholar's engagement. A genocide preventionist engages the population of potential victims by accessing their collective stories. As noted, the more access the scholar has to the stories of marginalized individuals, those individuals dehumanized by institutional and societal forces, the more the process of engagement grants the scholar further access. One can certainly conceptualize access as itself contingent on effective engagement. The more effectively engaged the scholar is the more likely members of marginalized populations will be to grant such a scholar further access to their narratives. Since the compilation of these narratives is strategically situated in the defense of their humanity, and since genocidal states seek to dehumanize members of this population through endorsed narratives of their collective dehumanization, genocide preventionists who seek to compile heterodox narratives through a process of engagement position themselves against the state. Thus, a growing heterodox discourse is in fact a precondition for the logical systems used to discredit orthodox discursive attempts at dehumanization. Without compiling heterodox narratives, those socialized in subsequent generations will not have conceptual access to counternarratives and counterexamples to offset those that seek to legitimize the dehumanization of potential targeted group members. The process, however, of compiling these narratives positions preventionists in a very precarious situation. To intervene on behalf of those slated for extermination and to espouse the humanity of individuals within this target population is to willfully endorse narratives that undermine institutional attempts at dehumanization. For a genocide scholar then, constructing a Scholarship of Engagement runs the risk of positioning the scholar as an enemy of the state, the dangers of which are very real. Qualitative analysis is an effective method for engaging members of a population targeted for extermination. Unfortunately, this process presents a threat to those political institutions that have adopted a genocidal stance, because qualitative analysis is grounded in accessibility to marginalized populations and their collective stories of dehumanization.

176

Chapter Eight

Qualitative analysis and the various methods of data collection associated with such an approach, be they phenomenological, narrative, participatory action or ethnographic—to name a few—constitute the very method in which "engagement" is operationalized. The notion of engagement, in terms of genocide prevention, is specifically operationalized by implementing qualitative research methods as a means of accessing the personal stories of marginalized populations. For the purpose of constructing an alternative heterodox discourse to the prevailing hegemonic narrative of their dehumanization, qualitative analysis serves as the means wherein this counter-narrative is established. An analytic approach to a Scholarship of Engagement requires researchers to recognize the efficacious disparities between orthodox and heterodox discourses. As the prevailing discourse, orthodox narratives that seek to dehumanize members of a targeted population have substantially more influence in socializing moderates and potential genocidal perpetrators, thereby fostering an environment of intolerance and systematic exploitation. Thus, scholars seeking to compile counter-narratives "engage" those of a targeted population by recording the narratives of their marginalization. The data collected from these qualitative analyses serve to undermine the orthodox narratives of their collective dehumanization. Since the process of genocide is itself contingent on legitimizing the orthodox narratives, the compilation of heterodox discourses serves as an initial attempt to thwart the occurrence of genocide. Genocide prevention is inextricably bound to genocidal awareness. Through the compilation of these heterodox narratives by means of qualitative analysis, a scholar engages members of a marginalized population and makes those outside this targeted population aware of their plight. In so doing, the awareness of their struggle to gain recognition facilitates preventionist efforts to de-escalate the potential for genocidal conflict. There can be no prevention then, without awareness. For genocidal orchestrators determined to exterminate targeted segments of their population, suppressing the process of awareness serves to facilitate the process of genocide. Genocide is potentially expedited by the lack of awareness, specifically an awareness of institutional attempts at the dehumanization of targeted members within their society. Thus, with respect to genocide prevention, a Scholarship of Engagement challenges both those social norms used to legitimize the dehumanization of targeted group members and institutional attempts to suppress the awareness of institutional abuse. With respect to genocide prevention, the manner in which scholars approach engagement is itself contingent upon the

Genocide Prevention and the Scholarship of Engagement

177

realization that orthodox narratives supporting the dehumanization of targeted group members are undermined by an equally strong counternarrative defending the humanity of those targeted for extermination. The process of compiling these narratives is an act of engagement. With respect to genocide prevention then, the notion of engagement can initially be articulated in terms of an ability to access heterodox narratives. More profoundly, however, one can understand a Scholarship of Engagement in terms of the themes that will surface while collecting the narratives of those targeted for extermination. These narratives will themselves be analyzed by the researcher, thereby requiring scholars to conduct meta-narrative assessments of their initial findings. The initial findings, as primary sources of data, serve as reservoirs for phenomenological descriptions. The descriptions of struggle and oppression, of marginalization and dehumanization, are antithetical to traditional orthodoxy. Thus, the scholar "engages" members of the targeted population for access to these heterodox narratives. A Grounded Theory approach, for example, would facilitate a system of codifying themes within the original qualitative data, while providing theorists with the ability to aid in the construction of heterodox narratives. Thus, "engagement" culminates in the compilation of these original sources of data and "scholarship" culminates in the metanarrative assessments used to discredit orthodox narratives of collective group inhumanity. For genocide theorists then, a Scholarship of Engagement unfolds in terms of the qualitative methods used to collect and analyze the lived experiences of targeted group members. A recurrence of themes throughout the compiled narratives may uncover the operational structure of their dehumanization, which allows scholars to identify the mechanisms of dehumanization. Once these mechanisms have been identified, scholars are then able to systematically attack the logical weaknesses and contradictions that inhere within the supposition that targeted group members are somehow inhuman. The process of strategically defending heterodoxy and attacking orthodoxy requires a Scholarship of Engagement that begins with and is rooted in the voices of those targeted for extermination. This process of engaging marginalized populations and incorporating their narratives of marginalization reflects the manner in which scholars engage targeted group members. With respect to their scholarship, having successfully acquired the narratives of those targeted for extermination, scholars are then able to incorporate thematic analysis. The identification of themes throughout the compiled narratives can be used to construct heterodox

178

Chapter Eight

discourse to the prevailing orthodoxy. The explicit duality in a Scholarship of Engagement equips scholars with the conceptual template to effectively challenge hegemony. First, one engages marginalized populations by implementing qualitative tools of assessment. Then one constructs scholarship defending targeted group members by producing metanarrative descriptors that speak to the resilience and humanity of the marginalized populations. This process then, facilitates both scholarship and engagement.

CHAPTER NINE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM AND THE EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION DUSTIN D. BERNA

Islamic fundamentalism is a frightening phenomenon, and the events of September 11, all too frequent suicide terrorist attacks, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cemented the fears Americans have toward the Muslim world. I see this fear manifest itself every day in my classes and my interactions with the general public and it is apparent that too many Americans do not understand the Islamic world. Further perpetuating this fear are the stories concerning Muslims that dominate the media such as honor killings, stoning of women, hanging of gays, statements concerning the total elimination of Israel, or the brutal killing of Americans. These fears have been further manipulated by the media and our politicians for their own benefit to ensure increased ratings or reelection. Interestingly, the Scholarship of Engagement facilitates a more informed, active, and arguably a more tolerant society and nowhere is this needed more than in Islamic awareness. One of the main objectives of Scholarship of Engagement is the inclusion of the community in the education process; however, before this process can begin I must do what I do in my classroom, and that is to deconstruct preexisting information, stereotypes, and the biases we have concerning the Islamic world. If academics who specialize in Islam, terrorism, Middle Eastern politics, political science, international relations, Islamic feminism, or conflict resolution did more of this then we would see a significant increase in Islamic awareness. Learning about Islam through the lens of Scholarship of Engagement is essential; yet it is a difficult process because of a lack of accurate information, the fear, and the intolerance that plagues American society. The Islamic world should not be feared; nevertheless it is human nature to fear the unknown and the Islamic world is unknown to most Americans. Islamic fundamentalism is the most controversial aspect of Islamic society and sadly it is the one aspect that the Americans are most familiar with.

180

Chapter Nine

With that being said, the goal of this chapter is to facilitate a dialogue between academia and the public on the issue of Islamic fundamentalism. It all comes down to the fact that not all Islamic fundamentalist movements should be feared, specifically, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Islamic fundamentalism is only a microcosm of Islamic society; however, this Scholarship of Engagement conversation is only a start and hopefully it will inspire engagement between our American community and the Islamic world. What is lacking in the mindset of many America politicians, the media, and the general public is a basic understanding of Islamic fundamentalism; specifically, the causes, types, and ideological differences between the many different Islamic fundamentalist movements. We understand that Islamic fundamentalists are religious extremists and depending on how the term is defined, this is true. We think all Islamic fundamentalists hate us because of our freedom and democracy and they want a total obliteration of the United States. This is not the case for the majority of Islamic fundamentalists, and with the exception of Al-Qaida, these notions have no basis in fact. Furthermore, one of the most common stereotypes I hear from my students is that the Islamic world subjugates women and strips them of their socioeconomic and sociopolitical rights. Again, this is not the case for the majority of Islamic fundamentalists, and with the exception of the Taliban, these notions have no basis in fact. Through utilizing the techniques associated with Scholarship of Engagement, I hope to rectify this by taking a complicated and misunderstood phenomena, Islamic fundamentalism, and stripping the academic jargon from it so the American community can understand it, and in turn, not fear it and when needed, defeat it. Arguably, in doing this I will be bridging academic scholarship with the community need of Islamic awareness. It is important for the American public to understand why Islamic fundamentalist movements are formed, why many have electoral success, and why many of them hate us, and why some commit acts of terrorism. We must defeat those that wish to do us harm and in order to do this, it is essential we understand them and one way this will happen is to utilize the principles of Scholarship of Engagement. Not all Islamic fundamentalist movements are the same. This became perfectly clear as Egypt erupted into a revolution that led to the liberation and awakening of 80 million people from a thirty year-long repressive dictatorship. Tens of millions of other Muslims are demanding freedom throughout the region after being inspired by the success of Egypt. Many

Islamic Fundamentalism and the Egyptian Revolution

181

American politicians and media personnel are hypothesizing that a liberated Egypt would transcend into a theocratic state where the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood would be in control. After the last round of Egyptian elections, Islamic-based political parties have won the majority in the parliament and this has further made American politicians and media personnel cringe. They then started comparing the Egyptian Revolution to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. These incorrect assumptions have facilitated fear in the general public that a liberated Egypt will be a militarized, antiAmerican fundamentalist state. It is highly unlikely that Egypt will become a theocracy like Iran. The reason the Iranian Revolution evolved into theocracy was as a direct result of foreign manipulation that culminated in the eight year Iran-Iraq war. After the Iranian Revolution, the United States and all regional autocracies were concerned that a democratic Iran would facilitate people-led movements in each of their respective states and the autocratic leadership would then be removed from power. The United States, in coordination with other regional powers, encouraged, financed, and supported an Iraqi invasion into Iran. This resulted in the diverse Iranian population unifying around its flag and in turn the Ayatollah Khomeini, who as a result of the war was able to consolidate and institutionalize his power and his version of Islamic extremism. When it comes to Islamic studies, Islamic politics, or Islamic religious studies, academics are talking a different language than the politicians and the talking-heads on television news round-table discussions as personified by the fears resulting from the Egyptian Revolution. When you are dealing with an issue as misunderstood as Islam it is imperative that academics drop the intellectual jargon and communicate like regular people – just as our manipulative politicians and media personal do. Currently, Islamic fundamentalism is the most pressing social issue facing the American community and it is essential we understand it. The goal of this chapter is to alleviate fear and facilitate awareness of Islamic fundamentalism, specifically the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, by utilizing the central assumption associated with Scholarship of Engagement: the inclusion of the community in the educational process. To do this, academic knowledge needs to be universalized, specifically, the taking of that knowledge and spreading it throughout the community so that in time, that knowledge becomes part of the national psyche. If this is done with Islamic fundamentalism, we will see an increase in tolerance for the general Islamic population and a unified front to defeat those that are against us in a logical and rational way.

182

Chapter Nine

To meet these objectives, I deconstruct what is currently known about Islamic fundamentalism and I reconstruct it with a theoretical model that shows all Islamic fundamentalist movements are not the same. I will show that the Egyptian Revolution should be celebrated. In so doing, I build a model that helps explain what is facilitating successful Islamic fundamentalist movements like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Second, I explain that all fundamentalist movements are not the same. They can be divided into three categories: extremist, moderate, or liberal. Extremist Islamic movements aim to create an Islamic state through militarism and extreme terrorism. Examples include al-Qaeda, Taliban, and the Islamic Jihad. These groups cannot be compromised or negotiated with and oftentimes their objective is the elimination or subjugation of the United States. Moderate Islamic fundamentalist movements want to pursue their own sociopolitical agendas within quasi-democratic or Majoritarian-democratic state institutions. To achieve their objectives, they sometimes turn to terrorism while frequently employing other tactics such as political action and demonstrations. Examples of moderate groups include Hezbollah or the Islamic International Brigade. Liberal Islamic movements want to pursue their political agendas within democratic state institutions. They are willing to work within existing democratic institutions or they facilitate the creation of new ones. Also, they do not condone or support acts of terrorism. Examples of liberal groups include the Palestinian and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhoods. Third, I show how American socioeconomic and sociopolitical institutions are not implementable in the Islamic world; the emergence and success of Islamic fundamentalist movements exemplify this. The foundation of American capitalism rests on the “survival of the fittest” assumptions inherent in capitalism, and these assumptions run counter to the foundations of Islamic thought, the Koran, and the life of Muhammad.

Islamic Fundamentalism When it comes to the Islamic world, the American public is biased (through no fault of their own), and for Scholarship of Engagement to be effectively applied it is imperative that we understand what Islamic fundamentalism is, where it came from, what facilitates it, and have a basic understanding of their beliefs. In doing this, I will need to deconstruct what the American public thinks they know about Islamic fundamentalists, just as I do in my classroom. To do this, we need to start with a basic lesson on Islamic fundamentalism. The term fundamentalism originated in the 1920 edition of the Northern Baptist periodical, The

Islamic Fundamentalism and the Egyptian Revolution

183

Watchman-Examiner, whose editor described himself and a group of conservative Evangelical Protestants as militants willing to preserve the “fundamentals” of the Christian faith (Almond, Appleby, and Sivan 2003, 1). Scholars have argued that the term fundamentalist became familiar in the American vocabulary as a result of religious zealots who were interested in forcing a literal interpretation of Christian scripture, and in the 1920s these fundamentalists started breaking away from mainstream churches and American society to pursue their own extremist interpretation of scripture (Marsden 2002). Today, the main stream media and American vocabulary use the term fundamentalism to refer to Islamic extremism and not Christian extremism. Arguably, with the transformation of the term to describe Islamic extremism, Christian extremism ceased to be fundamentalist and is now referred to as televangelism, evangelicalism, or the religious right. Fundamentalism is a general term used mainly by Christians and the West. The term fundamentalism does not translate into Arabic or Farsi. The most comparable term is islamiyyum, which translates to mean those Muslim movements which wish to revive Islam and use violence to do so. I define an Islamic fundamentalist movement as any group, political party, or issue-oriented militant movement that is nonsecular in its beliefs, ideas, or dogmas. It also must encourage, sponsor, and/or condone the lack of separation of church and state within government, state institutions, education, or educational institutions. A fundamentalist’s objective is to suppress alternative visions and movements within a given society or world, and force his literal interpretation of scripture on nonbelievers. Furthermore, for a movement to be considered fundamentalist, it must have sociopolitical objectives, not just religious ones. Islamic Fundamentalism was born from the spiritual relationship an individual has with his God and the scripture associated with it. A fundamentalist movement starts with an interpretation of scripture, the purification of all socioeconomic and sociopolitical contradictions to that interpretation, and the fundamental desire to defend that interpretation. Furthermore, it is a fundamentalist’s objective to suppress alternative visions and movements within society and force a specific interpretation of scripture on nonbelievers. However, how this is done and to what degree varies among fundamentalist movements. Fundamentalist leaders, be they Christian, Jewish, or Islamic, believe they have the divine right to pick and choose scripture for their own self-interest or self-indulgence; they intentionally find passages that suit their immediate self-serving purposes. They often reject all previous interpretations of scripture (at times even

184

Chapter Nine

their own) and seek to force society to follow their self-serving interpretation. Furthermore, they seek to establish sociopolitical institutions that institutionalize their interpretation. A fundamentalist sees it as his duty to apply a literal interpretation of scripture to the creation of a new society, and this then becomes the foundation of that new society’s political and economic institutions. In other words, the purpose of government is to implement specific interpretations of Islam and force it on the general public. How this is done and to what degree depends on the type of Islamic fundamentalist movement—one size does not fit all. The literal interpretation of the Koran for liberal fundamentalists are democratic political institutions, electoral competition with secular political parties, the protection of ethnic and religious minority rights, freedom of press, speech, assembly, and so forth. On the other hand, an extremist fundamentalist’s literal interpretation is a complete absence of all democratic institutions, secularism on all levels of sociopolitical institutions is forbidden, there are no minority rights, and there is no freedom for any individual with the exception of the religious oligarchy in control of the state. According to Islamic fundamentalists, in addition to reviving Islam there also needs to be a total rejection of the political, intellectual, economic, and cultural domination of the West. Yet again, how this is done and to what degree varies among fundamentalist movements. As a result of the oppression and degradation the Islamic world has faced as a direct result of Western materialism, and Western socioeconomic and sociopolitical domination, there is an inner desire within the psyche of the Islamic community to revert back to Islamic tradition prior to Western penetration; however, the methodology used to accomplish this depends on the type of movement. Islamic fundamentalists manipulate this desire and then change the structure of the state by changing the sociopolitical and socioeconomic institutions as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban have done. There is a legitimate fear that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood will follow the same model of sociopolitical and socioeconomic restructuring. However, the three radical groups experienced prolonged occupation, occupational repression, and war. The Islamic fundamentalist in each of these cases played an active role in fighting the occupation, and each helped to rebuild their war-torn societies. Egypt has not experienced a long-term occupation, is not war-torn, and has had limited exposure to extremist fundamentalist movements.

Islamic Fundamentalism and the Egyptian Revolution

185

Within the academic jargon there are five significant causes of Islamic fundamentalism: socioeconomics, cultural tension between the Islamic world and the West, the Soviet Empire imploding, personal crisis and turning to God to find peace, and a catalyst, such as the Palestinian refugee problem or the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The first argues that individuals subjected to worsening economies, unemployment, poverty, unequal economic development, or inflation will turn to Islamic extremism. A second prevalent argument is that Islamic fundamentalism is the result of the loss of traditional Islamic culture to Westernization, Americanization, imperialism, and modernization. The third explanation deals with the demise of the Soviet Union. Communism had an atheist belief system and the next great man-made ideology that needed to be defeated was capitalism with its “survival of the fittest” ideology, so they assumed God wanted them to facilitate its defeat too and impose religious law on man. Also, the breakup of Yugoslavia, a by-product of the Soviet collapse, triggered the Bosnia-Herzegovina War which led to the mass execution of tens-of-thousands of Muslims. Western governments did very little to stop Serbian ethnic cleansing. As a result, much of the Islamic world became alienated by Western apathy and the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy as it relates to human rights. Finally, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is the direct result of the Soviet Union’s invasion into Afghanistan in 1979 and the formation of the Mujahedeen. The fourth explanation of Islamic fundamentalism is interconnected with the above three. It argues that individuals turn to Islamic fundamentalism in personal times of crisis and to be closer to God. When facing serious socioeconomic problems, war, crises of cultural identity, and poverty, Muslims turn to their faith for solace and solutions. In this way, Muslims are just like Christians or Jews: during hard times individuals turn to their sacred teachings and religious leaders for guidance and solace. The remaining explanations argue that fundamentalism is the result of an outside event, such as the displacement of the Palestinians, the establishment of Israel, the Arab loss of the 1967 Six Day War, the assassination of President Anwar Sadat, or the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution. Each of the above arguments has some legitimacy; however, each is flawed and most can only explain the creation of a limited number of fundamentalist movements. One might ask, what does all of this information have to do with Scholarship of Engagement and is this chapter an example of what the scholars of engagement critique about academics.

186

Chapter Nine

My answer is no. When we are dealing with a topic such as Islamic fundamentalism it is imperative that we start with the basic knowledge of where it came from and what is facilitating it. From here, I hope this chapter facilitates a dialogue between American people and myself on the causes and success of Islamic fundamentalism as it relates to American society. I hope that this dialogue will continue between the American people. I hope that when they hear our manipulative media personalities spreading misinformation and our elected officials trying to stay in power by making false accusations or facilitating fear that they correct them and hold them accountable via voting, changing the channel, and correcting their friends regarding such misinformation. The easiest way to understand what is causing Islamic fundamentalism is to use three different triangular models. The first triangle is the breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalists and is composed of three tiers with the elite making up the very tip of the triangle, the working classes and small business owners making up the top one-fourth or less of the triangle and with the bottom three-fourths (or more) of the triangle consisting of the poor, lower classes, and those living below their national poverty levels. This socioeconomic structure represents nation-states where we see the breeding ground for most fundamentalist movements; specifically in Pakistan, Egypt, Palestine, Yemen, and Iraq after the American invasion, Afghanistan, Algeria, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia. Each of these examples have a rigid class structure where there is little to no sociopolitical mobility and the class one is born into is the class he will die in. Also, those in control of the political institutions also control the social and economic institutions–––there is no separation of the three. In order to remain in control the leadership institutionalizes fear and this is done via a security apparatus that consists of secret police, special courts, torture, and prisons. As a result of this institutionalized fear, the population is subjugated. Furthermore, the leadership has a self-serving relationship with the general population; they are there only to serve. The leadership enriches itself with no money or aid finding its way to the general public. The state wealth is used for only certain purposes: first, security apparatus and the institutionalized fear, second, enriching itself, and finally the protection of the very small middle class. For example, in Egypt this middle class would have been the tourist industry and in Saudi Arabia it is the oil industry. The repressed poor are a breeding ground for Islamic extremism. It is the Islamic extremists who are not only providing substance to the population and meeting their human needs but are also giving them spiritual guidance and promising them hope. This is why

Islamic Fundamentalism and the Egyptian Revolution

187

groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood have been so successful. The second triangular structure is very similar to that of the United States, Western Europe, and most of Eastern Europe where the middle classes make up more than two-thirds of the triangular structure. We find this type of socioeconomic structure in Iran and Iraq before the American invasion, and in Turkey. Here, the state plays a much more active role in the needs of the lower classes. Also, the middle classes make up a significantly larger portion of the socioeconomic triangle. There are still large numbers of the lower socioeconomic classes; but the state plays a much more active role in providing for their needs. Islamic fundamentalist movements do exist and find their greatest support within poorer neighborhoods. However, they do not facilitate terrorist acts or spread hate and intolerance and they try to work within state institutions. The final triangular structure is found in the wealthiest and smallest states where there are no native poor; in other words the triangular structure of these states consist of only two categories–––rich and middle class. We find this in places like Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. Also, in states such as these there are no Islamic fundamentalist movements and no terrorist attacks. The reason for this is that the Islamic fundamentalist movements do not have a feeder population. The next logical questions to follow our Scholarship of Engagement dialogue are: What does this tell us? What role does the United States play, and why do they hate us? What follows is an answer to these very important questions. What is universal for all Islamic fundamentalist movements is a total rejection of Western materialism, specifically American capitalism. With the implementation of American capitalism comes a rigid class structure and significant socioeconomic and sociopolitical inequality; this has been apparent in Egypt for the last 30 years. The “survival of the fittest” mentality inherent in capitalism runs completely counter to the foundations of Islam, the teachings of Muhammad, and a literal interpretation of the Koran. In other words, the Islamic world needs to be an inherent socialist one where it is the duty of every Muslim and the state institutions to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. The Koran makes it explicitly clear that it is the duty of every Muslim to live a charitable life (Women 4.114; Romans 30.39; She Who Pleaded 58.12/13; Cow 2.263/64) where all Muslims are obligated to make sure that the less fortunate are socially and financially

188

Chapter Nine

helped via giving alms (Prophets 21.73; Believers 23.60; Clans 33.35; Women 4.38/4.92; Immunity 9.58/9.60/9.75/9.79). Furthermore, the idea of usury is an unacceptable and condemnable offence within the Koran (Cow 2.275/76/68; Family of Imran 3.130; Women 4.161; Romans 30.39). But how does this all relate to the three triangular models? The answer to this question is very simple. In the first triangle model the elite and middle class are imposing an American-style survival of the fittest model on the Muslim masses with no upward mobility potential, and rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer with the addition of state repression. The population then turns to the Islamic fundamentalists who then blame us. For example, how do the Egyptian, Saudi Arabian, and Pakistani governments pay for the repression they subject their populations to–––the United States and our foreign aid (Egypt and Pakistan) or our oil consumption (Saudi Arabia)? As a result of American hegemonic (militaristic and economic) domination spreading its rigid class system and capitalist values in areas that are majority Muslim, an ideologically-based conflict has emerged that has engulfed both cultures. We have seen this manifest itself in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, the rise in popularity and success of Islamic fundamentalist movements, and the revolutionary turmoil spreading across the Islamic world. The cause of all of this has been American foreign policy with its inherent assumption that capitalism is admissible within the Islamic world. Furthermore, with capitalism comes a significant class polarization. As a result of this polarization, the Muslim political elite design the socioeconomic and sociopolitical institutions for their benefit and the benefit of their American benefactors. Furthermore, these political elite then institutionalize the subjugation of the lower socioeconomic classes, which happen to be the majority of the indigenous citizenry. The political elite ignore the needs of the masses and treat them as a surplus population, as Mubarak did for the last thirty years. We have seen this throughout the Islamic world in states (or nations as it relates to the Palestinian territories under Fatah) where capitalist interests and the interests of the sociopolitical Muslim elite significantly benefit at the expense of the indigenous Muslim population. With this subjection comes a significant division and exploitation in education, production, and a lack of socioeconomic and sociopolitical mobility for the Islamic masses. This worldview became apparent in Egypt. The Egyptian Revolution will continue to spread to other Islamic countries where the social structure runs in complete opposition with the foundational values of Islam. We are currently seeing this is Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Bahrain.

Islamic Fundamentalism and the Egyptian Revolution

189

Many Islamic fundamentalist movements work to counter this trend. Often times they are the ones within society that are providing the basic essentials to the masses; they are the ones that are building institutions, facilitating democracy, building schools, hospitals, daycares, basically providing the substance the masses need while the state leadership apparatus are enriching themselves at the expense of their populations. As a result of this, the indigenous Muslim population supports them and where applicable they vote for their political candidates when seeking public office. This has been personified with the electoral success of Hamas and Hezbollah. Within Egypt, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood too fits into this humanitarian model; the Egyptian state under President Mubarak had ignored the socioeconomic needs of his people and provided them nothing but fear of a secret police force designed to suppress all criticism and questioning directed toward his government. We in the United States must realize that if capitalism is not diluted by social programs and governmental regulation that protects the workers, consumers, and lower socioeconomic classes, then it is not admissible within the Islamic world. As previously stated, we are seeing the effects of this right now in the Egyptian Revolution. Other Islamic states that have the same repressive sociopolitical structure will follow and we are seeing this currently in Syria and Bahrain. Furthermore, the Americanized capitalist/elitist class also controls the political and social institutions and guarantees there is no sociopolitical or socioeconomic mobility for the Islamic masses. This subjugation is institutionalized within the sociopolitical institutions of the state at the bequest of the elitist class, which in turn has sustained its chokehold on the socioeconomic and sociopolitical state institutions at the bequest of Western governments and corporations. Karl Marx (2009) argues that collective action is the outcome of society’s structural and institutional evolution rather than one of individual choice, and this has proven true in the Egyptian Revolution. In the Islamic world, the proletariats are the Muslim masses that are subjected to the lopsided modernization, industrialization, and social mobility that is inherent in most Muslim-majority states whose political elite espouse a capitalist world order. The bourgeoisie within these states are members of elitist class that control the sociopolitical institutions and then develop a repressive, structured class system that guarantees the Muslim masses are subjected to the will of those in power. Marx argues that the only political interests of the bourgeoisie are to maintain the external conditions of the

190

Chapter Nine

capitalist economy, which in turn protect their political control. In The Communist Manifesto (2009) and A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1904), Marx clearly shows that the points of demarcation between the political, social, and economic are nonexistent. Those who control the economy also control the political institutions and in turn are the upper-classes of the social structure of the state. The subjugation of the Muslim masses is institutionalized within the sociopolitical institutions of the state at bequest of the capitalist class. Furthermore, this structured class system creates significant gaps in the distribution of wealth. This facilitates animosity within the lower socioeconomic classes because they recognize their own exploitation and depravity. Also, they are well aware that significant gaps in wealth and inherent institutional inequality exist and that it is funded by Western capitalism. Furthermore, the survival of the fittest mentality, a pillar in capitalist theory, runs completely counter to the foundations of Islamic thought. Within the Islamic world, fundamentalists see themselves as the liberators. They are the ones that are dismantling the capitalist institutions and eliminating the inherent class structure that have subjected Muslims to socioeconomic and sociopolitical degradation and enslavement. According to Jeffrey Hadden and Anson Shupe (1989), Islamic fundamentalism stems from a society that has strayed from its Islamic identity. This is exactly what Egypt has done and it is what helped with the birth of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood was, and is, a cultural and sociopolitical movement whose ideological foundations resulted from the contradictions between Western civilization and Islam (Choueiri 2002). R.M. Burrell (1989) argues that the participants of Islamic fundamentalist movements see it as their duty to apply “Koranic truths” to the creation of a new society, and these truths become the foundation of that new society’s governmental institutions ( 4-32). On this note, the main objective of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is to return Egyptian society and Egyptian institutions to their interpretation of political Islam, which is a liberal pro-democratic one that secures the general socioeconomic and sociopolitical welfare of Egyptians. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has been the most vocal and active oppositional movement within the Egyptian state and existing Egyptian sociopolitical and socioeconomic institutions. Like most Islamic fundamentalist movements, the Brotherhood’s ideological foundations stem from its opposition to imperialism, liberal nationalism, violence, authoritarianism, monarchy, hereditary succession, repression, Western

Islamic Fundamentalism and the Egyptian Revolution

191

capitalism, communism, and currently terrorism, both domestic and internationally within Egypt and the Greater Middle East. From its beginning in the 1920s, the Brotherhood’s members were opposed to the British occupation and the foreign domination of Egyptian politics, economy, and culture. They called for an end to Westernization, modernization, and foreign imperialism because, as they saw it, Egypt was losing its Islamic history, culture, and traditions. The main objective of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is to return Egyptian society and Egyptian institutions to a democracy. The image of Egypt, according to the Muslim Brotherhood, was and still is characterized by decay and humiliation, the corruption of Islam, the abuse and disregard of its teachings, and foreign values brought in via invaders who completely restricted Egyptian political, intellectual, and spiritual growth. The Muslim Brotherhood wanted Egypt restored to Islam, and it resisted Western ideologies. According to the Brotherhood, Western ideology facilitates corruption (Mitchell 1969). We see this in the lopsided modernization and the results of the survival-of-the-fittest mentality inherent in American-based capitalism. As it relates to Egypt, there are hundreds of slums near Cairo and Alexandria and millions of Egyptians call these places home. These slums lack running water, sewage systems, schools, employment opportunities, and hospitals. However, they each had well established police and security offices to ensure public repression and subordination. Throughout the first twenty years of the Mubarak dictatorship, there was massive movement in the Egyptian slums by illiterate and semi-literate parents to ensure their children would receive a higher education and break free of the slums. The Muslim Brotherhood provided many of these young people with scholarships and tutors and this enabled them to receive higher education. However, there were no jobs and what resulted were tens of thousands of young, educated individuals living in extreme poverty with no hope of upward mobility. Having been educated about models of Western democracy and freedom, the educated unemployed are the ones that led and participated in the Egyptian Revolution. Furthermore, it was the Muslim Brotherhood that provided the residents of these slums with health care, daycare, employment training, and food. This is how the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was able to win the majority of seats in the Egyptian Parliament in Egypt’s first fair election in its 5,000 year history. Egyptians were not voting for the Brotherhood because of their religious affiliations but because they were trusted. It was the Brotherhood that provided the

192

Chapter Nine

social and educational services that the Egyptian people needed. Furthermore, it was the Brotherhood that had been consistently calling for democracy for over thirty years and being punished by the state for that. Marx dealt with a problem of why members of a group who should revolt often fail to do so. Concerned with the problem that the workers’ movement could not succeed without the cooperation of a significant proportion of its members, he developed the theories of false consciousness and relative deprivation. Specifically, in “Wage Labour and Capital”, he laid out the foundations of that: A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirements for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls (1978, 203).

Relative deprivation is the difference between the value expectation and the value capability of the individual. This is exactly what is going on in the Islamic world. Education helps the masses recognize they are being deprived of socioeconomic and sociopolitical equality and freedom and they either turn to or join Islamic fundamentalist movements. The catalysts for the lower classes to collectively act are the Islamic fundamentalists who understand relative deprivation. They provide the lower classes spiritual, financial, and educational support. But most significantly, they show that the structure of the sociopolitical institutions of the state run counter to Islam. Islamic society is different than Western society when it comes to education. The Arabic words al-mutaalliin or al-muthaqqafin translate into those who are educated or cultured. They are technically not a class but a status group (Wickham 2002). In other words, those individuals with degrees in higher education, no matter their socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or occupation are considered an exclusive status group by Islamic culture, and they need to be revered. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood understand this and each encourages and facilitates education, specifically literacy, for their given populations. This facilitation further enhances their public persona. Nasser knew this and

Islamic Fundamentalism and the Egyptian Revolution

193

manipulated this cultural tradition to his own benefit. After promising members of the middle and lower classes the opportunity to attend a university, his popularity soared, especially with the new industrialized middle class. In addition to offering a university education free of charge, the Nasser social contract provided goods and services to the public in exchange for their political support (23). Specifically, Nasser institutionalized a policy guaranteeing education to those who supported him and every university graduate a government job. Raymond Hinnebusch (1988) describes the Nasser regime as authoritarian populism. Interestingly, Nasser too manipulated the Egyptian masses in the same way Islamic fundamentalists do. Nasser claimed to represent the lower urban classes of Egyptian society and a very large part of state resources were channeled to them. Arguably, he singled out this social class for extra entitlements because he saw them as his regime's greatest threat and because of this he bribed them with education and the guarantee of employment. However, state employment, benefits, and services were concentrated in the cities, and rural populations were excluded. Because of this, the Muslim Brotherhood remained a significant force in Egypt, especially in the more rural areas of the country. Sadat and Mubarak continued the Nasser social contract and educated two generations of Egyptians; this ultimately led to the downfall of President Mubarak. Finally, it is imperative that we realize that not all fundamentalist movements are the same. Some are willing to work with the United States; they form and participate in democratic political institutions, and do not commit acts of terrorism. However, American inability to decipher the different degrees of Islamic fundamentalism has further perpetuated the antagonism the Islamic world has toward the United States, specifically, the moderate and liberal groups. They do not understand why they are placed in the same category by American policy makers and the media because both are proponents of democracy and liberalization. The following table depicts this:

Chapter Nine

194

Beliefs

Government

Fundamental Requires a strict and absolute following of the self-serving religious views and religious interpretations of those in charge of the movement. This is the most restrictive and anything foreign or goes against, questions, or even offers alternative perspectives from their interpretation are all condemned. Democracy is not admissible. There are no social programs to implement the fundamental principles of Islam such as helping the poor and less fortunate. Oligarchies of religious extremists govern within authoritarian political institutions and their interpretation of Islam is enforced via secret religious police. There is legal system based on a misinterpretation of Islam where

Moderate Requires a following of the Koran, Muhammad's teachings, and Islamic law based more on the actual word and less on a self-serving interpretation by religious and political leaders. However, there is still some misinterpretation. Alternative views are respected. Modernization is encouraged and institutions are established to help the poor and less fortunate is the responsibility of the state

Liberal Islamic law has a place in society and the fundamental principles of Islam are ensured such as a democracy where all are protected, freedom of religion, press, speech, protection of the poor and less fortunate is the responsibility of the state and all members of the movement. Modernization is encouraged

Islamic based government institutions. Majoritarian democracy where religious and ethnic minorities are respected and have political freedom; however, their political voice is curtailed because of the majority. Oftentimes minorities are protected under state constitutions so

Secular governmental institutions where Islamic social values are ensured (values such as helping the poor and less fortunate) Demands a total and transparent democracy with total equality to all people, including all religious and ethnic minorities. Court systems are secular

Islamic Fundamentalism and the Egyptian Revolution

Teachings

Group Examples

those in power enforce their interpretation of Islam. ALL religious minorities and foreigners are persecuted. Wahhabi based values where there is a total subjugation of women, religious minorities, and an absolute adherence to the religious views of those in charge. Education is significantly limited and questioning is forbidden.

Al-Qaeda and Taliban

195

persecution is limited. The legal system is based on Islamic law.

Following Koranic teachings are fundamental; however, this must be done in a modern context and is interpreted subjectively. Adherence to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s interpretation of a constitutional Islamic democracy/ theocracy is paramount (but not absolute). Education is a must and it is the duty of the state to ensure universal education and movement does all it can to ensure it happens. Hamas and Hezbollah

Islamic values and fundamental and it is the duty of the state, the movement, and the individual to ensure the dignity and needs of all people. Seminationalist; identifies with human rights and socioeconomic and sociopolitical equality foremost.

Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood

With all this being said, one of the objectives of Scholarship of Engagement is the inclusion of the community in the education process. This process facilitates a more aware, active, and arguably a more tolerant society. As previously stated, learning about Islamic fundamentalism through the lens of Scholarship of Engagement is essential. When we are dealing with a topic that has significantly and negatively impacted American society as much as Islamic fundamentalism has, it is imperative that Islamic fundamentalism is deconstructed and we rebuild it from scratch. It has become very apparent as the Egyptian Revolution evolves and the liberation of the Islamic world spreads that American politicians, the media, and the general public lack a basic understanding of Islam. The

196

Chapter Nine

goal of this chapter is to alleviate fear and raise awareness by implementing the assumptions associated with Scholarship of Engagement when explaining Islamic fundamentalism. Specifically, those assumptions include bringing academic knowledge out of the Ivory Tower and stripping it of its intellectual elitism so that all Americans comprehend it, do not fear it but respect it, and when needed, defeat it. I proposed here a theoretical model that helps explain why Islamic fundamentalists are created and why they are successful. I was able to explain our role in the facilitation of Islamic fundamentalism and why they hate us. What is universal for all Islamic fundamentalist movements is a total rejection of Western materialism, specifically American capitalism. With the implementation of American capitalism comes a rigid class structure and significant socioeconomic and sociopolitical inequality; this has been apparent in Egypt for the last thirty years. The “survival of the fittest” mentality inherent in capitalism runs completely counter to the foundations of Islam, the teachings of Muhammad, and a literal interpretation of the Koran. I was able to show that the Egyptian Revolution should be celebrated, and in doing so, I explained that all fundamentalist movements are not the same. By utilizing the fundamental assumptions associated with Scholarship of Engagement I hope to have subsided much of the fear and unfamiliarity the general public has toward Islamic fundamentalism. This knowledge belongs to the community; its understanding and application through the Scholarship of Engagement will now in turn facilitate more tolerance.

References Al-Awadi, Hesham. 2004. In Pursuit of Legitimacy: The Muslim Brothers and Mubarak, 1882-2000. London: Tauris Academic Studies. Almond, Gabriel, Scott Appleby, and Emmanuel Sivan. 2003. Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalism Around the World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Burrell, Richard M. 1989. “Introduction: Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East—A Survey of its Origins and Diversity.” In Islamic Fundamentalism, edited by Richard M. Burrell. London: Royal Asiatic Society. Choueiri, Youssef. 2002. Islamic Fundamentalism. New York: Continuum. Hadden, Jeffrey K., and Anson Shupe. 1989. Secularization and Fundamentalism Reconsidered. New York: Paragon House.

Islamic Fundamentalism and the Egyptian Revolution

197

Hinnebusch, Raymond. 1988. Egyptian Politics under Sadat: The PostPopulist Development of an Authoritarian-Modernizing State. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Marsden, George. 2002. “Defining American Fundamentalism.” In The Fundamentalist Phenomenon: A Response from Without, edited by Norman Cohen. Grand Rapids, MI: Michigan University Press. Marx, Karl. 1904. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Chicago, IL: International Printing Company. —. 1933. Wage-Labour and Capital. Chicago, IL: International Publishers Company. —. 1978. “Wage Labour and Capital.” In The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert C. Tucker. London: W.W. Norton and Company. —. 2009. The Communist Manifesto. Middlesex, UK: The Echo Library. Mitchell, Richard P. 1969. The Society of the Muslim Brothers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sayyid, Mustafa kamel. 1993. “Civil Society in Egypt.” Middle East Journal 8:112-27. Wickham, Carrie. 2002. Mobilizing Islam. New York: Columbia University Press.

CHAPTER TEN GLOBAL COURSES AS INCUBATORS FOR SCHOLARSHIP OF ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ELENA P. BASTIDAS

Dialogue liberates; monologue oppresses. The best way to start learning is as part of a dialogue-rich group. The richest learning begins with action, is shaped by reflection, and leads to further action. —Paulo Freire

This chapter presents a framework for the development of graduate courses that have the potential of becoming incubators for Scholarship of Engagement activities. I refer to these courses as Global Courses, since they incorporate an overseas field-immersion component. These courses are developed around multidisciplinary conflict analysis and resolution (CAR) courses that provide a solid knowledge base for the learning experience. In addition, the overseas experience enhances students’ crosscultural skills and fosters sensitivity to, and appreciation and understanding of, diversity and global issues. These courses are part of the graduate curriculum of the Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution (DCAR) at Nova Southeastern University (NSU). The framework presented in this chapter is based on the experiences of two Global Courses, one in Ecuador (2010) and the other in Suriname (2011), which were designed to provide graduate students with learning experiences that have the potential for inspiring transformational effects in their lives while making meaningful contributions to the field of peace and CAR studies. I suggest that Global Courses like these provide the necessary conditions for developing engagement activities that, with the appropriate follow-up, could become important Scholarship of Engagement projects.

Global Courses as Incubators for Scholarship of Engagement Activities 199

As an educator, I am always asking myself: How can I give my students the best learning experience possible? How can I ignite in them the passion for research in our field? How can I create the appropriate environment to facilitate mutual learning? I believe the answers to these questions lie beyond an examination of the education literature and models of curriculum development. They require, among other things, the appropriate institutional environment, a clear understanding of students’ learning needs, and a shared commitment to the advancement of our field: peace and CAR studies. I like to think of the learning experience as a puzzle. In order for the experience to be effective, all the pieces of the puzzle must be in the right place; only then can we expect a transformational learning experience that has the potential to become an incubator for Scholarship of Engagement activities. The framework includes four interconnected puzzle pieces: 1) the institutional context, which refers to the institution that houses the learning experience, in this case the Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution at NSU; 2) the academic field of study, here peace and CAR; 3) student learning needs; and 4) the learning approach, composed of teaching and learning theories, including mutual learning, transformational learning, and experiential and action learning.

The Institutional Context A crucial piece of the Global Course puzzle is the institutional context. If the institutional environment is not conductive to the type of learning efforts being developed by faculty, then those efforts will fail to be institutionalized and will die soon after they are implemented. There must be a natural alignment between the university and the departmental vision, mission, and values. Without this alignment, the necessary supporting structures will be lacking and teaching efforts will come to naught. The importance of the institutional context for teaching and learning is highlighted in the work of Mary C. Wright, et al. (2004). The authors looked at structural factors that have an impact on the quality of teaching and learning activities in institutions of higher education, and found that the vision, mission, culture, and values of the institution and the type of higher education institution are key factors that affect the quality of the learning experience. At the departmental level, some of the factors mentioned in the literature are the alignment between student needs and departmental priorities, curriculum development, size and composition of the program, and demands on faculty time due to their multiple responsibilities (Dill 1986; Kuh and Hu 2001; Morton 2005; Fitzgerald,

200

Chapter Ten

Burack, and Seifer 2010). Evaluation of these factors prior to the creation of learning activities should improve the chances of their success. In the case of DCAR’s Global Courses, most of the factors mentioned by Wright, et al. (2004) were in place and contributed to the learning experiences of students in the Global Courses. NSU, the nation’s seventh largest, not-for-profit, independent university, is characterized by its commitment to teaching and learning. Its core values include studentcentered learning, diversity, and community engagement (http://www. nova.edu). In recent years the university has begun a transition towards becoming a more research-oriented institution without compromising its emphasis on teaching and learning. In 2010, NSU was awarded The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching’s Community Engagement designation, which highlights the university’s commitment to the Scholarship of Engagement. The university’s focus on teaching and learning provides the right environment for faculty to invest in developing better and more creative ways of teaching, going beyond the classroom walls to provide global opportunities for students that will prepare them to interact in a globalized world. NSU’s strong commitment to community engagement also provides opportunities for students and faculty to explore different types of relationships with institutions of higher education and with governmental and non-governmental organizations interested in the field of peace and CAR. Throughout NSU’s School of Humanities and Social Sciences the commitment to the scholarship of teaching and learning is also strong. Although a focus on international or global engagement is something that has only been embraced in the past few years, there has been a solid commitment to institutionalizing these efforts. The Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution (DCAR), established in 1992, is one of the first departments in the country to offer graduate programs in the field of peace and CAR. The program started with a Master’s degree in Dispute Resolution and in 1994 added a Ph.D. degree in this field. During 19992000 the program evolved into a CAR program that offered graduate degrees in on-line and residential formats, changing its name to Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution. In the past decade the department has established itself as a pioneer in the field. Among its values are a commitment to cultural diversity, social responsibility, and reflective practice in the fields of peacemaking and CAR (http://shss.nova.edu/dialogs/index.htm). Following the mandate of our university, Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution program

Global Courses as Incubators for Scholarship of Engagement Activities 201

studies, practice, training, and research activities are highlighted by their commitment to the Scholarship of Engagement. Faculty and students actively work with stakeholder groups to support improved social relations among individuals, groups, and organizations (http://shss.nova.edu/programs/dcar/phddcar/). There is an organic alignment between university, school, and departmental visions and values. Development of learning activities that would foster shared principles is a natural step in the scholarship of teaching and learning within the department. Although certain aspects of NSU may be less conducive to the development of Global Courses, such as the fact that the university is still a young institution with a relatively small international presence and limited funding for overseas initiatives, we were able to overcome these constraints, and they did not have an adverse impact on the development of the learning experience in the programs in Equator and Suriname described more fully below in this chapter and Table 2.

The Academic Field of Study The next piece in the puzzle is the field of study. Are courses in the field of CAR conducive to becoming incubators of community engagement activities? The field of peace and CAR is relatively young and has been under constant development since the 1950s, when the term “conflict resolution” started being widely used. Since then, it has developed, gaining important contributions from diverse disciplines. As in any multidisciplinary field, its theory, research, and practice are not free from controversy (Burton 1990; Kriesberg 2007). The field of peace and CAR covers areas ranging from alternative dispute resolution, mediation, and peace-building studies to international diplomacy. Practitioners use different approaches in the field depending on the context and the type of conflict. These approaches include not only CAR, but also conflict management and conflict transformation. Each approach applies a set of skills, tools, models, and processes, appropriate to the situation and actors involved. Conflict transformation is the approach that most resonates with current practitioners, especially in the international development arena. According to John Paul Lederach (1995), conflict should be viewed as a transformational agent: it transforms people, situations, and relationships that created the initial conflict. During the past two decades practitioners have been challenged by Lederach’s definition to rethink our field, to move from conventional approaches based on the application of tools for

202

Chapter Ten

managing conflicts that risk supporting the status quo to a new type of theory, practice, and research that locates social change at the center of its political project. Through this lens the goal of conflict transformation is to overcome conflict, transform unjust social relationships, and promote conditions that can help to create cooperative relationships. Conflict transformation, therefore, is a reconceptualization of the field in an effort to increase its relevance to contemporary conflicts and sustainable peace (Miall, Ramsbotham and Woodhouse 1999, 21). This shift in paradigm acknowledges the need to study each conflict in light of its unique history and characteristics (Sharoni 1996). It calls for a new set of assumptions, including the context specificity of conflict theory and practice, and the need for a bottom-up perspective to CAR. This shift echoes the field of international development’s 1990s movement to a more participatory approach, seeking to empower the less privileged (Hildebrand 1983; Chambers 1987). Development practitioners realized that in order to better understand the diversity, complexity, and dynamism of processes that are characteristic of livelihood systems at the center of development initiatives, a bottom-up approach to research and practice was needed. This approach is defined by Chambers (1997) as a “reversal of realities.” It entails a movement from what he calls “a normal professionalism,” which deals with “things” and is top-bottom, cookiecutter, or blue print-like in its focus on measurement in pursuit of standardization, to a “new professionalism,” which deals with people and is bottom-up, focuses on learning processes, and encourages critical thought and diversity (Chambers 1997, 189-90). A central question in the development field still remains: “Will increased engagement with social actors risk simply re-legitimating the status quo, or will it contribute to transforming patterns of exclusion and social injustice, and to challenging power relationships?” (Gaventa 2006, 26). The two fields, international development and peace and CAR, merge in the quest for peace with socioeconomic justice. The impact of this [Global Course] has been to a dimension of reawakening perhaps my inner soul, my being. The affliction and feeling that there is a vast world out there crying for help just to have access to their basic needs has awakened my roots, the compassion I have towards humanity as a whole, and the desire to continue to access hands-on fieldwork searching for that linkage between theory and reality to keep my vision focused and clear. —Susana Reynoso, Ecuador DCAR Global Course 2010.

Global Courses as Incubators for Scholarship of Engagement Activities 203

New CAR approaches look at interventions as long-term efforts, mainly begun by local actors, that seek to promote political and economic development, and result in sustainable solutions to the root causes of conflict (Bendaña 2003). If the goal is to provide students with learning experiences that can meet the challenges of the field, then learning experiences must incorporate active engagement with social actors, influenced by international forces, at the center of conflict situations. Understanding of the diversity, complexity, and dynamics of situations and conflicts at the local and international levels can only be gained through an active engagement with social actors’ realities. My opinion, if you want to be in the conflict resolution field you must leave the comfort of your daily surroundings and travel, and immerse yourself in a culture very different than your own, to understand the nature of conflict and how to begin designing systems to resolve it. —Pamela Struss, Suriname DCAR Global Course 2011.

Student Learning Needs With an appropriate institutional environment and a field of study that calls for global and local engagement, I turn next to the third piece of the puzzle: the students’ learning needs. Some of these needs are shared by many of the graduate students that our department serves. Most of the students in our programs are non-traditional students, who work full time jobs while they try to balance their professional, personal, and educational responsibilities. Students can be overwhelmed by the challenges of their everyday life, which in turn tests the job we do as educators. Developing Global Courses for this audience proved to be a challenge. Most overseas experiences, offered mostly through Study Abroad programs, are too long (three to six months), or too broad in content for our students. In an effort to tailor the experience for these students the DCAR trimester-long Global Course has two components. One is an on-line class that meets regularly during the first four weeks of the course and also meets after the fieldimmersion component to reflect on and process the experience. The other is a short but intense 12-15 day field-immersion component developed exclusively for the Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution course content. Students find it easier to accommodate a two-week international trip in their busy schedules. Inherent in the characteristics of the CAR field are a series of learning skills students need to master in order to be successful as researchers and practitioners. These include a firm knowledge base, the ability to work in

204

Chapter Ten

multidisciplinary teams, and the ability to communicate complex ideas clearly to diverse audiences. Students need to develop problem-solving skills and analytical proficiency at different levels from the individual, or micro level, to the international or macro level. They must be innovative and creative to respond adequately to the challenges of a field that is in constant transition. Finally, traits of a good salient practitioner include commitment to the field and empathy and compassion to respond to the ethical challenges of the field. Potential employers have yet another set of knowledge, skills, and abilities that they would like to see in CAR graduates, especially those interested in international peace and CAR. In a study conducted by the U.S. Institute of Peace regarding graduate education and professional practice in international development (Carstarphen 2010), the author found that there is a surprising mismatch between what CAR programs emphasize in their curriculum and what employers view as a desirable set of knowledge, skills, and abilities. While academic programs rank as their number-one priority “theories of conflict analysis: causes, sources, and dynamics of conflict and research skills,” employers rank as first an applicant’s “field experience: work and internships abroad.” Employers also highlight the need for graduates to have CAR skills, including “facilitation, dialogue, training, and CAR mainstreaming,” in addition to applied research expertise (Carstarphen 2010, 4). The Global Courses are, in a way, a response to this disparity. These courses meet several student needs, since they go beyond the accumulation of subject knowledge to create opportunities where students can have real-life experiences, where they facilitate, mediate, negotiate, and train in real conditions, working side by side with field experts and experiencing the stress and anxiety of the demanding field. One of the students who participated in the Global Course in Suriname says: I have a personal list of things that I wish to achieve personally and professionally. One of the professional goals I listed was that I wished to conduct a training internationally. Another was to train on a new subject matter. During this trip, I was able to do both! It was nerve-wracking to put this [CAR workshop] together while still trying to accomplish other objectives during this trip. Nonetheless, this was a dream come true. —Regina Bernadin, Suriname DCAR Global Course 2011.

Global Courses as Incubators for Scholarship of Engagement Activities 205

The Learning Approach Global Courses are developed under the department’s teaching philosophy, which takes a learner-centered approach to the study of peacemaking and CAR and encourages students to define and shape their intellectual and practice paths in a creative and structured fashion (http://shss.nova.edu/catalog-2011.pdf ). The teaching and learning model for DCAR Global Courses includes a learner-centered approach, in addition to theories of experiential, action, mutual, and transformational learning models, which provide a learning experience appropriate to: a) the department’s teaching philosophy, b) student needs, and c) CAR course content. The non-directive, learner-centered approach in which the student takes responsibility for, and contributes to, his or her own learning can be traced back to Carl Rogers (1960), and was further developed by Knowles (1970) in his andragogy model. Based on these principles, Global Courses include activities that encourage critical thinking, multidisciplinary interaction, reflection, and sharing of ideas. A critical component of the Global Course learning approach is mutual learning (Shminck, Paulson, and Bastidas 2002, 9-10; 39). From the start, and especially during their field immersion, students need to understand that the learning process is based on maintaining respect for and acceptance of the individuals involved in the learning experience (Schmink, Paulson, and Bastidas 2002). The Global Course learning space is not only occupied by the students and the professor, who acts as a facilitator. It includes a multitude of actors who are part of the Global Course experience, ranging from guest lecturers, policy advisors, and community leaders, to local farmers and fellow students. This mutual learning approach emphasizes the importance of being open to others, of appreciating and respecting each other’s knowledge and wisdom. Evidence of this understanding is shared in the following two accounts of Global Course students: That morning, I did not understand the true purpose of why [the guest professor] was accompanying us on the trip. [Our guide] had been excellent so far; therefore, I didn’t see why [the guest professor] would be joining us. Once we reached the coastal areas, and he showed us different examples of mangrove degradation and management, I felt that only he could explain this project. Living in Florida, I have been exposed to mangroves but never truly understood their purpose until this point. [The guest professor’s] passion came alive during his lecture. I think we truly

206

Chapter Ten saw the situation through his eyes, and only because he lives and breathes his work. No one else could have helped us achieve this. —Regina Bernadin, Suriname DCAR Global Course 2011. I was humbled to have the opportunity to connect with several classmates on the trip and to hear their testimonies of how my kindness, gentleness and wisdom impacted them.” —Tyra Brown, Suriname DCAR Global Course 2011.

Educational theorist David Kolb (1975) emphasized that experience is the basis for training adults and introduced the experiential learning cycle. According to this model, learning is attained through concrete experience, observation and reflection, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Similarly, action learning links the world of learning with the world of action through a reflective process within small cooperative learning groups known as “action learning sets” (McGill and Beaty 1995). The DCAR Global Courses adopted these concepts as part of the foundation for the field-immersion component. Many of the concepts, theories and approaches in the field of CAR cannot be applied in the international development field without a careful consideration of context and diversity. Therefore, action learning is an ideal approach to learning in CAR situations. The Global Course structure has three components. The first is an introduction to the course subject matter based on the learning objectives of the CAR course. Students are introduced to selected theoretical frameworks and concepts. The second is the overseas field-immersion component. The third component is post-field coursework that focuses on processing the intense immersion experience, providing spaces for dialogue and reflection, innovation and creativity. Applying the experiential learning model to the Global Course, we can say that the field-immersion component provides the concrete experience where students put CAR theories, concepts, and knowledge into practice. Students travel to a developing country, visit different types of projects, attend lectures at host universities, interact with local people, experience local ecosystems, and are exposed to diverse conflict situations at different levels. Before and during their field trips, students keep daily journals. Later these are the basis for reflective observation. Students reflect on and engage in dialogue about their experiences. Abstract conceptualization is characterized by students reviewing their conceptual understanding. They use conflict analysis and resolution models and theories to draw conclusions from past and present experiences. Finally, during active

Global Courses as Incubators for Scholarship of Engagement Activities 207

experimentation students apply new learning, creating new CAR models, developing new theory, and incorporating new ways of understanding in their academic activities (see Figure 1). The andragogical process of the Global Course is also influenced by the transformative aspects inherent in CAR theory and praxis mentioned above. The work of Jack Mezirow (1991; 2000) presents parallels to CAR transformational learning in the field of adult education. According to Mezirow and Associates (2000) transformational learning is the “process of using prior interpretation to construe a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s experience as a guide to future action” (5). For this process to take place there are three requirements: 1) the context must be appropriate for transformative learning, 2) the learner must engage in selfreflection, and 3) the learner must engage in critical discourse. The Global Courses provide the context for the transformational process through the field-immersion component, while student’s past experiences and CAR knowledge are part of the cognitive context. Activities before, during, and after the field-immersion component are selected to foster transformational learning in the students. One of the questions that arose as we designed the DCAR Global Course was: “How can we create a transformational learning experience within the timeframe of a 12-week course?” Transformational experiences can happen in an instant or they can evolve over years. I argue that Global Courses happen in an experiential continuum, and for certain students act as a catalyst for change to take place. What Global Courses offer is the right context and environment for transformation to occur if it happens to be the right time for the student. Journaling is used during the course to facilitate student self-reflection. The journaling activity starts prior to the overseas experience. We ask students to develop questions based on reference material about their expectations and understanding of local processes. During the trip students are encouraged to journal about new knowledge gained, comparisons of past and current situations and expectations, and their feelings and reactions to situations encountered throughout the trip. Those experiences allowed me to reflect on subjects/topics which I have studied thus far in Nova’s DCAR program. I got an opportunity to hear the book knowledge in a practical sense as the culture of Ecuador was shared. —Carlotta Mitchell, Suriname DCAR Global Course 2011.

Dialogue is also stimulated at all times. Informally and spontaneously students share with each other the situations that impacted them the most

208

Chapter Ten

during each day’s visit. In a more structured way, during debriefings students and professors share and analyze information. After the course is over, we consciously built into the curriculum specific opportunities for the student and professor to come together and reflect on our collective learning experiences, to develop a more systematic conceptual understanding of present reality. So far, DCAR Global Courses have had an impact on students’ dissertation topics, practicum choices, and changes in their life paths: The experience has become a reference point for my dissertation research since it underlies the quest to find viable ways to eliminate, or at least minimize, the forms of discrimination observed in that Latin American nation that were also observed in other parts of the world in previous trips. —Aniuska Luna, Ecuador DCAR Global Course 2010. My trip to Ecuador inspired me to write my dissertation on gender inequalities and the connection to water politics. I am now committed to finding ways to help poor women become empowered. —Fatima Cotton, Ecuador DCAR Global Course 2010. I was inspired to join the Peace Corp when I returned from Ecuador. We arrived home on August 10th, I put my application in on August 18, and I was nominated for Eastern Europe on September 24th. I am slated to leave in March, 2012. I would not have done this had I not been in Ecuador and met the friends, colleagues and professors that inspired me. —Dianne Strait, Ecuador DCAR Global Course 2010.

Global Courses as Incubators for Scholarship of Engagement Activities Scholarship of Engagement is defined by a reciprocal, collaborative relationship with others (Boyer 1996; Barker 2004). It connects research, teaching, and service to the understanding and solving of pressing social, civic, and ethical problems (Boyer 1996). One critique of this type of scholarship is that it does not have the quality of traditional research and scholarship. However, faculty involved in Scholarship of Engagement activities are providing evidence that their research and practice can meet and even exceed traditional academic standards (Barker 2004). Engaging with communities and local actors in research, teaching, and service activities only enriches these experiences and provides a climate that is favorable to innovative and creative outcomes.

Global Courses as Incubators for Scholarship of Engagement Activities 209

Incubators are machines that maintain controlled conditions and favorable environments for cultivation. Likewise Global Courses provide the appropriate environment to support and develop emerging ideas in the Scholarship of Engagement, developing them into activities. Based on our experiences in Ecuador and Suriname, it seems that with the right implementation strategy, Global Courses, in partnership with other institutions of higher education, governmental and non-governmental organizations, communities, local practitioners, and local researchers, could become catalysts for advancing Scholarship of Engagement. The Global Courses position students at the center of the learning experience, making the student a partner in the production of knowledge. The student takes the role of researcher, practitioner, and facilitator of the learning experience, and develops strong ties with the local people. The interaction of Global Course students and faculty with the people and organizations they come in contact with during the foreign immersion component stimulates rich conversations in which students’ backgrounds, knowledge, research, and practical skills resonate with the needs of diverse audiences. These conversations, in turn, lead to such engagement activities as training workshops, applied research, establishment of networks, development of institutional strategies, and development and testing of training materials, among others. Table 1: A Taxonomy based on Five Practices of Engaged Scholarship Practice

Theory

Public scholarship

Deliberative

Participatory research

Participatory democracy

Community partnership

Social democracy

Problems Addressed Complex “public” problems requiring deliberation Inclusion of specific groups Social change structural, transformation

Problems of Public information Democracy, broadly understood networking networks communication Democracy, Enhancing public Civic literacy broadly understood discourse scholarship Source: Barker (2004, 132)

Methods Face-to-face, open forums Face-to-face collaboration with specific publics Collaboration with intermediary groups Databases of public resources Communication with general public

210

Chapter Ten

Derek Barker (2004) developed a taxonomy of five approaches to engaged scholarship (see Table 1). Each of the practices incorporates its own methodology, is informed by specific theories, and focuses on addressing specific types of problems. Using Barker’s (2004) taxonomy, I classify examples of engagement activities that resulted from our two Global Courses. Under “public scholarship,” the professor and students from the Suriname course are in the process of creating a “think tank” to gather information, exchange knowledge, and deliberate on issues related to land rights in Suriname. Its goal is to provide a space for dialogue and deliberation. This is an online forum, open to anyone interested in land rights issues. Under “participatory research,” one of our graduate students, in collaboration with a university professor and representatives from private industry, started a participatory research project to identify potential areas of environmental conflict within Suriname’s agricultural supply chain. Under “community partnerships,” we are considering joining an Ecuadorian NGO to develop educational material for the transformation of inner-city gang members. And in the category of “civic literacy scholarship,” our students delivered CAR awareness workshops for diverse audiences in both countries. All of this shows that Global Courses can, in fact, be incubators for Scholarship of Engagement activities. Based on an analysis of the literature and student accounts of the professional and personal impacts of the Global Courses in their lives, all the envisioned pieces of the Global Course puzzle (institutional context, field of study, student needs, and learning approach) seem to fit perfectly so far. However, after the course has ended I must ask: Is there the necessary support, institutional commitment, and faculty involvement to sustain the activities generated during this learning experience? Due to the nature of the foreign-immersion component, numerous relationships and partnerships develop at all levels: personal, communal, institutional, and governmental. These relationships are byproducts of the participatory way in which the Global Courses are planned. We do not parachute into a village and ask a few questions about local conflict. We engage in local situations and work together with social actors to figure out strategies for conflict transformation. Following through on this experiential learning in turn makes the Global Courses successful. Lack of “after the course” commitment would result in dissatisfied host parties, frustrated students, and disillusioned faculty.

Global Courses as Incubators for Scholarship of Engagement Activities 211 Figure 1. Global Courses as Incubators of Scholarship of Engagement.

I think creating the structures needed to deal with the successful results of our Global Courses presents a tremendous opportunity for an institution like NSU, which is vigorously working to advance its commitment to Scholarship of Engagement and global participation. NSU’s core values and mission pave the way for Scholarship of Engagement activities; however, there is still much to be done to render them operational. The university and department still need to develop a clear framework for the execution of these activities. Specific criteria need to be defined to identify what constitutes a Scholarship of Engagement activity. Formal guidelines must be established for defining, documenting, and rewarding teaching and research in the field. Faculty promotion policy should include Scholarship of Engagement

212

Chapter Ten

as one of its indicators. University support structures and funds are also needed to start participatory research projects at the international level. Resources for physical, financial, and human support for these types of activities all need to be allocated (Fitzgerald, Burack, and Seifer 2010). At the departmental level, it is one thing to support the creation of a Global Course, yet quite another to manage the series of global engagement activities that result from it, especially when faculty time is already stretched between teaching, research, and service responsibilities. Departmental staff and administrative support are thus necessary to assist with the logistics of Global Course activities and outcomes. In addition, project management and grant writing should be recommended training for Global Course faculty and appropriate administrative staff. With regard to the field of study and student needs, the CAR curriculum should be expanded to include topics that provide the students with managerial skills. If Global Courses are to be incubators of Scholarship of Engagement activities, student roles must expand beyond the application of theory and practice to actual management of Scholarship of Engagement activities. Project management, monitoring and evaluation, grant writing, and grant management may all valuably be incorporated into the Global Course curriculum. In addition, students should be taught necessary skills to design, plan, and manage learning platforms around key topics related to the Scholarship of Engagement activity. Such an enhanced program will have an added bonus for students, since the skills they acquire will make them more attractive to employers and enhance their opportunities to become involved in the development and execution of global projects. As CAR practitioners and educators, we seek to provide students with the best learning experience possible so they can enter the field of CAR ready to make significant contributions in research and practice. The learning experience should not merely provide the accumulation of knowledge; we seek what Paulo Freire (1970) called conscientization, “the process of developing a critical awareness of one’s social reality through reflection and action;” only then are students prepared to act as global citizens and question social structures that inhibit social justice. I am convinced that the learning experiences in DCAR’s Global Courses can act as catalysts for the transformation of our students’ lives. With institutional support, Global Courses present significant opportunities to foster the Scholarship of Engagement in a global setting.

Global Courses as Incubators for Scholarship of Engagement Activities 213

Table 2. Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution Global Courses Description. Global Course Participants Description

Host Organization

Activities:

Outcomes:

Conflict in International Development–Ecuador (2010) 14 graduate students Students spent two weeks traveling through the Coastal, Andean and Amazon Regions of Ecuador. In these different ecosystems students interacted with local farmers, community groups, local organizations, and policy-makers. Using a livelihood systems approach, students explored the relationship between individuals, households, communities and ecosystems, in order to improve understanding of the diversity in these systems and its implications for CAR and socioeconomic development. Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL) in Guayaquil was our host university. A memorandum of understanding between NSU’s School of Humanities and Social Sciences and ESPOL provided the umbrella for the different course activities. ESPOL faculty provided guest lecturers and logistical support for the course. Most importantly, students and faculty from both universities benefited from the exchange of knowledge, information and experiences. A series of lectures and presentations by university professors, government officials, and members of civil society. Community project visits, field trips to indigenous communities, national parks, and historic sites. Journal entries, reflection, and discussions. Journal articles, dissertation topics, research and training practicums, development of new frameworks and new CAR models.

Environmental Conflict–Suriname (2011) 12 graduate students The Suriname Global Course introduced students to the field of Environmental Conflict. Students traveled through Suriname for eleven days, discovering the historical, ecological, and cultural diversity of this South American country. They interacted with small and commercial farmers, indigenous and Maroons groups, university faculty, policymakers, and other members of the civil society. Topics covered included environmental sustainability, land rights issues, biodiversity, human health, and sustainable livelihoods. Our host organization in Suriname, directed by one of our students, was Amazon Conservation Team (ACT Suriname), a nonprofit organization with a mission to preserve biodiversity, health, and culture, by working in partnership with indigenous peoples. They not only facilitated the logistics of our stay but provided an important link with the government of Suriname, the private sector, and civil society.

A series of lectures and presentations by university professors, government officials, and members of civil society. Community project visits, field trips to small and commercial farms, indigenous communities, a hydroelectric dam, small and commercial gold mining operations. Journal entries, reflection, and discussions. Delivered a training workshop on CAR. The workshop was attended by 25 people from government, NGOs, the university, and private industry. Journal articles, dissertation topics, research and training practicums.

214

Chapter Ten

References Ackerman, Peter, and Jack Duvall. 2000. A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict. New York: Palgrave. Barker, Derek. 2004. “The Scholarship of Engagement: A Taxonomy of Five Emerging Practices.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 9 (2): 123-137 Bendaña, Alejandro. 2003. “What Kind of Peace is Being Built? Critical Assessments from the South.” International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Ottawa, CA: IDRC Archives. http://web.idrc.ca/uploads/userS/10515571050Bendana_Final_Version_Mar03.pdf Boyer, Ernest L. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. —. 1996. "Stated Meeting Report: The Scholarship of Engagement.” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 49 (7): 18-33. Burton, John W. 1985. "The History of International Conflict Resolution.” International Interactions 121: 45-57. —. 1990. Conflict: Resolution and Prevention. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Carstarphen, Nike. 2010. Graduate Education and Professional Practice in International Peace and Conflict. Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace. http://www.usip.org/files/resources/sr246_0.pdf Chambers, Robert. 1984. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London: Longman. —. 2005. Ideas for Development. London: Earthscan. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nl ebk&db=nlabk&AN=130531 Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution, Nova Southeastern University. http://shss.nova.edu/programs/dcar/msdcar/index.htm Dill, David D. 1986. "Research as a Scholarly Activity: Context and Culture.” In Measuring Faculty Research Performance, edited by J.W. Creswell. New Directions for Institutional Research 13 (2): 7-23. Dirkx, John M. 1998. "Transformative Learning Theory in the Practice of Adult Education: An Overview.” PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning 7: 1-14. Fetherston, A. Betts, and Rhys H.S. Kelly. 2007. “Conflict Resolution and Transformative Pedagogy: A Grounded Theory Research Project on Learning in Higher Education.” Journal of Transformative Education 5 (3): 262-285. http://hdl.handle.net/10454/3450

Global Courses as Incubators for Scholarship of Engagement Activities 215

Fitzgerald, Hiram E., Cathy Burack, and Sarena Seifer. 2010. Handbook of Engaged Scholarship: Contemporary Landscapes, Future Directions. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Gaventa, John. 2006. "Finding the Spaces for Change: A Power Analysis.” IDS Bulletin 37 (6): 23-33. Glassick, Charles E., Mary Taylor Huber, Gene I. Maeroff, and Ernest L. Boyer. 1997. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hildebrand, Peter E. 1983. The Farming Systems Approach to Technology Development and Transfer. Logan, UT: International Irrigation Center, Utah State University. Knowles, Malcolm S. 1970. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy versus Pedagogy. New York: Association Press. Kolb, David A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kolb, David Allen, and Ronald E. Fry. 1974. Toward an Applied Theory of Experiential Learning. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Alfred P. Sloan School of Management. Kriesberg, Louis. 2007. Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Lederach, John Paul. 1995. Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across Cultures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. —. 2003. The Little Book of Conflict Transformation. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. McGill, Ian, and Liz Beaty. 1995. Action Learning: A Guide for Professional, Management, and Educational Development. London: Kogan Page. Mezirow, Jack. 1991. Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. —. 2000. Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miall, Hugh, Oliver Ramsbotham, and Tom Woodhouse. 1999. Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management and Transformation of Deadly Conflicts. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Morton, Linda, and Fred K. Beard. 2005. "RESEARCH - Faculty Productivity and Carnegie Institutional Characteristics within AEJMC Programs.” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 60 (2): 176. Nova Southeastern University. http://www.nova.edu/overview/mission.html Rogers, Carl R. 1969. Freedom to Learn: A View of What Education Might Become. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.

216

Chapter Ten

School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nova Southeastern University. On-line Catalog. http://shss.nova.edu/catalog-2011.pdf Sharoni, Simona. 1996. “From Conflict Resolution to Conflict Transformation: Historical Overview, Contemporary Trends, and Future Directions.” Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Seminar of the International University of People’s Institutions for Peace, Rovereto, Italy. Shmink, Marianne, Susan Paulson, and Elena Bastidas, eds. 2002. “Learning to MERGE.” Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. http://www.tcd.ufl.edu/documents/LearningtoMERGE8-2011.pdf Snyder, Catherine. 2008. "Grabbing Hold of a Moving Target: Identifying and Measuring the Transformative Learning Process.” Journal of Transformative Education 6 (3): 159-181. Starr-Glass, David. 2011. “Reconsidering Boyer’s Reconsideration: Paradigms, Sharing, and Engagement.” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 5 (2): 1-9. http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v5n2/essays_about_sotl/PD Fs/Starr-Glass.pdf Wright, Mary C., Nandini Assar, Edward L. Kain, Laura Kramer, Carla B. Howery, Kathleen McKinney, Becky Glass, and Maxine Atkinson. 2004. "Greedy Institutions: The Importance of Institutional Context for Teaching in Higher Education." Teaching Sociology 32 (2): 144-159.

EPILOGUE SUPPORTING THE SCHOLARSHIP OF ENGAGEMENT TOMMIE V. BOYD, JAMES HIBEL AND HONGGANG YANG

As seen throughout this book, the Scholarship of Engagement provides a framework for the creation of meaningful opportunities and elective platforms for town-gown partnerships at local, national, and global levels. These projects lead to multidisciplinary solutions to problems and promote strong collaborations between communities and academics. Bringing together institutional educational capacities and campus resources, the indigenous knowledge and capacities of the communities, and the mutual desire and commitment to co-create solutions, the Scholarship of Engagement makes a difference that becomes publicly known through the scholarly application and presentation of the outcomes. The projects described in this book do not adhere to any one standard prescriptive model for the Scholarship of Engagement. They include types of engagement from local school communities to communities in distant cultures, from assessments of peace activism initiatives to facilitating transitional justice and genocide prevention. One of the strengths of the Scholarship of Engagement is its openness and flexibility in making use of both local and academic knowledge, including the opportunities to forge unique types of reciprocal partnerships that are consonant with both the requirements of the academy and the history, needs, and skills of the cultures served through the projects. However, there are common aspects of these undertakings that distinguish the activities as the Scholarship of Engagement. As described in this book, the projects display important aspects of the Scholarship of Engagement and sustainability that include identifying the

218

Epilogue

project, collaborating with all stakeholders on the purpose, goals, and objectives, and developing a strategic plan to identify the steps that will move the project along. Collaborations among all stakeholders support the development of a clear mission, an empowering vision, and a strategic plan. Projects, small and large, must identify ways to sustain such community engagements. Funding resources are integral to sustaining and providing learning opportunities, training across collaborators and the communities, as well as responding to additional needs. A collaborative engagement of scholarship across communities promotes improvement and advancement of quality of life on the grassroots level. Organizations such as the Engagement Scholarship Consortium (http://outreach scholarship.org) recognize excellence in engaged scholarship by hosting awards, workshops, and an annual conference. Implicit in these arrangements, and of particular resonance in our academic community, is the common sensibility of assisting without colonizing, and the Scholarship of Engagement provides a methodological scaffold that supports this sensibility. It is a sensibility implicit in the projects described in this book. The Scholarship of Engagement implicitly and explicitly flattens the hierarchy between the academy and the community. Within the Scholarship of Engagement, the academy does not learn of a problem in a community or a movement and invite itself in as an expert. When this happens, community knowledge and skills can be overlooked or marginalized in deference to the perceived, if not overtly expressed, expertise of the academician. These types of efforts, while generally well-intentioned and useful, still privilege those with academic degrees and the power implicit in them with the authority to determine the ways of responding to challenges. When the academy defines or predetermines the parameters of success, this can result in initiatives that prescribe goals or impose solutions for communities that may or may not fit with the local culture, and may be less collaborative and inclusive than they might be. The initiatives described in this book each, in their own way, endeavor to join the expertise and ideals of the communities served with the expertise of the scholars in the academic institution. The Scholarship of Engagement also can be distinguished from service learning, in which students from the academy simply gain expertise by practicing their professional skills in a community setting while providing needed services to the community. These efforts, while also useful and important both to the community and the students, do not comprise a full collaboration between the community and the academy, and also typically lack the scholarship component that typifies the Scholarship of

Supporting the Scholarship of Engagement

219

Engagement. To this extent the efforts described in this book move beyond service learning, though practicum and field experiences are integral parts of the training of every student in every program in our graduate studies. Within a framework of the Scholarship of Engagement, members of the academic institution are either invited into or are negotiating a genuine collaboration with the community. Understandings, native traditions, skills, and knowledge of the community are woven in with the research skills, knowledge, and capacities of the academy. The academician brings in historical and cross-cultural knowledge related to the problem, as well as theoretical and methodological bases for initiating action. Specialized skills around performing research, including accepted methods of data collection, data analysis, and reporting of results become important contributions of the scholars. These move the initiatives beyond successful community efforts at resolving a problem, towards scholarly endeavors which make the new approaches and results available for scrutiny, distribution, and utilization by other communities, enhancing the sustainability of the initiatives themselves. The Scholarship of Engagement is an emerging framework to build on our shared passions for systems thinking, reflexivity, and strengths-based models, as a part of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences (SHSS) at Nova Southeastern University (NSU). We are very pleased and proud that SHSS was instrumental to NSU’s recognition from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 2010 as a communityengaged academic institution. In a traditional academic domain, the projects described in this book have been used to measure success and productivity in academic life, for example, by means of the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) that is sometimes considered limited and provincial. Rather than being centered on the volume of citations as an essential measure of academic production, our colleagues can look at “impact factors” on the levels of human, family, community, school, organizational, and global systems, including trans-disciplinary applications. The field of applied anthropology is among many disciplines and professions in the social sciences that have for years made pioneering efforts in the many varieties of applied undertakings. The relational thinking and strength-based teachings and learnings found within the marriage and family therapy programs at SHSS also provide foundational models of how systemic change can occur across societies. For example, one of our impact factors has developed with a faculty colleague who has become a role model within a local school district, working closely with

220

Epilogue

several schools in applying a strength-based approach to student and teacher success. Her efforts have also led to legislative motions and policy changes. Another lens through which we look is found in our school-based quality enhancement plan, which identifies and promotes more engaged experiential learning, clinical training, and outreach initiatives, as well as incorporating Scholarship of Engagement in faculty review criteria and processes. Standing apart from the norms that privilege individual expertise, SHSS encourages collaborative engagement that respects and appreciates the cultural values and local skills of both the scholars and the members of communities with whom we participate as co-developers and co-authors. Because the SHSS constituencies are from diverse cultural, socioeconomic, and academic backgrounds, we continue to support and encourage the broadest possible spectrum of practices in the development of scholarship of engagement initiatives with students, alumni, peers, community agencies, NGO’s and others. Sustaining meaningful and mutually beneficial collaborations with our many partners can be achieved through teaching, research, and services that benefit the public at the local and global levels. In order to sustain Scholarship of Engagement on and off campus, it must be resource-based and interwoven into our everyday academic life, thereby softening the rigidity of disciplinary segmentation, professional compartmentalization, or the artificial boundaries between the university and the communities with which we engage.

CONTRIBUTORS

Dr. Elena Bastidas has both a Ph.D. and an M.S. in Food & Resource Economics, and an M.S. in Agricultural Education & Communication from the University of Florida. She became part of DCAR’s faculty in August of 2007. Elena has been in charge of the Quantitative Research Methodology courses and also teaches electives in the area of Conflict and International Development, Environmental Conflict, Conflict between Conservation and Development, and Gender and Conflict Analysis for Development. Since 2010 she has developed Global Courses (DCAR courses that include an overseas component) and has taken students to Ecuador and Suriname. Elena’s current projects include developing a Conflict Resolution capacity building strategy for Indigenous and Maroons groups in Suriname. She is also advisor to the government of Suriname in the Land Rights process. In Colombia she is collaborating with a network of organizations in community-based conservation efforts of AfroColombian communities. In Ecuador she is involved in a research project on Conflict between Tourism and Sustainable community development. Dr. Dustin Berna graduated from the University of New Orleans with his Ph.D. in 2008. His two major fields of study were Middle Eastern politics and international relations. American political institutions was a third and minor field. His dissertation was a quantitative study that evaluated the causes and electoral success of Islamic fundamentalist movements. He has collected and coded every Islamic fundamentalist group that is or has been in operation in the Islamic world since 1970. Dr. Berna has two Masters Degrees: an M.A. in political science and a M.S. in history education. Dr. Berna also has two baccalaureate degrees: a B.A. in political science and a B.A. in English literature. Dr. Berna’s research specializations include Middle Eastern politics, Islamic fundamentalism, religious extremism, social movements, terrorism, and political institutions. He has taught classes on the Iraq War, Islamic politics, Middle Eastern politics, terrorism, political violence, international relations, U.S. foreign policy, politics of developing states, revolutions, international negotiation, and violence prevention. Dr. Berna has written numerous articles on topics that range from terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism to Iranian political institutions and Islamic democracy.

222

Contributors

Dr. Tommie V. Boyd is Chair of the Family Therapy Department and Associate Professor at Nova Southeastern University. She has published and presented widely in the areas of family systems healthcare, community engagement, training and supervision. Her recent research includes grant funded projects on Parkinson’s patients and their caregivers, returning veterans, and children with autism spectrum disorders and their families. She served on the Florida Association for Marriage and Family Therapy focusing on parity, larger systems issues at the state and national levels and as past president of the FAMFT, and a recipient of the AAMFT Leadership Award. Dr. Jason J. Campbell is currently an Assistant Professor of Conflict Resolution and Philosophy at Nova Southeastern University. His research specializations include genocide and international terrorism. He is the founder and Executive Director for the Institute for Genocide Awareness and Applied Research (IGAAR) and the Journal for Genocide Awareness and Applied Research (JGAAR). IGAAR is a member of the International Alliance to End Genocide, which is chaired by Genocide Watch. Dr. Cheryl Lynn Duckworth is a professor of Conflict Resolution at Nova Southeastern University. A peace-building program leader and conflict resolution policy analyst, she has served such organizations as the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy and the Center for International Education. She has lived in Zimbabwe and Paraguay, and published and presented globally on her two passions, peace education and peace economics, exploring ways to transform the economic, political, social and psychological root causes of war and violence. Her more recent publications include her book which explores the role of dignity in social movements, Land and Dignity in Paraguay, and an article on her implementation of critical peace education curriculum in a juvenile detention home. Cheryl has trained hundreds of students, teachers and community leaders in peace education and conflict resolution both in the US and internationally. Currently she serves as the faculty advisor of NSU’s Peace Education Working Group and on the Advisory Board of the Hope Development Organization, a women’s rights and peace building organization in Pakistan. Cheryl has taught qualitative research methods, foundations of conflict resolution and peace education. She is active in the Alliance for International Education, the Comparative and International Education Society and the International Peace Research Association. She blogs at Teach for Peace.

Conflict Resolution and the Scholarship of Engagement

223

Alexia Georgakopoulos, Ph.D., is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution (DCAR) in the Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences (SHSS) at Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. She is also the Director and Primary Trainer at the Institute of Conflict Resolution and Communication (ICRC). She is a world class expert in conflict resolution and communication with two decades of work in the field as a trainer, researcher and practitioner. She has recently been interviewed and appeared on NBC’s Today Show and discussed the topic of “Is World Peace Possible?” Alexia also has extensive experience as an educator, trainer, researcher, and practitioner. Her work has been published in leading conferences and journals both domestically and internationally. Her areas of expertise are in Conflict Resolution, Organizational Communication, Intercultural Communication, Effective Pedagogy, Nonverbal Communication, and Relational Communication. Along with being an educator, Alexia works as a professional and motivational speaker and consultant for multinational organizations, school systems, healthcare organizations, family systems, governmental agencies, religious organizations, community-based organizations, and international organizations. She delivers mediation, facilitation, communication, diversity, and conflict management trainings. She is committed to offering quality educational programs. Toran Hansen earned his Ph.D. in Social Work from the University of Minnesota in 2010. During his time there, he worked as a Research Associate for the Center for Restorative Justice and Peacemaking, as well as the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs. His dissertation research examined facilitation within the Minnesota peace movement. In 2004, he graduated with a Master’s degree in Conflict Analysis and Resolution from Nova Southeastern University, where he also worked as a Research Associate for the Institute for Child Health Policy. Prior to that, Toran was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Guinea, West Africa, and a Program Director for the Fraser Youth Supervision Program in British Columbia, Canada, where he grew up. Toran has mediated disputes for the Palm Beach County Courthouse, Nova Southeastern University, and the Minnesota Department of Corrections. His scholarly interests include: restorative justice, social justice, social movements, social networks, and social capital. He and his partner are the parents of three wonderful children. Steven Hawkins holds a Ph.D. in Conflict Analysis and Resolution from Nova Southeastern University. He is the Founder and director of Dramatic Problem Solving (DPS). Steven works with communities and groups to help them transform their conflicts. Recent projects include facilitation

224

Contributors

workshops and play making with youth groups in Ecuador and Colombia, a women´s group in La Carpio, an urban squatters community in San Jose, workshops with Patch Adams and his traveling clown trips to Costa Rica, Clowning and Theatre at SOS villages in Nicaragua, workshops with the BriBri indigenous people in Costa Rica, and short courses with public schools in rural Costa Rica through the Costa Rican Health Ministry. Steven is always working to expand and creatively improve the DPS model and its applications. A workbook on the process and applications of DPS is pending. Dr. James Hibel is Associate Professor of Family Therapy in the Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences and Senior Associate Dean for Institutional Enhancement for the Division of Applied Interdisciplinary Studies at Nova Southeastern University. He has published and presented widely on narrative therapy practices, on assessing outcomes in clinical training programs and on supervision issues. Neil H. Katz, Ph.D., is completing his fortieth year as a faculty member and sometimes administrator. He has held positions at Colgate University, the University of Missouri-St. Louis, McMaster University in Canada, thirty-six years at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University, and most recently, at Nova Southeastern University as a Chair and Professor. During his career, Neil has developed and led several community engagements programs such as the Campus Mediation Program, The Conflict Resolution Consulting Group, the Program in Nonviolent Conflict and Change, the Summer Institute on Creative Conflict Resolution and the Program on the Analysis and Resolution of Conflict. In addition to publishing numerous books, book chapters, and articles on nonviolent action, communication skills, conflict resolution, mediation and negotiation, Neil also is a nationally recognized consultant and trainer for his consulting firm, Dr. Neil Katz and Associates. Consuelo Doria Kelley is a doctoral student in the Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution (DCAR) at Nova Southeastern University (NSU) currently completing her dissertation on academic integrity. She is a graduate of Yale College (B.A. 1976) and Yale Law School (J.D. 1980) and a member of the District of Columbia Bar. During her graduate studies at NSU she has served as a teaching and graduate assistant to DCAR faculty and as editor of numerous faculty publications and student dissertations. She received the Kathleen Harmon DCAR Scholarship in 2009, was elected DCAR Representative to NSU’s Student Government

Conflict Resolution and the Scholarship of Engagement

225

Association for the academic year 2010-2011, named 2012 Student of the Year by the School of Humanities and Social Sciences (SHSS), and is a 2012 NSU Student Life Achievement Award finalist for Student of the Year. Born and raised in Puerto Rico, Consuelo is passionate about conflict resolution studies and deeply committed to strategic enhancement of the teaching and learning experience. Judith McKay is an Associate Professor of Conflict Resolution and Community Studies, the Chair of the Department of Multidisciplinary Studies (DMS) and the Director of Community Resolution Services (CRS). CRS provides services to the NSU and local communities including community and family mediation and training, facilitation, training, and consulting for communities and organizations, and conflict coaching for individuals and families. CRS also coordinates Peace Place, a collaborative project with the Broward County Library System. Judith has been professionally involved in conflict resolution for over 30 years. She has been interviewed on radio and television regarding conflicts in neighborhoods, families, and organizations. Judith presents each year at conferences and seminars and as an invited speaker at professional association meetings. She has provided training to attorneys, therapists, law enforcement officers, health care and social service providers, clergy, educators and others in subjects such as strategic community planning, mediation, family and domestic violence, conflict and crisis communication, diversity and culture, workplace conflict and bullying, and community development. She is currently engaged in several research projects including: the perceptions of experienced conflict coaches; the role of interdisciplinarity in the design of collaborative community projects; and the perceptions of elders regarding social change and conflict. While at NSU Judith has been involved as principle investigator in two major grants from the US Department of Justice and as a coordinator in a major grant from the US Department of Health and Human Services. She launched a new graduate program in National Security Affairs in 2011. Ismael Muvingi is an Associate Professor in Conflict Resolution at Nova Southeastern University, Florida, USA. Ismael is a native of Zimbabwe and during Zimbabwe’s war for liberation from colonial rule, he worked for the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace going into war zones and recording the stories of the unarmed civilians. After Zimbabwe’s independence, Muvingi practiced law both in the private and the public sectors for close to twenty years and also lectured in law on a part-time

226

Contributors

basis at the University of Zimbabwe. In North America, Ismael has worked for a US-based NGO as a legislative advocacy campaign manager on conflict resolution and HIV/ AIDS issues in Africa. Thereafter, Ismael taught conflict resolution at Menno Simons College, University of Winnipeg, for seven years before joining Nova Southeastern University. His research interests include transitional justice, human rights, extractive industries and social movements with an area focus on Sub-Saharan Africa. Claire Michèle Rice, Ph.D., is faculty member at the Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution (DCAR). Rice served as a consultant for over 15 years in poverty alleviation, diversity training, and conflict management to businesses, civic organizations, and institutions from primary to higher education in the Caribbean and in the U.S. Some of her consulting career's highlights include her work with Margaret McDonald Policy Management & Administration Center (MMPMAC) in Nassau, Bahamas, for a number of years in training and program development; and her training work with the Florida Agency for Volunteer Action in the Caribbean and the Americas (FAVACA), assisting the Women in Democracy organization in Haiti; and her training of members of The Turks and Caicos Islands government and civic community in developing poverty alleviation programs and in enhancing their conflict management strategies. Rice received a Ph.D. at Florida International University (FIU) in Comparative Sociology with concentrations in race and ethnicity, sociolinguistics and cultural analysis. She also earned a Master of Arts degree in Linguistics and Bachelor of Arts degree in Spanish, with a minor in French at FIU. Rice’s teaching and research interests include poverty alleviation and economic empowerment, diversity research and training, collaborative problem-solving, conflict management and mentoring for human resource development. Rice is a board member at the Health Foundation of South Florida. She has received the Humanitarian of the Year Award at Florida Memorial University and outstanding service awards from DCAR, the Florida Education Fund, Florida International University, and the MMPMAC. Larry Rice, Ed.D., serves as Vice President and Dean of Academic Affairs at Johnson & Wales University’s North Miami Campus. He has spent more than seventeen years in the culinary, hospitality and business education field. Prior to joining Johnson & Wales University, Rice owned A Chef for Hire, a training and consulting firm for the hospitality industry. He continues to serve as a consultant for government, nonprofit and educational institutions. He is a member of the Board of Directors and

Conflict Resolution and the Scholarship of Engagement

227

Chair of the Education Committee of the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts Trust; was appointed to the Miami-Dade County Mayor’s Miami International Airport Consumer Advisory Task Force; a member of the Tourist Development Council Nominations Committee; member at large and past Chair of the Board of the Visitor Industry Council of Greater Miami; and member of the Greater Miami Convention and Visitor’s Bureau. He has donated his time to a variety of community service initiatives, providing training and mentoring on conflict resolution, diversity and strategic management planning to the local community and abroad. Dr. Rice was the recipient of the South Florida Business Journal’s 2007 “Up & Comers Award”, a 2006 Finalist for the March of Dimes “Building Our Community Award”, an honoree of the Legacy Magazine and was listed in the Miami Herald as one of the “50 Most Powerful Black Professionals in South Florida” in 2010. Rice received his B.S. and M.S. from Florida International University and his Ed.D. from Nova Southeastern University. Honggang Yang joined NSU in 1998. He has been serving as Dean for SHSS since 1999. In the early 1990s Honggang worked for the Carter Presidential Center of Emory University as research associate and internship coordinator. He taught and chaired the Antioch program in conflict resolution in Ohio. He has also served on several boards in the fields of conflict resolution, community outreach, peace research, and anthropology.

INDEX

Ackerman, R., 106 Agent transformations, 24 Alternatives to Violence (AVP) Project, 98 American Exceptionalism, 54 Amnesty International, 154 An Na’im, A., 165 Appadurai, A., 54-55 Aristotle, 80 Auerbach, J., 15 Augsburger, D.W., 140 Barker, D., 78, 107-108, 116, 119, 120, 121, 122, 131, 141, 209 Bernstein, R., 77 Bessaw, M., 161 Boal, A., 82 Boulding, E., 57 Boundary-spanning theory, 147 Boyer, E., 2-3, 23, 78, 107 Bratton, M., 165 Broome, B., 89, 92, 100 Burrage, J., 78 Burrell, R.M., 190 Canadian Mennonite University (CMU), 160 Capitalism, 188, 189 Carnegie Foundation, 146 Chambers, R., 202 Change agent, 29 Christakis, A., 89 Clamshell Alliance, 8-12 Cloke, K., 52 Community Resolution Services (CRS), 116 Conflict transformation, 24-25 Constantino, C., 94, 135, 140 Critical peace education, 52 Curle, A., 24, 26, 30 Direct violence, 23

Dispute Systems Design (DSD), 73 Dramatic Problem Solving Facilitation Model (DPSFM), 72-75, 80-88, 93-99, 101-102 Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, 180, 181, 182, 189, 191, 192 Egyptian Revolution, 181, 182 Epistemology critical perspective, 77 interpretive approach, 76 post-modernism, 76 traditional approach, 75 Family Action Plans (FAPs), 109 Finkelstein, M., 79 Francis, D., 34-35 Freire, P., 52, 60, 64-65, 82, 213 Fundamentalism, 183 Gacaca, 146, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 164 Gadamer, H.G., 77 Galtung, J., 25, 28, 35, 52 Genocide awareness, 171, 177 de-escalation strategies, 171 dehumanization, 172, 173 prevention, 171, 172, 177 Gershenfeld, M., 127, 131, 132, 139 Goodhart, M., 164 Great American Peace March for Global Nuclear Disarmament, 13 Habermann, B., 78 Habermas, J., 52 Hadden, J., 190 Hedges, C., 55-56 Hegemonic narratives, 53 Heterodox discourse, 174, 176 Heterodox narratives, 175, 177 Hinnebusch, R., 193

Conflict Resolution and the Scholarship of Engagement Houden, L., 93 Interactive Management (IM), 7275, 80-81, 88-89, 90, 92-96, 99, 100-102 Instrumental transformations, 27 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 153 Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM), 90-92, 104 Iranian Revolution, 181 Islamic fundamentalism causes, 185 triangular models, 186 Islamic fundamentalist movement, 183 Islamic movements Extremist, 182 Liberal, 182 Moderate, 182 table, 194-195 Keefe, J., 93 King, Martin Luther, 55, 60 Klug, H., 164 Kolb, D., 206 Koppett, K., 93 Kriesberg, L., 102 Kvale, S., 81 Lederach, J.P., 24, 25, 51, 57, 60, 107, 121, 140, 201 Lewin, K., 4 Margate Police Department Neighborhood Policing Program, 111, 114 Maurrasse, D., 160-161 Mauthner, M., 64 Marx, K., 190, 192 Mayer, B., 28, 34 Maynard, D., 128 Mbembe, A., 164 McIntosh, P., 56 Mekoa, I.S., 149 Merchant, C., 91, 135, 140 Meyerstein, A., 155, 163 Mezirow, J., 207 Minnesota peace movement, 37-43 Mitchell, J., 78-79

229

Napier, R., 127, 131, 132, 139 Nasser, Abdel, 193 Nominal Group Technique (NGT), 92 Ntuli, P.P., 148 Ocampo, L., 150 Organizational conflict definition, 135 levels of conflict, 136 Organizational culture, 121 Ott, S., 121, 135 Participatory action research (PAR), 83 Penal Reform International (PRI), 154, 155, 156, 164 Program in Nonviolent Conflict and Change, (PNCC), 5 Program on the Analysis and Resolution of Conflicts (PARC), 6 Rath, T., 9 Recess Effect, The, 123 Reconstructionism, 57-61 Relational transformations, 24 Relative deprivation, 192 Rice, L., 123 Richardson, S., 134 Rideout, C., 134 Ropers, N., 61 Rostain, A., 93 Roy, B., 34 Rwandan genocide, 152 Said, E., 54, 149 Schabas, W., 152 Schon, D., 17 Schwarz, R., 93, 95 Seneca Army Depot, 12 Shattel, M., 78 Shupe, A., 190 Social movements, 23-24, 26-29, 31-32 Socialization, 174 Structural violence, 51-52 Systems thinking, 61 Taylor, D., 96 Teitel, R., 150, 151

230 Thiong’o, N.w., 149 Transactional Analysis theory, 127 Transitional Justice (TJ), 150 Tree of Life, 146, 157, 158, 159 Tushman, M.L., 162 U.S. Institute of Peace, 204 Vectors of conflict, 129

Index VOICES Outreach Project, 108 Whyte, W.F., 4, 17 Workplace conflict, 16 Wright, M.C., 199 Zimbabwe African National Union (Patriotic Front) (ZANU PF), 157