Institute News

We have all read articles that mark a certain passage of time since an institution's founding which trumpet its achievements, flatter its personnel, cheer on its faithful supporters, and pretend that its most ambitious dreams have been realized. In this space an institution less adventuresome than the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution might publish such an "anniversary piece"--a public relations handout masquerading as an objective appraisal. As for ICAR, that is not our style. Our fifteenth anniversary provides us with the welcome opportunity to reflect on a course of development that has fulfilled some of our fondest hopes, while falling short of the mark in other respects. As we rededicate ourselves to carrying out our chosen mission, we need to clearly assess where we have succeeded and where major new efforts are needed.

ICAR's intention has been from the beginning to create a community of scholars and activists, theorists and practitioners, teachers, students, alumni, and friends, able to make a substantial contribution to deepening the understanding of deep-rooted social conflicts and effective ways of resolving them. Peace has been our mission, not just the absence of war and certainly not the absence of conflict but the humanization of conflict and its redirection toward the goal of satisfying basic human needs. With these aims in mind, how are we doing? What obstacles have we encountered? How can we strive to overcome them in the next fifteen years? This essay represents one participant's perspective on ICAR's performance to date and its prospects for the future. Needless to say, my views do not necessarily reflect those of my colleagues, of the Institute, or of George Mason University.

Major Events in ICAR History

We may begin with a brief sketch of the Institute's history. The Center for Conflict Resolution (CCR), as ICAR was first called, was founded in 1981 by an interdisciplinary group of George Mason University faculty from the departments of Sociology and Anthropology, Communications, Psychology, and Public Affairs. (Persons important to ICAR's development are listed in the box below.) Led by psychiatrist and peace theorist Dr. Bryant Wedge and governed by a faculty advisory board, CCR's primary mission was to design and teach an interdisciplinary master's level curriculum in Conflict Studies and to undertake original research in this newly emerging field. Its leaders also hoped to provide a home for the proposed National Academy of Peace and Conflict Resolution then being considered by the United States Congress.

The master's program developed by CCR's innovative scholars was initiated in the fall semester of 1981 and taught on a part-time basis by faculty members from other George Mason University departments. With its interdisciplinary input and mix of theoretical and laboratory-simulation courses, the curriculum later served as a prototype for subsequent curricula at ICAR and, indeed, at many other universities. The National Academy of Peace eventually became the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). While they are not formally affiliated, ICAR and USIP have engaged in collaborative work over the years. ICAR's structure of an academic "core faculty" working collaboratively with affiliated organizations survived; our affiliates have included the Conflict Clinic, Inc., the Consortium on Peace Research, Education, and Development (COPRED), the National Conference on Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution (NCPCR), and the Northern Virginia Mediation Service (NVMS).

In 1986 an institutional revolution of sorts occurred when John W. Burton, former Head of the Australian Foreign Office and founder of the University of London's pioneering Conflict Resolution Program, joined the Center as Distinguished Visiting Professor. A man of broad experience, innovative ideas, and strongly held opinions, Burton's overall goal was to help establish Conflict Analysis and Resolution as an autonomous discipline liberated from the assumptions and methods governing other disciplines. His particular aims, which strongly influenced the Center's work, were to focus research on long-term conflict resolution, not just temporary settlement of disputes; to develop the theory of Basic Human Needs as a basis for understanding deep-rooted social conflicts; and to put theory to the test of practice by developing and facilitating analytical problem-solving workshops.

In 1987 CCR became CCAR: the Center for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. With Director Joseph Scimecca and Professor Dennis Sandole, John Burton drafted a major grant proposal that was funded by the Hewlett Foundation and later renewed. Additional funding, which was provided by the University and by our benefactors Edwin and Helen Lynch and Drucie French and Steven Cumbie, made it possible to hire four senior faculty members committed to teaching full-time in the program. Meanwhile, an active community-based advisory board raised funds locally to support student research assistants and helped connect the Center more closely to its Northern Virginia constituency.

The Center's PhD Program--the first doctoral program in Conflict Analysis and Resolution in the United States--was launched in fall 1988. In that same year the Vernon M. and Minnie I. Lynch Annual Lectures were inaugurated with a lecture by our late colleague, Professor James H. Laue. John Burton remained at the Center until 1990, long enough to see his four-volume Conflict Series, written and edited with ICAR graduate Frank B. Dukes, to completion and publication by St. Martin's Press. During this period, the Center sponsored conferences which led to important publications on Basic Human Needs Theory, Mapping the Field of Conflict Resolution, and Interpreting Violent Conflict (the last a conference for journalists and conflict specialists). Joseph Scimecca was succeeded as director by Richard Rubenstein (1988-91), Christopher Mitchell (1991-95), and current director Kevin P. Clements, who joined us in 1995.

In 1991 the Center was reorganized as the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (ICAR), a free-standing Institute reporting directly to the provost and president of George Mason University. A year later, ICAR's Applied Practice and Theory Program (APT) was initiated by three new faculty members specializing in clinical education; in 1993 the master's curriculum was substantially revised. Increasing numbers of applicants to ICAR's MS and PhD programs brought student enrollment to its present level of approximately 120, and a corresponding increase in the size of the full-time faculty brought that body to its current level of eleven members. Meanwhile, the Institute was strengthened by the development of a capable contingent of part-time professors, visiting professors, and visiting fellows.

ICAR faculty have published extensively in recent years (see the ICAR Publications List included in this issue). With students and colleagues, they have facilitated processes aimed at resolving conflicts in Northern Ireland, Spain, Liberia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, the Horn of Africa, Georgia/Abkhazia, Israel/Palestine, Bosnia/Herzegovina, and Canada as well as across the United States and in the national capitol area in Northern Virginia and the District of Columbia. They have conducted annual conferences on Ethnic Conflict and Xenophobia (1994), Conflict and Gender (1995), Flexibility in International Negotiation (1995), and Zones of Peace (1996). The two latter gatherings led to the publication of two volumes of edited papers and proceedings. ICAR students are now taking a lead role in organizing ICAR's Annual Conference on Responding to Youth Violence scheduled for fall 1997.

Approximately 150 Institute alumni staff many of the most active and important conflict resolution organizations in the United States and several foreign countries; they work for government agencies, international organizations, private companies, and trade unions. Of the ten graduates of ICAR's doctoral program, six teach Conflict Analysis and Resolution full-time at the university level, three have produced major books in the field, and four specialize in conflict intervention activities. The Institute has developed Conflict Analysis and Resolution curricula and courses at six foreign universities and is linked through its faculty, students, and alumni with conflict resolution organizations around the world.

In 1993 ICAR was designated a Commonwealth Center of Excellence by the Virginia State Commission on Higher Education--the only institution that year so honored. The commission recommended that the Institute be awarded $2.5 million in additional funds over a period of five years. While several years of budget cuts delayed this funding, an initial installment of $325,000 has been approved by the state legislature for academic year 1997-98. This award makes it possible to hire new faculty, increase student enrollment, and undertake new research and conflict intervention projects. In 1997 applications for admission to the program reached a new high--a promising development, considering that there are now other institutions in the field competing with ICAR for graduate student candidates.

Achievements and Problems: An ICAR Balance Sheet

The Institute's most unambiguous achievement to date has been the creation of rich, diversified, high-quality master's and doctoral curricula reflecting the institution's commitment to analyzing and resolving serious social conflicts. With its mix of theoretical courses, hands-on laboratory-simulation classes, Applied Practice and Theory education, internships, and doctoral seminars, its teaching program is a model for other Conflict Studies Programs here and abroad. Furthermore, ICAR's courses are well designed and taught by the Institute's unusually dedicated teaching faculty, whose performance is consistently rated higher by ICAR students than university-wide norms.

Closely connected to its success has been the Institute's ability to attract a highly committed, talented, energetic, and diverse student body--in many ways, ICAR's chief glory. ICAR's student organization, Graduate Students in Conflict Studies, participates in institutional decision-making at all levels, sponsors periodic town meetings to deal with important internal issues, and conducts independent evaluations of all ICAR courses. It produces a professional-quality collection of student papers each year, sponsors training and conference activities, and staffs the University Dispute Resolution Project. ICAR students, with faculty and alumni, participate in research projects and conflict intervention efforts, as well as in our weekly Brown Bag Seminars and social events. This partnership makes ICAR a genuine community as well as a university department.

A list of ICAR's achievements must include its faculty's production of significant books, articles, and conferences as well as their participation in important conflict intervention efforts and the work of building the field globally. However, problems must also be identified and dealt with if the Institute is to realize its ambitious goals. I will briefly discuss three related areas in which further effort seems warranted: 1) building conflict theory; 2) linking theory with practice; and 3) crossing the domestic/international divide.

Theory Building. The Institute's primary product, the sine qua non that will ultimately determine its success or failure, is transformative ideas. How far have we come in developing ideas that illuminate the causes, nature, and consequences of serious social conflicts and best methods of resolving or transforming them cooperatively? Here the balance sheet is mixed. Since Burton and Dukes' four-volume Conflict Series, ICAR has produced several important books and Working Papers containing useful insights (these are included in ICAR's Publications List). Publication of other books in progress is eagerly awaited; these include Christopher Mitchell's Gestures of Conciliation and Dennis Sandole's The Genesis of War. But the insights generated thus far remain scattered. The search for "generic" theories that will illuminate the causes of serious conflict across many levels (interpersonal, community, and transnational) has not advanced much since John Burton's work on the theory of Basic Human Needs. Why not? Although some might consider the quest for generic theory quixotic, there is evidence that this is not the case. Basic Human Needs theory has already proved useful in conflict analysis and could clearly be developed further by interested theorists. Furthermore, promising efforts have been made by some ICAR teachers and students to develop Worldview Theory as a method of analyzing conflicts based on conflicting frames of reference. Most important, perhaps, significant sources of theory relatively unexplored by conflict specialists could be used to illuminate a broad range of social conflicts. These include Critical Theory, Feminist Theory, Depth Psychology, and the analysis of the Theory of Deep Culture. A problem here may well lie in the very diversity of interests and talents represented by the ICAR faculty and our tendency to scatter our energies across a broad field of conceptual and practical concerns. If so, the solution may be a combination of new hires and more focused theoretical work by the faculty and its network partners. An example: ICAR faculty members should now be engaged in producing the definitive textbook on analyzing and resolving deep-rooted social conflicts; this is the sort of work that could help refocus our attention on theory-building.

Linking Theory with Practice. What makes the theory/practice linkage a more complex matter than it might seem is ICAR's commitment to study and to practice long-term conflict resolution, as opposed to temporary dispute settlement. Where the goal of practice is to terminate hostilities, to help negotiators reach agreement, or to enhance the capacity of public and private institutions to "manage" conflicts, the Institute has made progress toward linking theory with practice. But the resolution of serious social conflicts poses special problems since it often requires broad and deep structural changes amounting to system transformation. System transformation is not something that can normally be accomplished by a few parties meeting with a facilitator; it requires not only good theory and good facilitation but political action. For example, where is the link between theory and practice when it comes to resolving conflicts between criminals and the state, between immigrants and natives, between hostile religious groups, or between alienated social classes? The answer, I fear, is that since conflict theory in these subject areas is weak and practice almost non-existent, the links are few and far between. Furthermore, even if theory and practice were stronger, it would require a political movement of some strength to implement the agreed-upon system transformations.

When we deal with a problem area, for example, crime and police violence, we can sometimes assist the parties to reach agreement on the social causes of their conflict and the changes necessary to eliminate or mitigate them. But to carry through the kind of socioeconomic and political reconstruction that could provide alternatives to criminal behavior and state violence, a political movement is required. The understandable impulse among many conflict resolvers to avoid partisanship has inhibited us (not just at ICAR, but throughout the field) from moving to create the political base necessary to transform malfunctioning or collapsed systems. Overcoming this inhibition may be an important task for us all in the years ahead.

 Crossing the Domestic/International Divide. The field of Conflict Resolution has generally treated domestic and international conflicts differently. Where in-country conflicts are concerned, the theories and processes employed are those suited to dealing with "interest groups"; for example, power bargaining, Alternative Dispute Resolution techniques, and power politics. Where international or transnational conflicts are involved, i.e., where there is no accepted "sovereign" or legal order able to manage the conflict, there has been more openness to the use of structural change theories, analytical problem-solving techniques, and political mobilizations. To put it crudely, we tend to approach domestic conflicts like moderate reformers and transnational conflicts like (nonviolent) revolutionaries.

 An unsolved problem for ICAR, and, I believe, for the field, is how to cross the domestic/international divide without abandoning our commitment to long-term conflict resolution and the serious structural changes needed to effectuate it. Conceptualizing these changes may require in-depth political discussions of a sort that we have seldom engaged in at ICAR. The results of such discussions could enable us to deal far more effectively with domestic conflicts involving race and gender issues, worker-company relationships, paramilitary organizations and ideologies, crime and prisons, immigration and nativism, spouse and child abuse, and other manifestations of endemic domestic violence. It is now time for ICAR and the field to deal with conflicts whose resolution may require significant political change, hence, increased political conflict. This is no paradox; it is inherent in the idea of resolving, not just settling, serious conflicts.

Conclusion: The Next Fifteen Years

 The position ICAR has carved out for itself in the field of Conflict Analysis and Resolution is an enviable one, but difficult to maintain. While many other conflict studies centers specialize in developing alternatives to litigation or legislation useful tasks, to be sure we focus on developing alternatives to violence and war. While many other institutions ignore or blur the line between conflict resolution and dispute settlement, we attempt to clarify it. Despite pressures to become technical trainers of our students, we have remained educators. Despite invitations to become intellectual "beltway bandits," captives of the Washington, D.C., power structure, we have retained our political and operational independence. This course of action has at times created tension between ICAR and certain other institutions in the field, but it is a creative tension which enables us to play comradely and critical roles at the same time. Needless to say, we have a great deal to learn from other conflict studies centers, particularly those which have taken the lead in developing new approaches to reconciliation, psychological and spiritual healing, and socioeconomic development. Still, we seem to have become, in a sense, the conscience of our profession as well as its premier teaching institution, which may explain why we are asked to evaluate so many other conflict studies programs around the country.

Maintaining this position requires that ICAR recommit itself to aspects of its mission still unfulfilled: developing better conflict theories, linking theory more successfully with practice, and crossing the domestic/international divide. It also requires that the Institute continue to diversify racially, ethnically, culturally, and in terms of gender, nationality, and intellectual commitments. The relative absence of people of color from the profession of conflict analysis and resolution is a scandal, but ICAR is now in a unique position to integrate change-oriented thinkers and activists from diverse racial and ethnic groups and social classes into the profession.

Fifteen years from now, success on this front will really give us something to boast about. (The author and ICAR would be happy to hear readers' own analysis of the Institute's successes and failures over the past fifteen years and its prospects for the future. Please write or  e-mail us