 |
NOTES FOLLOW BELOW
The “Contentious Conversations” Series
“Contentious Conversations” is a planned series of moderated, informal discussions on some of the key tensions that define our field. By promoting dialogue on these themes, we hope to foster community in diversity, spark new insights and collaborations, and give us all a chance to get together for some intellectual exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONVERSATION II: Searching for a Research Tradition in CAR
Thursday, February 10, 12:15-1:15 p.m. in Truland Bldg., Rm. 555
Description: ICAR defines itself as a community committed to bridging theory and practice. Yet research often seems a distant third to theory and practice in this self-conceptualization. Is ICAR truly dedicated to research? Does rigorous evaluation research impinge on the idea of reflective practice? Is a positivist research tradition on conflict possible or even desirable? How can we train graduate students in research when so many different research traditions are represented on the faculty?
Convenors: Leslie Dwyer, Thomas Flores
Facilitator: Sandra Cheldelin
Panelists: Agnieszka Paczynska, Solon Simmons, Susan Hirsch
Format: Panelists will each spend 5 minutes offering their thoughts on the theme, followed by a moderated discussion including the audience.
Feel free to bring your lunch. Coffee and tea will be provided.
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTES FROM THIS CONVERSATION:
Topic: The Role of Research in Conflict Analysis and Resolution
Speakers: Profs. Agnieszka Paczynska, Susan Hirsch, and Solon Simmons
Facilitator: Prof. Sandra Cheldelin
Introduction –
Prof. Thomas Flores introduced the event, beginning with the purpose of the series. The series aims to bring into the public arena at ICAR those conversations, relevant to the field and sometimes contentious, that have tended to take place ‘in the hallways’ or receive limited attention in public settings. Today’s focus on the role of research in Conflict Analysis and Resolution (C.A.R.) at ICAR flows from the prior event, which focused on the relation between theory and practice.
The next event, currently scheduled for Thursday, April 7, will take up the question of the nature and scope of C.A.R. as a whole. Is it a field? A topic? What is the relation of disciplines to C.A.R.? What are the implications for methodologies?
Prof. Flores then introduced the panelists, who each offered opening remarks:
Opening remarks –
Agnieszka Paczynska (political scientist, Associate Professor at ICAR and Undergraduate Program Director). Prof. Paczynska began by calling into question the narrative that ‘there is no research happening at ICAR,’ and its varying forms (no research, poor research, etc.), arguing instead for interesting research at ICAR as evidenced by publications as well as personal knowledge.
She went on to suggest that research must go hand in hand with reflective practice: that in fact reflective practice requires research. For example, NGO’s sometimes assume that they because they intend to do good, they must in fact be doing good work, that they are creating good for those they seek to serve. But evaluation is necessary to determine whether this is in fact so in each case.
Finally, Prof. Paczynska named the difficulty of teaching research methodologies at a cross-disciplinary institute such as ICAR. It can lead in the required ICAR doctoral methods classes to getting only highlights of methodologies rather than working knowledge. But there are ways around this, such as going outside of ICAR to take method-specific coursework.
Susan Hirsch (Prof. of Conflict Resolution and Anthropology, ICAR),
NOTES PENDING
Solon Simmons (sociologist, Assistant Professor at ICAR) began by contrasting his understanding of students’ views of ICAR, in which students feel pressure to move in their work toward the center of overlap of the various traditions in which professors work, and ICAR as it is, a ‘true union’ of disciplines and approaches to the study of conflict.
Noting the challenges to teaching research approaches and skills to students at ICAR, Prof. Simmons went on to suggest as remedy a “research clinic” model, in which specialty courses are used to allow students to view the steps of faculty research in progress. He argued that this would have four advantages: 1) It would be a ‘win-win’ scenario, in which “faculty focus on current research projects and students learn exactly how faculty work”; 2) “currency” – “methods are taught as they are then being used by existing faculty,” instead of outdated and potentially idealized methods as archived in textbooks; 3) “community” – “students get to know faculty core interests and vice versa”; and 4) “scale” – ‘many students can learn at once rather than simply learning on GRA basis.”
[Prof. Simmons’ presentation in Powerpoint format will be available soon as a document attached to this event.]
General discussion –
The panelists were then asked from the floor to say more about their research. [For details, see individual faculty bio pages on the ICAR website.]
Subsequently, in response to the ‘research clinic’ model presented by Prof. Simmons, another model was offered, the apprentice model of training. The speaker remarked that he had been trained under the apprentice model, with advantages including seeing all the messiness of real research that do not show up in final products: the formulation of questions, the dead ends, the backtracking and filling in, etc. The clinic model may offer these components, or some of them, but whatever system is adopted needs to include them.
It was suggested, by way of question, whether the research culture at ICAR was still indebted to the historical notion that research should generate grand theory, and with the ICAR research culture perhaps still limited by that working assumption.
Another comment centered on the hiddenness of research at ICAR, particularly from a student’s perspective. Faculty, it was remarked, are something of ‘black boxes’ to students with regard to their research. Also, the whole GRA system and other means of collaboration are not transparent.
It was remarked that ICAR currently maintains a weak research culture with regard to the public sharing of research methodologies. “Interests” of faculty are made public, but not methodologies. There is little to no opportunity even for faculty to learn of one another’s research in detail, particularly in detail enough to examine it critically while in process. The speaker went on to say that ICAR needed to change this culture if it is to be a vital research center going forward, rather than just a vestigial entity, “like a tooth after a root canal”.
The final speaker challenged that comment, pointing to the amount of research that in fact does go on among ICAR faculty, though perhaps not known to the prior speaker.
With that, the discussion was brought to a close.