The ICCCR Blog, Science and Practice for Constructive Conflict Resolution and Peace, acts as medium of exchange between scientists and practitioners in the field, where multiple authors from varied backgrounds, interests, and experiences contribute. We strongly encourage our readers to comment on our blogs as a way to contribute their own ideas and to further the dialogue.
Mission & Strategy
To link science and practice: our mission is to inform practice through current breakthroughs in science and to suggest questions that should be researched based on experiences in practice. To accomplish this, our strategy is 1) to scan relevant findings in scholarly journals and then to write-up potential implications for practice, and 2) to write about some of the many ways in which experiences in practice suggest directions for future research.
A hundred years ago the field of medicine underwent a major crisis in the U.S. Until then, many physicians happily plied their trade paying little or no attention to the latest developments in science. Physicians had attended medical schools, collected their degrees and developed their skills with patients, and frankly didn’t want to be bothered with whatever fads emerged from university laboratories. Then in 1910, the Carnegie Foundation released the Flexner Report, which, among other shocks, exposed the vast drift between science and practice in medicine. The Report triggered a scandal in the field and led to profound changes in the education and licensing of physicians. Even today, it is estimated that only 20 to 25 percent of medical practices are evidence-based; that is, based on strong research which supports the effectiveness of the treatment.
In the past several years, there have been similar rumblings in such areas as teaching, psychology, organizational consulting and peacemaking. A surge in activity and investment around negotiation, mediation, and other conflict resolution practices in the United States have brought the efficacy of these practices under increasing scrutiny. However, an evaluation of the 18 university-based, Hewlett Foundation-funded conflict resolution theory centers found that the work of most practitioners surveyed had been largely unaffected by the important contributions generated by the Centers (new theory, tactics, publications, etc.). At the same time, much of the research conducted at these Centers was found to be “removed from practice realities and constraints.” Many practitioners of conflict resolution dismissed the contributions of theorists and researchers, particularly when the research challenged their own opinions or methods. At the same time, scholars often failed to utilize the expertise of highly skilled practitioners in their development of theory, and research designs often failed to take into account what practitioners and policy makers wanted or needed to know.
This means that too few of the theoretical models employed in the field today are sufficiently informed by the practical realities of conflict, and that current practices used in the field have been insufficiently informed by new research coming out of the lab – research which could help determine if the practices actually do what we think they do on the ground and which could help explore how to make them most effective.