For Peer Mediation Only
Grades trained included fourth and fifth (elementary); sixth, seventh, and eighth (middle); and ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth (high school).
Eighteen to twenty-four students were trained per school in year 1; a second group was trained in year 2.
A minimum of fifteen hours of training was given in elementary schools and twenty to thirty hours in middle and high schools. Training was completed in four weeks or less and took place at the beginning of the fall semester in each year.
Each school had a site leadership team (SLT) of four or five adults, with at least one teacher, one nonteaching staff member, and (where possible) one administrator. The SLT was responsible for day-to-day implementation and oversight of the peer mediation program.
Each training organization gave SLTs one day of front-end program implementation training and contacted SLTs biweekly to monitor program implementation, offer program activities, and debrief cases.
Whole School Programs
In addition to the peer mediation training and activities, each whole school program received curriculum infusion training and conflict skills training for staff.
Regarding curriculum infusion Six to eight hours of training were given, using a standardized curriculum.
A select group of teachers was trained (voluntarily, although any teacher could attend the training), who committed to using at least one period (forty-five minutes) per week of class time to teach from the conflict curriculum.
One or two teachers per grade in elementary schools and two teachers per grade in middle and high schools delivered the conflict training in curriculum infusion classes for at least one full semester following training.
Participating teachers received ongoing contact and support from the training organization.
Conflict skills training This training included six to eight hours of developing conflict resolution competencies.
It was offered to all adult staff of the school (teachers, nonteaching staff, and administrators).
It was required for curriculum infusion teachers and SLT members.
Negotiation Evaluation Survey
The Negotiation Evaluation Survey (NES) is a time-delayed, multisource feedback approach to assessment and development of collaborative negotiation training and its effects on individuals and groups (Coleman and Lim, 2001). This approach uses a modified MACBE model (motivation, affect, cognition, behavior, environment) (Pruitt and Olczak, 1995) to assess change at the individual level in terms of conflict-related cognitions, attitudes toward the use of cooperative and competitive strategies, affect and behaviors, and at the group level in terms of conflict outcomes and work climate. In order to correct for self-report bias inherent in many evaluation tools, the NES was designed as a multisource feedback (MSF) tool, often referred to as a 360-degree feedback instrument (Church and Bracken, 1997). The MSF process elicits perceptions of a target person’s behavior from a variety of sources (in this study, from questionnaires filled out by self, a close friend, a supervisor, and a subordinate).
The NES was used to evaluate the effects of the Coleman Raider collaborative negotiation model, which was used in the twenty-hour Basic Practicum in Conflict Resolution course at Teachers College, Columbia University (see chapter 35). In addition to using the modified MACBE model as an organizing construct for the survey, the authors identified the elements of the Coleman Raider model and translated the elements into specific training objectives and then into measurable constructs that form the basis of the actual items used in the NES.
The study used a Solomon four-group experimental design with two treatment groups and two control groups. Both treatment groups received the training and a posttest survey, but only one took the pretest survey. Neither control group received the training, and both took the posttest survey, but only one took the pretest. No significant effects were found in any of the four groups from taking the pretest, and no interactions between pretesting and training were found.
Training was found to have a significant effect on participants’ collaborative negotiation behaviors, thoughts, feelings, attitudes, negotiation outcomes, and work climates. For example, as compared to participants who did not receive the training, those who received the training were found to have
More cooperative and less competitive attitudes toward conflict
More use of opening, uniting, and informing behaviors (as opposed to attacking and evading behaviors)
More constructive conflict outcomes and work climate one month after the training
Fewer attacking and evading behaviors
Fewer negative emotions
Regarding the multisource feedback approach, the study found that
Friends tended to be more candid evaluators of targets’ negotiation behavior, particularly as compared to subordinates and self-reports.
Subordinates tended to be kinder in their ratings than friends and supervisors, perhaps resulting from power imbalances in their relationship to the target and the nonanonymous nature of the instrument.
Supervisors tended to give more flattering evaluations than participants themselves, particularly in categories that might reflect equally on the supervisor’s skills (such as on conflict outcomes and work group climate).
In an extension of this evaluation research study, Lim (2004) conducted a study in which she had the participants engage in a two-party negotiation simulation three weeks after taking the posttest. Participants’ behavior and attitudes during the simulation were measured by blind raters (who coded tape-recorded verbal exchanges) as well as by participants’ self-reports regarding their own and their negotiating partner’s behaviors and attitudes during the negotiation simulation. She found that compared to those who did not receive training, participants who received the training established a more cooperative climate in the simulated negotiation, did a better job probing for (as opposed to ignoring) the other party’s needs, demonstrated better active listening skills, and agreed to outcomes that better addressed both parties’ interests. Lim’s study also replicated the Coleman and Lim (2001) study, and its findings were similar to the original study.
Evaluation of Intergroup Encounter Interventions
In extensive field research, Maoz (2004, 2005, 2011) used a process evaluation approach to assess the extent to which intergroup encounter CRIs promote relationships, behaviors, and interactions that fulfill the standards of social justice, equality, and fairness that they strive to achieve within the larger conflict setting. Intergroup encounter interventions are programs that implement the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954), a theory that explains how relations between highly contentious groups may be improved through facilitated meetings between the groups where they engage in cooperative tasks together. Much of the research done on these interventions focused on the quality of the outcomes rather than on the process of the encounter itself, and therefore it was difficult to ascertain what types of encounters led to improvements in group relations and which types did not (d’Estree et al., 2001; Pettigrew, 1998). Maoz addressed these limitations by using process evaluation, which delves into the key characteristics of an intervention, those characteristics that are theorized to improve intergroup relations, and then assessing the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes that result from these characteristics.
Maoz’s research examined intergroup encounter programs supported by the Abraham Fund for Jewish-Arab Coexistence, which brought together Jews and Palestinians living in Israel. As theory suggested that these CRIs may be successful when they establish for participants a cooperative orientation across lines of identity (coexistence model) and also to help participants relate to each other as equals (symmetry), these were the process characteristics explored by the study. The level of symmetry between the Jewish and Palestinian participants, as well as between the facilitators, in all forty-seven CRIs were assessed through direct observations of each CRI by the evaluation research team members, who recorded interactions and verba
l exchanges using a detailed coding sheet and instructions booklet. Each CRI was assessed on a scale ranging from 1 (maximum dominance of one side, in this case Jewish) to 9 (maximum dominance of the other side, in this case Palestinian). A rating score of 5 reflected symmetrical participation by Jews and Palestinians.
The encounter programs were classified into three categories: (1) the coexistence model, which emphasizes commonalities among the two groups and encourages mutual understanding and cooperation; (2) the confrontation model, which focuses on the conflict and power relations between the groups and raises awareness of inequalities; and (3) the mixed model, which incorporates elements from both the coexistence and confrontation models in its interventions. The programs were identified as following one of these models through interviews with the directors and program coordinators, as well as examinations of their organizational materials and documents. The process evaluation of these programs found that
Symmetry or near symmetry was exhibited in a great majority (87 percent) of CRIs, such that both Jewish and Palestinian participants were equally active. Programs that were highly structured by facilitators, emphasizing equality values and describing “good” work processes as needing contributions from all members, were more successful at achieving symmetry.
Most of the encounter programs (60 percent) were based on the coexistence model and thereby promoted collaboration and perspective taking. Only 13 percent used the confrontation model, 21 percent used the mixed model, and the remaining 7 percent were not able to be reliably categorized.
Among participants, there was no significant difference in the degree of symmetry in coexistence programs versus confrontation programs.
However, with regard to facilitators, only 45 percent of the CRIs had full or near symmetry between Jewish and Palestinian facilitators. In 45 percent of the CRIs, Jewish facilitators were rated as having medium to great dominance, while only a small percentage of Palestinian facilitators were rated as having medium to great dominance.
For symmetry between participants, there was a marked difference between coexistence programs versus confrontation programs. Approximately two-thirds of CRIs in the coexistence category were rated as symmetrical, and approximately one-third of CRIs in the confrontation category were rated as symmetrical.
Interestingly, for symmetry between facilitators, there was a reversal: approximately one-third of CRIs in the coexistence category were rated as symmetrical, and approximately two-thirds of CRIs in the confrontation category were rated as symmetrical.
The results from these studies allow researchers to understand the processes that are critical to the success of intergroup encounter programs and offer ways in which they may be studied further to investigate the efficacy of such programs in promoting constructive conflict resolutions between groups in even the most difficult situations.
CONCLUSION
This chapter was initially stimulated by the paucity of research on conflict resolution initiatives. While evaluation research on CRIs has expanded over the past few years, the continued lack of systematic research is due to a number of factors, including lack of adequate funding to support the kind of research that would be valuable to conduct. Another important factor is the lack of appreciation of the large range of worthwhile questions that can be addressed by research, as well as the research strategies that are available to address them. In response to this latter factor, we have sketched out a framework for thinking about the research possibilities related to CRIs and have provided examples of innovative methodologies that have been developed and projects that have been conducted in this realm.
Note
1. We use the term conflict resolution initiatives to refer to the diverse set of activities that fall within a broad set of conflict resolution programs such as training, mediation, dialogue groups, intergroup encounters, youth exchanges, and other programs that occur from the grassroots to the political levels.
References
Abu-Nimer, M. Dialogue, Conflict Resolution and Change: Arab-Jewish Encounters in Israel. New York: State University of New York Press, 1999.
Abu-Nimer, M. “Education for Coexistence and Arab-Jewish Encounters in Israel: Potential and Challenges.” Journal of Social Issues, 2004, 60(2), 405–422.
Abu-Nimer, M. “Building Peace in the Pursuit of Social Justice.” In M. D. Palmer and S. M. Burgess (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Religion and Social Justice (pp. 620–632). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2012.
Allport, G. W. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1954.
Angelica, M. P. “Conflict Resolution Training in Cyprus: An Assessment.” Retrieved from www.cyprus-conflict.net/angelica%20rpt%20%201.html
Bekerman, Z., and McGlynn, C. Addressing Ethnic Conflict through Peace Education: International Perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Bodine, R. J., and Crawford, D. K. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution Education: A Guide to Building Quality Programs in Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
Church, A. H., and Bracken, D. W. “Advancing the State of the Art of 360-Degree Feedback: Guest Editors’ Comments on the Research and Practice of Multi-Rater Assessment Methods.” Group and Organization Management, 1997, 22(2), 149–161.
Church, C., and Shouldice, J. “The Evaluation of Conflict Resolution Interventions: Framing the State of Play.” Derry/Londonderry, Northern Ireland: International Conflict Research (INCORE), 2002. Retrieved from http://www.incore.nlst.ac.uk/policy/evaluation/eval_meeting.html
Coleman, P. T., and Lim, Y.Y.J. “A Systematic Approach to Evaluating the Effects of Collaborative Negotiation Training on Individuals and Groups.” Negotiation Journal, 2001, 17(4), 363–392.
Culbertson, H. “The Evaluation of Peacebuilding Initiatives.” In D. Philpott and G. Powers (eds.), Strategies of peace: transforming conflict in a violent world, (pp. 65–90). Oxford University Press, 2010.
D’Estree, T. P., Fast, L. A., Weiss, J. N., and Jakobsen, M. S. “Changing the Debate about ‘Success’ in Conflict Resolution Efforts.” Negotiation Journal, 2001, 17(2), 101–113.
Deutsch, M. “A Theory of Cooperation and Competition.” Human Relations, 1949, 2, 129–151.
Deutsch, M. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973.
Deutsch, M. “The Effects of Training in Cooperative Learning and Conflict Resolution in an Alternative High School.” Cooperative Learning, 1993, 13, 2–5.
Deutsch, M. “The Constructive Management of Conflict: Developing the Knowledge and Crafting the Practice.” In B. B. Bunker and J. Z. Rubin (eds.), Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice: Essays Inspired by the Work of Morton Deutsch. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.
Deutsch, M., and Collins, M. E. Interracial Housing: A Study of a Social Experiment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1951.
Fisher, R. J. Interactive Conflict Resolution. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1997.
Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Liau, A. K., Guo, S., Powell, K. E., Atha, H., Vesterdal, W., and Embry, D. (2003). “Initial Behavior Outcomes for the PeaceBuilders Universal School-Based Violence Prevention Program.” Developmental Psychology, 2003, 39(2), 292–307.
Hunt, C., and Hughes, B. “Assessing Police Peacekeeping: Systemisation Not Serendipity.” Journal of International Peacekeeping, 2010, 14(3–4), 403–424 .
Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction, 1989.
Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. “Teaching Students to Be Peacemakers: Results of Five Years of Research.” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 1995, 1, 417–438.
Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. “Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation Programs in Schools: A Review of the Research.” Review of Educational Research, 1996, 66, 459–506.
Jones, T. S. “Comprehensive Peer Mediation Evaluation Project: Preliminary Final Report.” Report submitted to the William and F
lora Hewlett Foundation and the Surdna Foundation, 1997.
Kelman, H. C. “Contributions of an Unofficial Conflict Resolution Effort to the Israeli-Palestinian Breakthrough.” Negotiation Journal, 1995, 11(1), 19–28.
Kelman, H. C. “Social-Psychological Contributions to Peacemaking and Peacebuilding in the Middle East.” Applied Psychology: An International Review, 1998, 47(1), 5–29.
Kelman, H. C. “A One-Country/Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” Middle East Policy, 2011, 18(1), 27–41.
Lam, J. The Impact of Conflict Resolution on Schools: A Review and Synthesis of the Evidence (2nd ed.). Amherst, MA: National Association for Mediation Education, 1989.
Lederach, J. P. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press, 1997.
Lewin, K. “Action Research and Minority Problems.” Journal of Social Issues, 1946, 2, 34–46.
Lim, Y.Y.J. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2004.
Lim, Y.Y.J., and Deutsch, M. International Examples of School-Based Programs Involving Peaceful Conflict Resolution and Mediation Oriented to Overcoming Community Violence: A Report to UNESCO. New York: International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1997.
Maoz, I. “Coexistence Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Evaluating Intergroup Encounter Interventions Between Jews and Arabs in Israel.” Journal of Social Issues, 2004, 60(2), 437–452.
Maoz, I. “Evaluating the Communication between Groups in Dispute: Equality in Contact Interventions between Jews and Arabs in Israel.” Negotiation Journal, 2005, 21(1), 131–146.
The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed) Page 155
