Translating Intuitive Knowledge: A Research Agenda for Dispute Resolution

Robert A. Rubinstein

From discussions at the 2002 Hewlett Theory Centers Conference four things emerged that can help form a future research agenda for conflict management and dispute resolution.

1. Practitioners place a great deal of value on information about dispute resolution processes that they gather through experience; 2. Practitioners are alert to the importance of the organizational and structural nature of those dispute resolution processes; 3. Dispute resolution is not quick and efficient, it takes time and commitment and "staying with" the process for the "long haul;" and, 4. There is currently no idiom or method for conveying these understandings to others in a manner that is detachable from specific experience.

All of the practitioners refereed to things they knew as negotiations or other dispute resolution processes moved from inception to conclusion. Largely this was an intuitive sense, derived from experience. Because each hostage situation is different the things that shift – words used or tone of voice, for instance -- are situationally unique.

They also reported knowing intuitively that negotiations pass through distinctive phases, although these phases not lineal and may be repeated; rapport may be gained and lost, progress made may evaporate. Still, practitioners recognize these phases as significant.

Nearly all of the practitioners described their negotiation efforts as taking place within the matrix of a community. The organization of that community creates a set of common understandings about negotiation (and other aspects of professional life). In dealing with community conflicts, practitioners from religious traditions also expressed an intuitive apprehension of where their interventions stood. They, too, spoke of the importance of rapport and the intuitive recognition its achievement. All of the practitioners said that rapport requires the demonstration of genuine engagement.

The practitioners who spoke at the conference knew that their activities take place within a social context. Their work depends on connection with their communities and on their ability to judge intuitively how their work is progressing. They recognize differences in the textures of their conversations as significant. As well, the circuitous and relatively indirect social paths through which their conflict management efforts passed were noted. Indeed, the more leisurely pace of their efforts—a reality (perhaps a necessity!?) even in crisis situations—was noted as an important aspect of being able to frame the conflict in a way that leads to achievable goals and has an integrity recognized by the community.The international practitioner group also stressed the need for staying the course in approaching international conflicts.

Future research could profitably focus on three aspects of dispute resolution:

1. Designing research to make intuitive knowledge about conflict resolution accessible;

2. Describing as far as possible the social and organizational foundations for legitimacy; and,

3. Rethinking our conception of what the processes underlying of dispute resolution and conflict management.

There is a gap between what practitioners know about how they do dispute resolution and what they can convey to others about this knowledge. The joint task for researchers and practitioners ought to include rendering systematic the knowledge upon which practitioners act and translating it into transferable, transmittable form. Making practitioner understandings explicit and examinable ought to lead to systematic reflection by practitioners about how they might alter this state and improve their practice further. This could lead to very practical results enabling us to train intuition for dispute resolution.

The social context and organization of practice should be an area of dispute resolution research. At least two aspects of social and cultural materials need systematic investigation. Each practitioner described how their work was ‘supervised,’ by other practitioners, faith communities or international bodies. This supervision is a checking-in with others engaged in the dispute resolution process and an adjustment of efforts based on feedback. This supervision takes place in a socio-cultural matrix. It is essential to explore how the best supervision takes place and to describe the appropriate range of methods and contexts for different kinds of dispute resolution and conflict management system.

Actual dispute resolution almost never conforms to the lineal, step-by-step description of "good" negotiation derived from research. Rather the processes are in fact messy—cyclical, non-cumulative, and varied. As researchers we know that our models are simplifications of the world. Yet, we persist in urging them as desiderata for how to proceed. The conversations at the conference recommend that we rethink that advice. Paying attention to the twists and turns of "natural negotiations" should lead to a rethinking of our current models of what good dispute resolution and conflict management.

Focusing on natural processes, social and cultural organization for dispute resolution, and the translation of intuitive understandings to systematically described knowledge frames a research agenda. This research agenda will require modest theoretical goals. It will not yield a unified theory of conflict management and dispute resolution. Rather, the results will be more locally adequate conceptualizations and the development of a method of controlled comparisons through which to consolidate and improve our understandings of dispute resolution and conflict management.