|
|
These seven symposia follow on from a series designed for the 2002 meeting of the International Association for Conflict Management. Like their predecessors, they arise from a single perception — that the concept of "interdisciplinary" in academic networks has developed in narrower ways than our field now needs. The 2003 series was developed in collaboration by Broad Field director Chris Honeyman, IACM 2003 Program Chair Kathleen O'Connor, and a number of other people listed as session chairs for the seven sessions. Because the purpose of listing these here is to demonstrate the kinds of discussions Broad Field is working to generate, the sessions are shown as accepted by IACM in March, 2003; all the sessions were in fact held, but there were some changes in the "who" as well as the detailed subject matter, and these changes are not included here. International Association for Conflict Management Submitted by Chris Honeyman, director, Broad Field project, with 20 colleagues Titles: (* = session chair) 1. The practice of decision-making, vs. decision theory Judges, arbitrators, business people and others must routinely decide "close
cases," and often, must articulate their reasons publicly. Some preliminary work has
been done, from first principles, toward defining methods of training professionals to
make a fair and thorough decision, and also toward defining performance-based methods of
identifying people who have a high aptitude for decision-making. But how well do these
designs "map" onto the emerging research in decision theory? Much of this
research seems to suggest that typical decision making is "from the gut" --- or
from prejudice --- and supported ex post facto by "reasoning" that selectively
emphasizes the facts and arguments that support the decision already made. What does
decision theory say about the training necessary to overcome such tendencies? Furthermore,
is there a role for "facilitative judging," i.e. a version of judging which
blends dispute resolution skills with judging skills --- or must these be considered as
separate domains? There are many different theories about the nature and causes of conflicts, most of
which come from the social sciences. However, conflict theories are products of the
particular historical and cultural contexts within which they arise and they in turn
affect, and are influenced by, the way people perceive, define, view and approach
conflict. Modernism is a way of thinking that developed in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries in Europe during the Enlightenment period and still dominates much of Western
dispute resolution research and theorising which tend to value scientific explanations,
objectivity, rationality and neutrality and the search for universal 'truths'. Positivist
theories and research based on modernist ideas generally only accept knowledge that can be
seen through evidence our own
experience or observation. Essentialism (categorising) and dualistic thinking (good versus
bad, right versus wrong, male versus female) underpin these theories. These ways of
thinking tend to ignore the complexity of our lives and to promote simplistic ways of
viewing conflict and related concepts such as 'power', 'neutrality' and 'identity'. They
tend to promote adversarial ways of thinking about conflict and structured,
problem-solving approaches to its resolution and ignore the power of language to define
reality and meaning. Postmodernist or poststructuralist theories, such as social constructivism, offer a
more complex understanding of post-industrial society and value conflict, complexity,
diversity and the co-existence of multiple 'truths' and identities. In particular, these
theories acknowledge the links between knowledge, language and power. They highlight the
power of language (dominant discourses or stories) to define our subjectivity, reality and
meaning. Particular power relations are seen to produce ways of thinking and knowing that
inevitably reflect the power relations. Postmodernist approaches to conflict, such as
transformative and narrative mediation, are based on these ideas and require mediators to
think and work in very different ways. Others believe that while post-modern theories give no credence to the idea of
neutrality in the formal or informal justice systems, neutrality is fundamental to the
legitimacy of both systems. How, then, do mediators deal with this conundrum? How do they
"do" neutrality? What are the implications of post-modern theories of power for
mediators, in understanding and using their own power, and in reading, and intervening in
relation to, the power of the parties? It becomes a challenge to post-modern theories to
try to apply them in practice. This session will explore these poststructuralist ideas and
implications for mediators and for the practice of mediation. 3. Investigating techniques of persuasion / Mediator Settlement Strategies Roy Lewicki, Ohio State University Some observers believe that although some popular definitions of mediation would have
it otherwise, mediators are neither completely neutral nor impartial. They are more than mere catalysts and process
facilitators, and rarely do they settle cases just by being there. Rather, mediators use a range of strategies to
influence the parties' behaviour and the course and outcome of mediations. To some extent, they encourage outcomes consistent
with their own ideas and interests. In effect, the mediator thus becomes a negotiator with
two negotiations running in parallel. If mediators become parties to the negotiation into which they enter and they bring
their own ideas and interests to the negotiation, how does this affect a mediator's
ability to build trust with both (or all) parties --- generally believed to be an
essential of the mediator's ability to function at all? How does the relationship between
the mediator and each party reflect trust-building as well as the assumptions parties
might make about deference and respect (eg. when the mediator is a retired judge, or in
other cultural contexts, a community elder), and the mediator-negotiator's power to
reshape conflict narratives? This session will attempt to: 1. Catalogue possible
mediator interests and the sources of mediator power and influence; 2. Identify a range of
strategies used by mediators to "pre-condition" the parties, to settle disputes
and to influence mediated outcomes, and assess how these strategies help to build trust
between the mediator and either party, or between the parties --- or to destroy it; 3. Examine some of the
contextual factors that determine mediator choice of strategies and the circumstances in
which the strategies are likely to be most effective; 4. Determine some
directions for future research, with a view to developing a taxonomy of mediator
settlement strategies. 4. Honoring indigenous approaches by "training the trainers" cross-culturally Mediation is a multi-faceted activity which requires skills in cross-cultural
understanding and empathy. The cross-cultural reference here is ethnological, to be
distinguished from other cross-cultural subtexts. Very often, well-meaning Western-trained
mediators may face considerable frustration and helplessness when they find their
knowledge inapplicable in cross-cultural contexts: round pegs in square holes, as it were.
For instance, generally speaking, mediators are appointed in Asian mediations because they
possess a degree of communal acceptance based on their familiarity with the disputants'
personal backgrounds and the social respect they command. In Western mediations, on the
other hand, what is often perceived as desirable is mediator anonymity with the
disputants. This trait, together with other cross-cultural undercurrents, may make a
cross-cultural mediation markedly different to one in a mono-cultural context.
Furthermore, there appear to be previously unexplored parallels between Asian and
Aboriginal models of mediation, despite great differences between these cultures. What can
be discovered from the similarities? Do they provide clues to how trainers might be
themselves trained to be aware of cross-cultural issues --- highly relevant, given
contemporary needs? This session will explore and address the challenges and lessons to be
gleaned from cross-cultural and indigenous mediations. 5. A Deeper Definition of Knowledge within Conflict Management: Incorporating
Intellectual, Affective, Kinaesthetic, and Spiritual Aspects of Experience *Nadja Alexander,
University of Queensland In the often intellectualized disciplines of mediation, negotiation and conflict transformation, more theoreticians and practitioners are developing a deeper awareness of the emotional, kinaesthetic and spiritual aspects of their work. This session brings together the disciplines of Law, Indigenous Studies and Peace Studies to explore traditions and innovations that acknowledge and create space for these four aspects of human experience. Participants will explore the ways in which a range of diverse approaches facilitate such integration, including: mindful mediation (drawn from Buddhism), art (drawing on Picasso) philosophy (Nietzsche), and American Indian/First Nations approaches to peacemaking. As part of a turn inward amongst theorists and, hopefully, practitioners of mediation, there is an increasing literature on the person and presence of the third party drawing on Eastern and First Nations spirituality and Western psychology. The concept of mindfulness, for example, focuses on inner qualities a mediator may bring to the room by combining insights derived from a range of disciplines and traditions. Two people who have written persuasively on mindfuless and
incorporated the concept into training activities are Len Riskin, C.A. Leedy Professor of Law and Director of the Center for the
Study of Dispute Resolution, University of Missouri-Columbia School
of Law, and Daniel Bowling, formerly Executive Director of the Association for
Conflict Resolution and now a professor at the Law School of Duke University. They draw
their inspiration from the theory and practice of Buddhist insight meditation in general
and particularly on the work of Professor Jon Kabat-Zinn, the founder and director of the
Stress Reduction Clinic at the University of Massachusetts Medical Centre. Kabat-Zinn
writes, “Mindfulness means paying attention in
a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally… When we
commit ourselves to paying attention in an open way, without falling prey to our own likes
and dislikes, opinions and prejudices, projections and expectations, new possibilities
open up and we have a chance to free ourselves from the straitjacket of
unconsciousness” (Kabat-Zinn 1994). Professor Ellen Langer, Chair of the Social Psychology Program at Harvard, working from the perspective of a western psychological research, has taken a different but complementary tack in more than 20 years of research into mindlessness and mindfulness. Langer identifies some characteristics of the latter as being ‘trapped by categories’, engaging in ‘automatic behaviour’, or ‘acting from a single perspective’ (Langer 1989). Among other things, she writes, ‘The mindless individual is committed to one predetermined use of … information, and other possible uses or applications are not explored.’ The last sentence provides a good
description of the behaviour we may see displayed by parties to a dispute. To increase
their mindfulness thus is one of our tasks. However, mediators, too, are often less than
fully mindful, caught in a specific “model,” pushing a desired outcome, or
making assumptions – conscious or otherwise – about why disputants act in a
certain way. On art, George Kent writes: “The meaning of a work of art, for example, is not inherent in it; its meaning depends on what the observers bring to it. Meaning is always subjective. Conflict is like art. The parties should not see themselves as helpless victims of it. They participate in the construction of it. They have the potential for deconstructing and reconstructing it as well.” (Kent, 2001). Concepts of art and art therapy have much to offer conflict resolution theorists and practitioners. While we might not be able to read art in the same way as we read scientific papers, art can communicate much than words cannot. Art embraces our non-rational e.g. affective and kinaesthetic senses. It stimulates our “other” capacities for learning in the process of gathering wisdom, compared to traditional scientific endeavour, which excludes them. Accordingly, art can provide different insights into all aspects of life and fields of endeavour. Such artful perceptions are often overlooked and their “scientific” value dismissed in academic circles. At the turn of the twentieth century, a man now hailed as one of the world’s great Western thinkers, Friedrich Nietszche, was scorned by the academic world for promoting the idea that knowledge and learning involved rational, emotional and kinesthetic elements. 100 enlightened years later, it is time to integrate the emotional and kinesthetic knowledge of art into traditionally rational-scientific fields of research, learning and practice. Negotiation in theory and practice by its very nature involves rational, emotional and kinesthetic elements. Would it therefore not be useful for negotiation theory and practice to draw from the knowledge all three elements? American Indian/First Nations approaches to peacemaking and transforming conflict are based on models that facilitate expression of participants’ emotional, intellectual, physical and spiritual aspects of experience. Chief Justice Robert Yazzie of the Navajo Nation explains that the most important tool in their peacemaking ceremony is the Kleenex, to wipe away tears. These Indian approaches integrate connection with the natural world and the lessons learned from all our relations. Native cosmology also states that humans are primarily spiritual, and as such spiritual experience is interconnected with both peace and conflict. These peacemaking methodologies, which are both ancient and modern, may inform current movements which seek to develop more complex definitions of knowledge within Western conflict management. 6. Conflict Resolution and Capitulation to the Routine: Is There a Way Out? *Robert Ackerman, Penn State/Dickinson School of Law This session will report on a symposium held in the spring of 2003 on how a profession
or field that starts out with high aspirations may gradually slip into
"routinization" and drift away from practices embodying those aspirations and
whether there are telling examples of fields that have resisted these pressures over a
long period, so that we might learn from their experience. We will
"contextualize" this specifically, by using the findings from the symposium to
analyze IACM as an institution. What's "in" this conference, and missing? Who is
drawn to this organization --- versus, perhaps, repelled by it? Does a membership
organization as an institution form a paradigm that then becomes self-limiting? And if so,
how does it ward off these pressures? 7. Short Events with "long tails": the Olympics of disputes
The staging of Olympic Games in Atlanta, Sydney, Athens and Beijing provide an unique
opportunity to observe and investigate conflict prevention, management and resolution from
a cross-cultural perspective. Existing data about the disputes experience of Atlanta and
Sydney can be compared and contrasted with those of Athens and Beijing. It will be seen
that the staging of an Olympic Games creates a crucible of conflict. Cultural, political,
sporting, social, legal and commercial interests often collide. The stakes are very high,
and the intensity of the world's gaze significantly increases the pressure on the
stakeholders of Olympic disputes. Cross-cultural issues are multi-faceted phenomena, manifesting themselves in different
ways and in different contexts. Thus, such
issues will be seen to arise in the context of staging discrete Games, but moreover, the
differing cultural constructs of conflict will become apparent by comparing the conflict
experience as between different Games. Existing theories and perspectives about the nature
of cross-cultural conflict can be tested in the light of the experience of these Olympic
cities. This offers the opportunity to compare the conflict experiences of East and West
when staging essentially similar events, and to test the thesis that Eastern cultures
prefer informal and non-litigious dispute resolution. Furthermore, these disputes can also be viewed from three complementary perspectives.
Each Olympics creates a "temporary community" consisting not only of the teams
but also of thousands of support personnel. Do theories of communitarianism become
applicable, and if so, what do they offer as analytical tools for these disputes? Also,
each Olympics creates an unparalleled series of potential conflicts requiring
interpreters, as no other environment contains so many languages at once (except the
General Assembly of the United Nations, which has three distinguishing features:
professional diplomats pursue most of the disputes; standard protocols have been developed
over decades; and a short list of "official" languages reduces the number of
permutations that must be dealt with.) What effects do the interpreters themselves bring?
Is there, in particular, evidence that the interpreters become substantive meaning-makers
and mediators, rather than mechanical and exact transmitters like Star Wars' C3PO?
Finally, most people might tend to think of disputes surrounding the Olympics in terms of
a) culture and b) community. But overlaid on that, some attention can be given to the
economic element in these disputes --- not only in the sense of gain of reputation and
prestige, which some might analogize to an "economic" gain, but also to indirect
monetary benefits. "Hope," for example, has sometimes been defined in economic
(and therefore, supposedly, culturally independent) rather than emotional (and therefore
culturally dependent) terms. What is the impact of the "role of hope in
negotiation" ideas in such a context? Short Bios: (Note: These do not follow a consistent format.) Bob Ackerman's scholarship deals with mediation, negotiation and the intersection of
the law of torts with theories of communitarianism and civic responsibility. Professor
Ackerman teaches tort law, dispute resolution, a conflict resolution theory seminar, and
negotiation and mediation skills. His recent scholarship includes publications in the Ohio
State Journal on Dispute Resolution, the Yale Law and Policy Review and the Wake Forest
Law Review and as a selection in To Promote the General Welfare: A Communitarian Legal
Reader (Carney, ed. 1999). His current major scholarly project is a co-authored book on
Law and Community: The Case of Torts, scheduled for publication in late 2002. Professor
Ackerman is an active participant in professional groups throughout the nation that deal
with questions related to conflict resolution, including serving for 2002-3 as co-chair of the Research Section of the
Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR.) As Director of Penn State's Center for Dispute
Resolution, Professor Ackerman develops academic symposia related to current issues in the
fields of mediation and arbitration that serve to bring together scholars from a number of
disciplines and practitioners. Professor Ackerman served from 1996-1999 as dean of the
Willamette University College of Law. Tom Altobelli, School of Law, University of Western Sydney Tom has been in practice since 1981 and in academia since 1995. His principal areas of
teaching, practice and research are Family Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution, and he
has published extensively in these fields including many articles and two books Family
Law: Theory Meets Practice (Butterworths 1999) and Australian Family Law:Principles and
Practice (Butterworths forthcoming 2003). Tom is a member of the Editorial Boards of the Australian Dispute Resolution Journal
and ADR Bulletin and is the Co-Chair of the Sixth National Mediation Conference held in
Canberra in 2002. He is a frequent presenter at conferences, workshops and seminars for
the legal profession. Tom has taught Family Law, Advanced Family Law, Remedies and Dispute Resolution at
undergraduate level, and Dispute Resolution and Advanced Family Mediation at postgraduate
level. He is a long standing member of the Family Law Committee of the Law Society of New
South Wales and has authored several reports to and submissions by the Law Society and other statutory bodies. Tom has a
particular interest in clinical legal education and in exploring the integration of
skills, values and practical training within the law curriculum Hilary Astor Professor Astor is the Abott Tout Professor of Litigation and Dispute Resolution,
Faculty of Law, Sydney University, and Pro Dean, Staff Development. She was appointed to
the Australian Law Reform Commission in 1999 and was also the inaugural Chairperson of the
National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council. Dale Bagshaw, University of South Australia "I am currently the Director of the Conflict Management Research Group (CMRG)
which is located in Murray House, Magill Campus. The CMRG is one of many research groups
which constitute the Hawke Institute. I am also the Director of Postgraduate Studies,
School of Social Work and Social Policy. I am the Program Director for four post-graduate
courses in the School of Social Work & Social Policy - the Master of Social Work; The
Master of Conflict Management, Graduate Diploma in Conflict Management and the Graduate
Certificate in Mediation . I am currently the Acting-President of the World Mediation
Forum (WMF) and Chairperson of the Steering Committee for the newly formed Asia Pacific
Mediation Forum." Bruce Barry, Associate Professor of Management (Organization Studies); Associate
Professor of Sociology; Director, Ph.D. Program in Management, Owen Graduate School of
Management, Vanderbilt University Much of Professor Barry's research has addressed the psychology of interpersonal and
small group behavior. He approaches this topic from multiple perspectives, including the
use of social power and influence, negotiation, the management of conflict, the nature of
small group interaction, and the role of interpersonal perceptions of fair treatment. His
published papers represent a mix of theoretical and empirical treatments of these topics. Another body of work addresses the
management of social issues in the workplace. These include business ethics, corporate
social performance, workplace rights, and other public policy issues related to the
intersection of business and society. Barry is President of the International Association
for Conflict Management, serving a one-year term as President in 2002-03. He was program
chair for the association's 1999 meeting in San Sebastian, Spain. He was 2002 Program
Chair for the Academy of Management's Conflict Management Division. Barry has been a
member of the editorial boards of the Academy of Management Review and the Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. He was an Associate Fellow at the Robert Penn Warren
Center for the Humanities at Vanderbilt Univesity in 1998-99. He is currently serving a
two-year term as President of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, and is a
contributing writer for the Nashville Scene. Barry joined the faculty of the Owen School
in 1991. He became Director of the school's Ph.D. Program in Management in 1998. He has
also taught at Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Laurence Boulle Professor of Law, Bond University; Director, Independent Mediation Services Pty Ltd
(Qld); former member of the Law Council of Australia's ADR Committee; Consultant to
government and the private sector on dispute resolution issues; Broad expertise in
mediation practice and training; Member of Mediation Panels for Qld Settlement Weeks, Qld
Building Tribunal, Legal Aid Office Qld, Qld Community Justice Program and Retail Shop
Leases Tribunal. Professor Boulle has published extensively on ADR and mediation. He is
the author of "Mediation: Principles, Process, Practice" 1996, which has been
published in local editions in New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, Canada and the United
Kingdom, and "Mediation Skills and Techniques" published in 2001. He is editor
of the ADR Bulletin and the dispute resolution title in Laws of Australia. He has been
chair of NADRAC since 1988. Jennifer Brown, Quinnipiac University School of Law Jennifer Gerarda Brown, jennifer.brown@quinnipiac.edu, director of the Center on
Dispute Resolution, is professor of law at Quinnipiac University School of Law and
visiting lecturer and senior research associate at Yale Law School. She received her A.B.
from Bryn Mawr College and her J.D. from the University of Illinois College of Law, where
she served as Notes and Comments Editor on the Law Review. Professor Brown clerked for the
Hon. Harold A. Baker, U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. She has
been a member of the faculty at Emory University School of Law and a visiting professor at
Santa Clara University School of Law, the University of Iowa College of Law, and the
University of Illinois College of Law. Her writings on dispute resolution include: Ethics
in Environmental ADR: An Overview of Issues and Some Overarching Questions, 34 Valparaiso
Law Review 403 (2000); The Role of Hope in Negotiation, 44 U.C.L.A. Law Review 1661
(1997); Economic Rationales for Mediation, 80 Virginia Law Review 323 (1994) (with Ian
Ayres). Donald Conlon, Michigan State University Professor Conlon received his Ph.D. in business administration from the organizational
behavior group at the University of Illinois. His research (which examines justice issues
in organizations, negotiation and third party dispute intervention, and decision making)
has been published in a variety of journals, including the Academy of Management Journal,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
and the Journal of Applied Psychology. He has also received "Best paper" awards
from both the Academy of Management and the International Association for Conflict
Management. He is a past president of the International Association for Conflict
Management, and is a past Division Chair for the Conflict Management Division of the
Academy of Management. He currently serves on the editorial board of the Academy of
Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, the Journal of Management, and the
International Journal of Conflict Management. Professor Conlon's teaching interests lie in
the areas of organizational behavior and negotiation/dispute resolution. Daniel Druckman, ICAR, George Mason University "At George Mason University, I teach courses in research methodology, negotiation,
conflict and isms, and integration of the field of conflict analysis and resolution. I
coordinate the doctoral program and contributed to the development of the Institute's
curriculum which took effect in 1998. I also serve on more than ten dissertation
committees and currently chair six of them. The University presented me with an excellence
in teaching award in 1998. In addition to co-editing a text-book on conflict analysis (in
progress), I have developed research teams that have produced student co-authored
publications in refereed journals. An active research agenda has included projects on
international negotiation and mediation, nationalism, game theory, and evaluation
methodologies. At the National Research Council, I have directed six committee projects
and served as a senior staff officer to a seventh committee. A 15-year project on
enhancing human performance resulted in five volumes (1988, 1991, 1994, 1997, and 1999).
The project on new technologies in cognitive psychophysiology was a one year study that
produced a report in 1989. A committee project on the human dimensions of global change
has been sponsored in equal amounts by the National Science Foundation, the MacArthur
Foundation, and the National Research Council Fund. This project produced a book published
in December, 1991. The committee on contributions to the prevention of nuclear war has
been sponsored for six years by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the MacArthur
Foundation. A number of reports and books (including an Annual Review series) have been
published to date. A project on International Conflict Resolution, also sponsored by
Carnegie, began its work in September, 1995 and concluded with a co-edited volume that
appeared in 2000. In addition, I directed a project on assessing progress toward democracy
and good governance with a report issued in 1992." Bee Chen Goh, Associate Professor of Law, Bond University Bee Chen Goh is a Rhodes Scholar from Malaysia. Her undergraduate awards at the
University of Malaya included the Lord President's Prize for the Best Law Student in her
final year and the Dato' Rajasooria Prize for the Best-All-Round Law Student in the Law
Faculty. She specialised in International Law at Cambridge, and is a Fellow of the
Cambridge Commonwealth Society. She was a Visiting Researcher at the Harvard Law School in
the Summer of 1993. She is a Fellow of the Society for Advanced Legal Studies, London. Bee
Chen is an Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya. Before commencing at Bond
in 1991, she practised in corporate and commercial law, and intellectual property law at a
major law firm in Kuala Lumpur. Bee Chen is well-versed in English, Mandarin,
Malay/Indonesian, Hokkien and Cantonese. Her particular teaching and research interests
are International Law (including Jessup Competition), Dispute Resolution (particularly on
Chinese, and Cross-cultural Negotiation), and Contract Law. In the field of Chinese
Negotiation (also the focus of her doctoral thesis), Bee Chen has published, and presented
papers in Australia, the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Norway. Christopher Honeyman, mediator/arbitrator Chris Honeyman has been a full-time neutral since the 1970's, and has served in more
than 2,000 cases as a mediator, arbitrator and in other neutral capacities. Most of these
disputes have involved continuing relationships between business, labor, government,
environmental and other organizations. As the "laboring oar" of large-scale,
complex projects, Honeyman has taken a leading role in a series of national initiatives on
dispute resolution quality control, ethics and other issues. Beginning in 2002, Honeyman
is director of "Broad Field," an ambitious national project that seeks to
integrate the many and often separate strands of conflict resolution into an integrated
whole that really justifies being called a field. From 1997 to early 2002, Honeyman was
director of "Theory to Practice," a national project to develop better
relationships between dispute resolution practitioners and researchers. From 1990-95 he
was director of the Test Design Project, a national research and development program which
brought together representatives of the courts, state and federal agencies and dispute
resolution membership organizations; scholars from a variety of disciplines; and leading
practitioners in many subject fields, to improve tools used in selection, training and
evaluation of mediators. Honeyman was previously director of the Dispute Resolution
Program of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, and he has served as a
consultant to dispute resolution organizations throughout the country. His writings on
dispute resolution ethics, qualifications and quality control, and program design have
been widely cited. Sanda Kaufman Sanda Kaufman is Professor of Planning and Public Administration at the Levin College
of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University. She holds degrees in Public Policy Analysis
(Ph. D., Carnegie Mellon's Heinz School of Public Policy and Management, 1985),
Architecture and City and Regional Planning (B. Arch. 1975 and M.S.1977, Technion, Israel
Institute of Technology). At the Levin College she teaches courses in quantitative
reasoning, conflict management and strategic planning. Her peers selected her as Cleveland
State University's best teacher for 1999. Kaufman engages in research, practice, and
evaluation of conflict management and third party intervention in public, organizational,
environmental, and school disputes. She has planned and facilitated public committee
meetings for Northeast Ohio's Regional Environmental Priorities Project, a
consensus-building process for ranking the region's environmental risks. She has trained
Cleveland Housing Court mediators and has facilitated community meetings. Currently, she
is co-facilitating with the Consensus Building Institute an EPA pilot project to reduce
the risks from air toxics in two Cleveland neighborhoods. For the past two years she has
been a member of a multi-university research consortium funded by the Hewlett foundation
to explore the role of framing in intractable environmental disputes. Her articles have
been published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, the Negotiation Journal, the
International Journal for Conflict Management, Fractals, the Journal of Planning,
Education and Research (JPER) and the Journal of Architecture Planning and Research. She
is Book Review editor for the International Journal for Conflict Management (IJCM). She is
also regional representative on the Executive Committee of the Association of Collegiate
Schools of Planning, and track chair for its annual conference. She is a member of the
editorial boards of IJCM, JPER, and Conflict Resolution Quarterly. Loretta Kelly, Southern Cross University Prior to her commencement at the Law School in May 1999, Loretta was extensively
involved in the area of higher education for Indigenous people, having worked at the
Aboriginal Education Program (UNSW) for 5 years. In 1997, Loretta lectured at this
university's College of Indigenous Australian Peoples. Over the last few years, Loretta
has worked in establishing diversionary programs for young offenders in NSW and
established and managed ATSIC's national pilot for the prevention of family violence in
Indigenous communities. After completing her law degree in 1996, Loretta worked with Many
Rivers Aboriginal Legal Services and continues to be involved in their development of
programs for Indigenous offenders and victims. Loretta is an experienced family and
community mediator. As an Aboriginal person (Gumbaynggirr and Dunghutti) she is
particularly interested in the theory behind and practice of, Dispute resolution in
Indigenous communities. Loretta's teaching interests include Mediation, Dispute Resolution
and Restorative Justice. Loretta's research interests include Indigenous legal issues,
family violence prevention and mediation. Loretta is undertaking her PhD at SCU. Loretta
was awarded an Australian research Council Indigenous researcher's Development Scheme
Grant (2001-2003) to investigate the dispute resolution needs of Aboriginal communities in
NSW. Roy Lewicki Professor Lewicki is a leading scholar in the study of trust development, negotiation
and conflict management processes. His recent publications include Essentials of
Negotiation (2nd edition) and The Fast Forward MBA in Negotiating and Deal Making.
Companies such as Siemens, General Electric, Eli Lilly and Ross Laboratories have utilized
Dr. Lewicki's consulting and executive education services on conflict management,
negotiation skills and leadership development. Dr. Lewicki is founding editor of Academy
of Management Learning and Education, has served as associate editor of the Academy of
Management Executive and is on the editorial boards of the Academy of Management Review
and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. He received the Fisher College
Pace Setters Service Award in 2001, the Teaching Award in 1998 and was designated the
Distinguished Connelly Scholar by the Leavey Graduate School of Business at Georgetown
University in 1996. Jeffrey M. Senger, U.S. Department of Justice Jeff Senger is Senior Counsel in the Office of Dispute Resolution at the United States
Department of Justice. He advises and trains Assistant United States Attorneys and Justice
Department lawyers around the country in negotiation and alternative dispute resolution.
He also works with the Federal ADR Council, an organization chaired by the Attorney
General, who was appointed by the President to promote the use of ADR throughout the
federal government. Mr. Senger serves as a federal mediator for the United States District
Court; a civil, family, and criminal misdemeanor mediator for the Superior Court in
Washington D.C., and an arbitrator for the Better Business Bureau and the District of
Columbia Bar Association. He teaches negotiation at Harvard Law School's Program of
Instruction for Lawyers, and he teaches trial techniques at Harvard and at the National
Institute of Trial Advocacy. He served as an Official Observer to the National Conference
of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws Drafting Committee on the Uniform Mediation Act. He
has traveled to India, Turkey, Israel, Nigeria, Jordan, Egypt, and Argentina to speak on
behalf of the U.S. government about ADR to judges and political leaders. He has published
articles in Negotiation Journal, the Journal of Dispute Resolution, and several law
reviews. He has testified as an expert witness before the United States Congress. In
earlier experience at the Justice Department, he was Assistant Director of the Attorney
General's Advocacy Institute, where he was in charge of training for all civil and
appellate Department lawyers and Assistant United States Attorneys. He also served as
Senior Trial Attorney, litigating civil rights cases around the country and handling
trials in front of judges and juries. Prior to joining the Department, he was a judicial
law clerk for the Honorable Earl B. Gilliam of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California. Tania Sourdin, LaTrobe University Professor Sourdin is the author of a number of publications relating to ADR and is the
principal author of the Australian Law Reform Commission Issues Paper relating to ADR
(1998). She is the principal author of many articles, papers and reports on the subject of
ADR as well as legal education and professional practice and commercial litigation.
Professor Sourdin has been a contributor to reports prepared for a range of organisations
including the Law Society of New South Wales. She was a member and co author of the ACCC
benchmarks project and the Australian Standard on Dispute Prevention, Management and
Resolution project. Professor Sourdin is a key author of the Australian Standard on
Dispute Resolution and recently published a book - "Alternative Dispute
Resolution" (2002) Law Book Company. She has also conducted empirical research in a
number of courts and tribunals and reported on a range of issues including case
management, satisfaction, costs and delay in litigation. Shawn Whelan, CMA Services, Melbourne "I studied political science and law at UNSW, and then practiced for three years
as a solicitor in the Native Title Unit of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council. The high
points of my work there were the negotiation of agreements within and between the diverse
claimant communities, and between these groups and various non-Aboriginal parties. One
such agreement was between the Eastern Gas Pipeline joint venture and seven native title
claimant groups in two states. Another, in which I had a smaller role, was the first
consent determination of native title in Australia, at Crescent Head, NSW. Through this
practice I learned a great deal about negotiation, including the importance of
co-ordinating the roles of lawyers and clients in negotiation to maximise both
effectiveness and empowerment. During this time I was elected chairperson of the
Australian Student Christian Movement. In this role I developed and facilitated a
consensus-building process in our national executive meetings. In 1998 my wife, Natalie,
and I moved to the USA for three years. There I studied Negotiation and Mediation at the
Harvard Program on Negotiation, and was employed as the assistant director of the Centre
on Dispute Resolution at Quinnipiac University School of Law in Connecticut. In that
capacity, I taught courses in Negotiation and Alternative Dispute Resolution, as well as
working on a peer mediation project and a practice handbook on mediation in Connecticut.
In addition to my academic responsibilities, I also assisted a team of lawyers from two
legal services to prepare, run and negotiate a class action to improve services for
Medicaid recipients." John H. Wade, Bond University John is Professor of Law at Bond University. He has worked as an Associate Professor of
Law at the University of Sydney; Faculty of Law Osgoode Hall (Toronto); University of
Manitoba (Winnipeg) and University of Calgary(Alberta). He was a consultant to the
Australian Law Reform Commission 1983-1987, was Acting Dean of the Bond Law School from
1991 to 1993, is a former member of the Family Law Council of Australia and works as a
consultant to the Brisbane legal firm of Hopgood Ganim. He is/was a visiting professor at
Pepperdine University, Los Angeles (1994-2003), Vermont Law School (2000-2001), Cardozo,
New York (2003) and SMU, Texas (2000-3). John has a particular interest in mediation and
was the founding joint editor of the Legal Education Review, and is an editor of
Australian De facto Relationship Reporter (loose leaf) and Australian Family Law and
Practice (loose leaf). He is also a practising mediator. He has authored over 90 articles
and books, taught over 100 mediation courses around the world, and received awards for
best law teacher at Sydney University (1989); Bond University (1990); and in Australia
(1998). Polly Walker, University of Queensland Polly O. Walker completed her PhD at the University of Queensland. Her topic concerns
conflict transformation between Aboriginal and non-Indigenous Australians. She currently
lectures in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Unit and the University of
Queensland. She recently participated in the Bohmian Dialogues between Indigenous and
Western scientists which explore the connections between Native science and Quantum
theory. She is a certified mediator and has implemented workshops for the ADR branch of
the Queensland Justice Department as well as for Indigenous and non-Indigenous community
groups. She has also written a number of journal articles on Indigenous issues regarding
conflict transformation. Bobette Wolski, Bond University Bobette has practised as a solicitor for 10 years, primarily in the fields of
litigation and family law. She is an accredited mediator with the Queensland Law Society,
the Legal Aid Office (Queensland), the Australian Institute of Family Law Arbitrators and
Mediators, and LEADR (Lawyers Engaged in Alternative Dispute Resolution). Bobette's
primary interests are dispute resolution, advocacy and skills training. She is currently
the Director of the LLB Skills Program and Coordinator of the Postgraduate Programs in
Advocacy for the School of Law. |