10

Toward Innovative Solutions

Edy Kaufman

Searching for Common Ground

In chapter 9, the focus was on preparing the Partners for applying principles and methods of collaborative problem solving. Only in the last two days did the Partners begin to address their own conflicts. Building on the trust and insights gained in the previous days, the Partners should now be ready to look for common ground and innovative solutions. We shall illustrate several consensus exercises on Day 6 and then focus in more depth on our preferred methodology, developed from Rothman’s (1997) “ARIA” approach.

The final phase of the workshop is concerned with preparations for the Partners’ reentry into their own communities; it covers some of the first post-workshop steps that are best done while participants are still together. By this time, they will have accumulated enough experience and skills to conduct an IPSW on their own and to involve themselves in conflict resolution in general.

Day 6: Consensus Exercises

Collaborative problem solving is based on the search for consensus as an alternative to enforced solutions or poor compromises. Consensus implies decision making that is based not on majority rule but rather on ensuring that everyone’s concerns are heard and dealt with before decisions are made. This means that all participants’ opinions must be given equal weight and consideration. Below are several types of consensus-seeking exercises that can be used to illustrate the approach.

Some Illustrations

Exercise 1: TOWS/FODA

TOWS/FODA (external Threats and Opportunities, internal Weaknesses and Strengths) is an instrument adapted at the University of Costa Rica for corporate training (FODA is the Spanish acronym). Participants are asked to brainstorm on a particular theme of shared concern (e.g., occupational career prospects for Costa Rican businesswomen), each person coming up with a list of difficulties and opportunities. They are then asked to prioritize the listed items according to their importance either as maximizing positive factors (opportunities and strengths) or as minimizing negative factors (threats and weaknesses). Each person turns to the participant on his/her right, takes his or her list and eliminates all but the top three choices. The same is done for those on the left. These choices are compiled, and the resulting shared list is the group’s consensus.

Exercise 2: Bridging the Gap

A current controversial issue that divides the group fairly evenly but not by community membership (such as capital punishment) is identified. Partners are asked to wear a tag corresponding to their beliefs (blue for yes, yellow for no) and to stand in two separate groups. The individuals from each group should then spend ten minutes in close proximity, trying to persuade those on the other side to change their views. At the end of the session, people who have changed their minds are asked to change their tags accordingly. Usually in this first phase none will.

Then the Partners are asked to find possible points of agreement and move toward a “lesser evil” alternative. A third division should be added for those who agree on a new alternative (such as “no capital punishment but mandatory life imprisonment without parole for more egregious offenders”). Participants finding themselves in this group then trade their yellow or blue tags for a green tag and place themselves in the middle of the two polarized groups. Others can remain where they originally were. The “greens” (mixture of blue and yellow) should now try for ten minutes to persuade others to join them by bringing up more new proposals (such as “voluntary preference for capital punishment or life imprison-ment accepted,” or “assassination of prison mate by former assassin punishable by death”).

The point is that when people are brought to a confrontation between two opposing positions, they tend to become more polarized than when asked to come up with alternative shared solutions.

A note to facilitators: In case the result is not as expected, one can discuss with the group whether they have used the negotiation skills that they have just learned. This game can be fascinating and take up much time, so facilitators should be careful to budget plenty of time for addressing the Partners’ own conflict. Shorter “competition versus cooperation” exercises include: placing people in a circle (or two) and asking them all to touch a ball as quickly as possible, the best strategy being not passing it around but for all to place a hand or even a finger on it at the same time; or, providing all with numbers and asking them to order themselves accordingly without talking, coordination once more being the way to succeed.

Exercise 3: Finding Minimal Common Denominators

In this exercise the two parties are asked to role-play themselves in their own conflict. They are given a well-known specific issue of divergence within their larger conflict (e.g., the Arab refugee problem for Israelis and Palestinians). Each team (1 and 2) should focus in a separate room for twenty minutes on finding at least five major concessions that they could live with, followed by a list of five (or more) bottom-line minimal demands to be expected from the other side, and write them on a flip chart.

The two sides are brought back together and asked to post their respective positions. If there is goodwill between the parties, it is to be expected that some points may overlap, but more often this is not the case. The Partners then split into two mixed teams (3 and 4), take the options offered by teams 1 and 2, and attempt to work out an accommodation over the next twenty minutes (again in separate rooms). The dynamics in Teams 3 and 4 in their desire to achieve results may provide a greater chance of success, and either one of these teams, or both, may come back with a shared resolution.

If the members of these teams still do not agree, we can introduce a process to promote more principled negotiation, guiding the Partners through consideration of situations elsewhere which are analogous to their own conflict. This technique has been used for work at CIDCM on three conflicts in the Transcaucasus involving separatist regions (Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh) calling for at least a large degree of autonomy, if not full independence. Lateral thinking led us to research the characteristics of existing independent microstates and to offer the Partners a summary of their attributes to stimulate new ideas for their own conflicts.

Later, in preparation for a workshop on the Transcaucasus that we conducted in Aland, Finland—one of the oldest and best examples of autonomy—our Partners researched similar cases elsewhere and identified a list of mutually agreed-on successful options, using Lapidoth’s (1997) systematic framework of autonomies. In a paper, “Diffusion of Power: Options for Societies in Transition,” we described the cases of three successful regions with substantial autonomy: the Aland Islands in Finland, the Generalitat of Cataluña in Spain, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the United States. We disaggregated the relevant agreements according to different functions: cultural, political (executive, legislative, judiciary), economic, religious, language, infrastructure, etc. We then asked the Partners as individuals to draw out the five preferred and five “lesser evil” attributes of possible solutions, reminding them again that they should take into account as much as possible the preferences of the other party to their conflict.

The expectation here is that the groups will produce a statement that will include attributes mentioned in the agreements that could represent principles shared by all the Caucasian Partners. This is easier to achieve than bilateral statements from the Partners to each of the three conflicts. More agreement was reached than anticipated, although the larger units (the states of Azerbaijan and Georgia) gave more concessions than the smaller units (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Nagorno-Karabakh). The Partners agreed on what became the First Regional Proclamation of Principles for Conflict Resolution in the Transcaucasus (now translated by them to all regional languages). Evaluation of this experiment is currently in progress.

Exercise 4: Unilateral Best Offers

In cases where one of the parties is domestically deeply divided and thus prevented from developing middle-ground propositions, the other side may design a best offer that “can’t be refused.” Given the confidential nature of our exercise and the nonbinding characteristics of our deliberations, there is nothing to lose if a tempting and generous proposition is made as a “trial balloon.” The Partners from the other party should be allowed time to consider it and eventually to join discussions on this basis, or based on a counteroffer triggered by the unilateral best offer. A problem-solving dialogue process similar to “laptop diplomacy” can now begin, with facilitators shuttling from team to team.

Preparations for ARIA

Rationale and Motivation

The approach we use most frequently to facilitate a transition by the parties from an adversarial stance in the conflict to an integrative one is the ARIA technique (Adversarial, Reflexive, Integrative, Action), developed by Jay Rothman (1997c). In this session, the Partners should be introduced to the concepts behind the approach and engaged in an exercise that illustrates how different approaches to conflict can result in different outcomes.

An Overview of ARIA

The first (adversarial or advocacy) phase focuses on the parties’ positions on the major issues in the conflict, bringing out what points each Partner would like to make on behalf of his/her nation or group. The second (reflexive) stage is meant to bring to the fore the underlying needs and interests of each party, and to answer the questions of why they hold the positions they do and why they stress these points over others in adversarial arguments. The needs that motivate such stances are thus identified. Once the motivations behind the formal positions of each party are understood, points of convergence become apparent (shared needs and compatible interests), providing a basis for the third (integrative) stage. At this time, both parties brainstorm together and look for consensual ideas. They elaborate jointly answers to the question of how to resolve the conflict or selected conflict issues and consider action steps for how these or other integrative ideas may be promoted.

In introducing ARIA to a group (mostly hydrologists) from riparian states with conflicting upstream/downstream interests, I used the following example. An egg has rolled down a hill to a neighboring farm, getting stuck in the dividing fence. At the adversarial level, the neighboring family declared that for years, any eggs that had rolled down the hill to its property were its own, and it had documents to prove it. The other family argued that the reason it had put up the fence in the first place was because its sloping land prevented it from keeping the eggs laid by the free-ranging hens. They argued that the neighbors had never taken possession of any egg, even if such right was granted in principle and embodied in a new constitution. The arguments led nowhere, and their pulling and pushing at the fence ended with fragile eggs being smashed. If the families had progressed from adversarial discourse to reflect why each needed the eggs, it might have become clear, for example, that one family was planning to use the yolk for mayonnaise, while the other was interested in the white for meringue. That would allow an integrative discussion on how to accomplish the separation of the elements, perhaps leading to new options for mutual benefit (e.g., the unused shells could be processed by both families to provide nutritive material for feed, which could then be marketed together). This represents an even better solution than a zero-sum compromise based on equally splitting the number of eggs.

Bill Ury uses a similar story about a fight over an orange, where the why exploration allowed the discovery that one side wanted its pulp for juice, the other its peel for jam. And if both parties wanted the juice, knowing why may help discovering that one is thirsty—hence best to give him cold water—and the other wanted vitamin C, which may be cheaper to buy in larger quantities while selling the juice. Most problems are more complex than this, but the lesson is a valid one. For example, in an integrative stage the two sides might go farther to address the longer-term needs of the parties. They might both decide to take the seeds that none need at the moment, plant them, and thus each acquire a steady supply of oranges in the future. A more complex scenario can be used to bring it closer to that faced by the Partners.

Day 7: ARIA—The Adversarial Stage

Motivation and Rationale

The adversarial phase should begin with a more detailed explanation of its specific dynamics (see Rothman, 1997c). In this phase, each party should aim to be persuasive, with lines of argument prepared and ready to be articulated firmly and clearly. This phase serves several functions: it makes clear what issues are in dispute and establishes the credibility of the participants as knowledgeable and effective spokespersons for their communities, who might also be effective in persuading their communities to consider new perspectives for resolving the conflict. It also makes clear that neither party can be talked into conceding on key issues, showing where they will stand firm, and making clear that Partners will need to move beyond adversarial habits to get results.

A note to facilitators: There is rarely any need to spend much time training the participants, since oppositional discourse has been the norm in most societies, particularly those with protracted conflicts. However, these norms are not universal. Some Japanese, Burmese and Thai participants we have worked with found it very difficult to articulate arguments in an adversarial manner. In such cases, some training in culturally appropriate advocacy skills may be beneficial. In all cases, organizers should consider the relevant norms for such discourse when planning a workshop and make sure there is a consensus among participants on culturally appropriate ground rules (e.g., no personal attacks or insults, no interruptions) that can be used in structuring this phase of the process.

The Adversarial Exercise

The facilitators should ensure that there is agreement among the Partners by this stage on the topic for discussion. It can be a specific issue dividing the parties within their larger conflict and of particular concern for the Partners (e.g., the status of refugees) or a simulated situation (e.g., a UN Security Council debate on contending complaints) relevant to their concerns. In any case the area of discussion should be clearly defined and agreed.

Facilitators should make clear that any premature shift to problem solving or proposing solutions at this stage will be inappropriate. Until there has been a clear definition of the problem and the points of firm disagreement between the parties, any discussion of solutions is likely to be unproductive. Agreement in second track diplomacy has little value in itself; if it does not fully address the real concerns of the communities, it is unlikely to elicit much interest at home.

Once the principles and ground rules are well understood and questions are answered by the facilitators, each side can be given twenty minutes to prepare its arguments and perhaps an order of presenters, including at least a “pilot” and “copilot” who will start up the discussion and take the lead as speakers until other members of the team feel comfortable participating.

We generally have the contending parties face each other for this exercise; if there are more than five or six representing each party, two chairs for each side are placed closer than the rest of the groups. The dialogue begins with the anchors’ opening statements one after the other, beginning with the party challenging the status quo, each talking for just a few minutes. After this there is open discussion, with the copilots joining in, and at any time the other partners may be asked to share in the debate. With larger groups, whenever a Partner wishes to say something, he/she should approach either of the two speaking members of their own team and tap his/her shoulder. That person should then yield the seat to the new speaker and join the rest of the group, returning as desired to speak again.

This lively process generally proceeds for at least thirty minutes, depending on the number of participants (all should be encouraged to take part) as well as the intensity and complexity of the discussion, with facilitators ensuring compliance with ground rules. There is no need to cut this part short, unless either the positions and points of difference are clear or (in the absence of contrary ground rules) it devolves into a shouting match, with both sides pointing fingers, using incriminatory “you” language, interrupting, or making critical remarks about the other. If the debate escalates in this manner, the facilitators may tell everyone to “freeze,” often at the point where fingers are being raised, and ask the Partners to evaluate the exercise.

In any case, at the end of the discussion a first assessment is made of what was learned from the process, focusing on the quality and content of the arguments presented. In preparation for a second round, with role reversal, the teams are asked to tell one another any significant points that were left out. There may also be a brief consideration of whether any adjustment of ground rules is desirable at this stage, remembering that what feels like welcome catharsis for some may preclude a good future working relationship for others. Any extended discussion of the value of this phase, however, should be left till after the second round.

Many useful insights can come out of this discussion, in addition to clarifying the positions, grievances and demands of the parties. Disputes over key historical points can be clarified (e.g., who occupied land in dispute when, who started the violence cycle, number of casualties, types of atrocities, or sequences of cause and effect). Issues of rights, law and morality can also be clarified, keeping in mind that the aim of this analysis is clarifying positions, not determining who is right or wrong.

At this point a second round should be organized in the same manner as the first, but with each side arguing the opposite party’s position. Often, there is resistance to representing the views of the other party, but since the rules of the game have been agreed in advance, the Partners should be able to overcome this natural aversion and proceed to defend their opponents’ arguments energetically. Several interesting developments should be readily apparent to the Partners. More often than not, they submit the most extreme positions of the other, either because they are less able to perceive more moderate arguments or because politically it is more expedient to portray the rival as extremist and resistant to compromise. The presenters tend to be more effective, or at least more uninhibited, pointed or critical of each other. This session can be tense, but it occasionally provokes laughter or a smile at the ability of one side to represent so accurately the excessive views of the other. The facilitators should maintain the seriousness of the simulation, however, intervening if necessary to ask for appropriate behavior within the agreed rules.

The debriefing and evaluation that follows the role reversal should include an analysis of the scope and limitations of the adversarial stage. It may also be instructive to discuss the verbal styles and body language used (facial expressions that convey anger, boredom or suspicion; tone and patterns of voice with high pitch, shouting; and posture and gestures, such as arms folded, eye contact). Similarly metaphors (quoting from holy texts or famous phrases), slogans (“blood on their hands”), and personal criticisms used in the heat of debate (“You don’t understand,” “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” “That’s not right”) should be noted. The use of phrases that imply total certainty (“of course,” “no doubt”) might be noted, and also the tendency to become repetitive (as with propaganda, or when Partners had run out of arguments but could not remain silent). Tendencies to interrupt might be noted, and instances when people disconnected, stopped listening and started preparing a response in the middle of another person’s turn. Assumptions may be defined as truth, and the other’s position dismissed a priori, showing a determination to be right at all costs. Advocacy of a position can lead one to restrict the argument to strong points or perhaps to resort to half-truths, unchecked figures, dates and “facts,” leaving the other side unable to respond with effective evidence to the contrary. Use of the term “you” categorizes the other camp as monolithic.

On the one hand, as evidenced by behaviors such as these, this phase often becomes a dialogue of the deaf and, as such, may only excite each side against the other, affirming preconceived points of view and closed-minded attitudes. On the other hand, this phase fulfills important functions, such as clarifying points of dispute, affirming Partners as committed and effective spokespersons for their communities, and demonstrating ways in which information and insights regarding the perspective of the other party may have been systematically shut out. There is often also a catharsis that occurs, allowing Partners to get out of their systems feelings of grief, frustration or anger that otherwise may hinder the Partners’ subsequent work together. It is often easier fully to hear and understand our adversaries once we have been able to verbalize our own convictions in front of them.

Above all, this initial encounter makes a statement and tables the long list of charges from which the Partners can now move in search for a better understanding of the conflict and for possible solutions. The participants can now actively attempt to explain their feelings and assess their attitudes toward the intrinsic value of this stage. Clearly, a common understanding is being sought, and although it may not provide any settlement, this stage is a necessary condition for moving into other stages that will bring the participants closer together. This debriefing should aim to verify that the Partners are not leaving the room alienated from each other. The hope is that having played each other’s roles, the Partners feel closer by verbalizing the subjective truths of the other. It may be that they will be ready to forgo the argument on who has more rights and accept that both simply have rights, as reflected in the emotions played out in this exercise and the conflict itself, revealing the parties’ determination and dedication to their causes.

Before ending the day, it is a good idea to find a way to explain the nature of the reflexive stage, since it may be difficult for some Partners to get a good grasp of it and participate without prior practice or awareness of its power. Often, conflict situations arise or are made worse by lack of communication and sharing of knowledge. The next day requires an extra effort to reflect on one’s motivations, values or needs, to express feelings, and to listen with attention to the other side. To a certain extent, the reversed role-playing has paved the way for putting ourselves in the place of the other, which is a key part of the exercise to follow.

Day 8: ARIA—The Reflexive Stage

Motivation and Rationale

The reflexive stage is necessary because it reframes the conflict not just in terms of the Partners’ opposing positions but now at a deeper level of understanding the needs and motivations of each party. It also continues the de-escalation of the antagonism that was allowed to surface the previous day.

A note to facilitators: There are a variety of ways to help enhance participants’ talking and listening, and their ability to engage in the reflexive stage, since it is the most personal phase and therefore the most threatening for many people. It is particularly difficult in some non-Western cultures. In America, self-examination in public is part of the popular culture, and quite a large number of people feel free to discuss psychological or marital problems no matter who is listening. When dealing with Partners on a worldwide scale, more often than not it is necessary to spend a good deal of time in preparation to adapt the process so that the participants are comfortable with this session. For example, it may be advisable to work in small groups and only at a second stage to share experiences and insights with the entire group. The mood during the reflexive stage is quite different from that of the adversarial stage. Participants are encouraged to use “I” statements, rather than the incriminating “you” from the previous phase, to talk to themselves aloud and to be honest about their feelings. It is important to remind participants that they should provide only as much information as they feel comfortable sharing, while at the same time stressing that opening up is not a sign of weakness. The transition from the adversarial to the reflexive stage implies shifting to a deeper level of empathy for both sides.

Discussion: Conflict Behavior

The day should begin with a presentation on why this stage is included in the workshop. The facilitators should generate an intellectual comprehension of the concept of “needs” through serious discussion. When one contemplates what drives people and nations to the extreme of sacrificing their own lives and well-being for a cause, one can understand that human beings are driven by strong inner forces. Human needs such as physical security, freedom from oppression and discrimin-ation, economic well-being, group identity (recognition, dignity and respect), and access to the social institutions of allocation and exchange are most commonly expressed and appear to be universal (Azar, this volume). Continual frustration in the attempt to improve satisfaction of one’s human needs can motivate violence when no better options appear to be available.

The “dual concern” model helps to further clarify the motivational dynamics of conflict (see Davies, this volume, figure 6.1). The model defines conflict behavior as varying according to two dimensions of concern in each situation. One represents degree of concern for self, or salience of one’s own needs and interests, ranging from low (leading to a preference for yielding or avoidance strategies) to high (leading to a preference for contending or integrative strategies). The second represents the range of concern for others, from low (leading to contending or avoidance) to high (leading to yielding or integrative strategies). By recognizing that there are two distinct dimensions of concern, for self and for other, that are not contradictory, one can shift from a one-dimensional model focusing only on self versus other (leading to yielding, contending or compromise) to notice a new continuum representing balanced concern for both parties, ranging from low concern for both (leading to avoidance or inaction) through moderate concern (allowing compromise) to high concern for both, which motivates collaborative effort to find a win-win (integrative) outcome. On conflicts over issues (needs) of high concern to both parties, full collaboration creates a stable solution; the other options leave one or both parties partially or completely unsatisfied and thus represent unstable settlements containing the seeds of future conflict cycles.

Exercise: Moving around the Room

A useful exercise for illustrating the theory is to place placards expressing different points of the continuum in corners of the room. Participants then move around the room depending on their personal reactions to a series of issues raised by the facilitators, or their classification of a list of personality attributes. Such methods of learning about conflict behavior help people whose style of learning is more concrete than abstract grasp the importance of this reflexive phase in facilitating a transition from “us versus them” to balanced or integrative perspectives. This progression is essential for joint problem solving to be successful. Experiential learning also has the advantage of promoting interaction among learners, which can help people overcome a number of prejudices. It enables participants to view members of the other party as they do themselves and to realize that their fears, hopes and needs are not all that different from anyone else’s.

A Personal Observation

Before we move to exercises designed to reveal the motivations of peoples in conflict, I would like to share a cautionary experience. When prominent members of Ecuadorian and Peruvian civil society once met at College Park, it became apparent in the workshop’s initial stages that attitudes toward their border disputes became increasingly more antagonistic when moving from civil society attitudes to governmental stands to military positions. In these cases, the Partners were unsure which level of needs to present in the reflexive stage, and we finally agreed to use active listening techniques to represent each of the three parts of their societies. Interesting contrasts emerged here; in addition to sharing with each other the mostly symbolic expectation of the people (recognition, dignity, respect for those killed in action, and economic well-being), the government had other, more immediate interests (usually political motivations such as elections, prestige), and the military was more concerned with the need to legitimate its function in the post-Cold War era and justify the purchase of new weapons, among other things. Such diversity of motivation across sectors within each party to a conflict is especially common when the level of violence is low; however, in all cases we should be cautious not to overgeneralize what we learn of Partners’ motivations to entire peoples.

Active Listening

Motivation and Rationale

Selective hearing through disconnection, lack of knowledge, or highly charged emotions have been highlighted in previous days as barriers to effective communication. Listening skills can be developed in a number of ways. The purpose is to promote more honest and effective communication among the participants, based on respect for the speaker and a willingness to hear and understand the full message being transmitted. The facilitators’ responsibility is to help all involved feel that they are being heard, through keeping the group focused, encouraging parties to speak out, clarifying key concepts, asking questions and summarizing main points periodically. They should also validate the willingness of participants to share concerns, fears, needs, values or experiences that may have gone unstated prior to this stage. These concerns are often deep and personal. Therefore, a sympathetic and sensitive atmosphere should be constructed.

Exercise: Robbery Report

Before discussing the active listening techniques, it is useful to demonstrate how the converse works: when one does not actively listen, the results can be quite detrimental. In this exercise, three volunteers are chosen and asked to wait outside. After they have left, everyone in the room is given copies of a robbery report. A volunteer is asked to enter and listen as someone reads the report in a voice that conveys urgency, but so that the volunteer can clearly understand what is said. The next volunteer is then asked in, and the report is repeated to him by the first one; the same follows for the last participant, as he/she repeats it to a “policeman” investigating the crime. The Partners should all be taking notes to see how communication can be mixed up and even wrong, if one does not pay close attention to what is being said (UNICEF, 1997). It should be stressed, however, that the volunteers should not be made to feel as though they are terrible communicators but rather that they have now aided in deciphering the factors that make effective listening a difficult act for anyone.

Discussion: Principles of Active Listening

Active listening involves paying attention, eliciting additional information and reflecting back the messages received (UNICEF, 1997). Factors such as atmosphere, body language and patience are also crucial (see box 10.1.).

Box 10.1 Techniques of Active Listening

In order to practice active listening, three approaches may be considered. The Partners can be consulted about which of the following exercises they would prefer. If there is not sufficient time to practice and illustrate the three approaches in consecutive rounds, the Partners may break into pairs or groups of three and explore the different types of active listening simultaneously and then share the experience with the others. The exercises on “nonviolent communication” may also be practiced or at least reviewed at this stage.

Exercise 1: The group is divided into groups of three, and people are asked to speak in rotation. As the first participant speaks, the second listens and then repeats back what was heard to the speaker, avoiding criticisms or passing judgment through changing the use of certain terms. The third member of the triad acts as a coach, paying close attention to both verbal and nonverbal cues, and in this manner helps both the speaker and the listener listen actively. Repeating the exercise three times allows each person to play each role and to feel the benefits that active listening can offer. All the participants then sit in a circle, and one member of each group is asked to report its main findings.

Exercise 2: The teams sit close together, each forming a matching half-circle. Partners on one team listen to what those on the other have to say concerning their experiences and motivations in the conflict, then summarize the needs that were expressed, using fewer words than the original speakers. The roles are then reversed. Paraphrasing can in fact assist in organizing the thoughts of the original presenter and clarify some poorly expressed concepts. During this phase, the Partners’ voices tend to be lower, as they fall into a more introspective mood. Since participants are inclined to speak softly of their concerns, the circle should be close. Each talk should last only about five minutes. Suggested topics for discussion might include a problem at work that was resolved successfully or unsuccessfully, past personal experiences in the current conflict, or an example of when the speaker mediated a conflict between others (UNICEF, 1997).

Exercise 3: The goal here is for team members to use counseling skills and reflective phrases to increase understanding. The Partner is encouraged to express feelings that she/he might hesitate to say out loud. Participants from one team speak of their experience and motivations in the current conflict while the other group encourages them, using phrases such as “Tell me more,” “I understand but what do you mean when you say humiliation?” or “We all have fears, but what characterizes yours?” Such listening may be therapeutic for the speaker, but it has also been rewarding to see how much more information and insights Partners are able to gain when asking questions in a concerned, helpful manner.

Applying Reflexive Listening

Once the rules of the reflexive phase are clear and the principles explored and understood, they can be applied to the conflict as a whole using at least one of these active-listening approaches. Allow at least one hour for the small group role-rotation, with an additional hour or more for the debriefing in plenary. The rotating coaches in each group have been taking notes during the exercise recording the underlying needs. Presenting their observations to the larger group is an important step toward understanding the group’s concerns. The more recurrent needs are clearly priorities that need to be addressed in the next integrative stage

Evaluating What Has Been Learned

This day is extremely important, because it provides a basis for a more thorough understanding of potential areas of common ground, and it should be evaluated at this point. The Partners may be asked whether, if they were to go through this stage another time, they would act differently. Their perception of the relevance and validity of the specific exercises can be assessed, along with their evaluation of the extent to which knowing the “why” behind the Partners’ positions may help in moving the problem-solving dialogue process along. Discovering the unexpressed reasons motivating the participants will be valuable for all involved.

It should now be clearer how much misperceptions have distorted the messages of both sides and have inclined each party to expect the worst behaviors and conspiracies of the other. The Partners are now more aware that different individuals and nations tend to express their needs only indirectly, that they have universally recognizable human needs, and that different needs will be more salient to different groups. For example, Israelis are overwhelmingly concerned with security, at the national level as well as at the personal level of daily existence; at the same time, Palestinians most strongly feel the need to master their own destinies and not be controlled by others. Perhaps both needs can be met, since they are searching for different yet potentially complementary outcomes. It is such common ground, based on the evolving understanding of shared or complementary needs, which allows both parties to deal with group problem solving rather than personal issues during the next day.

Introduction and Agenda Setting for the Integrative Phase

Motivation and Rationale

In this section the integrative phase should be discussed so participants will be prepared for the next day. This phase is about maximizing mutual gains, inventing new options while not necessarily committing a priori to their acceptance, and then finding the common denominators. The introduction should also set the agenda for their discussions. Different exercises can illustrate the importance of win-win strategies and seeing things from the other’s perceptive.

An important note to facilitators: During this session and in following sessions, the participants should already be sitting together in one semicircle as a group rather than in distinct groups as for the previous two stages.

Exercise: Illustrating Zero-Sum and Win-Win Thinking

To illustrate the difference between zero-sum thinking and a win-win strategy, a number of Partners can be selected for the following game, the more the better. The Partners are paired for a session of armwrestling, with two small monetary awards for those with the most wins in one minute. While many of the participants struggle to put down their adversary’s hand no more than a few times, a team embracing the win-win strategy can come to an agreement to split the two awards in equal shares and then let each one put the other’s hand down as many times as possible. While others struggle, they can rack up victories. If no one in the room comes up with this strategy, the facilitators can demonstrate this alternative to adversarial thinking. The idea is to push the Partners into a cooperative mood and open them up to experimentation.

Exercise: Perspectives

A simple way illustrating the importance of perspective is to ask the Partners to focus on a particular part of the room that contains different objects, or a view through a window. When participants describe what they perceive from their viewpoints, it is easy to make the case that multiple points of view provide a much richer picture. Whatever exercise is used, the point is to demonstrate the value of being open to a new way of perceiving the same situation. It is always interesting to the Partners to realize how many different understandings of the same thing there are in a group. These exercises exemplify the value of being open and creative in problem solving.

A Discussion of Brainstorming

“Brainstorming” may be defined as a procedure for idea generation that involves the suspension of judgment and the deferral of evaluation. A brief comment on its origin as currently practiced may also be of interest. Brainstorming is an integral part of Osborne’s (1938) “creative problem-solving process,” and it is one stage in a cycle that includes fact finding, problem finding, idea finding, solution finding and acceptance finding. Brainstorming attempts to get the brain’s more linear-thinking left hemisphere to work with the more holistic right hemisphere. This requires using techniques that are logical and sequential but also some that are random and freewheeling.

Some methods that have worked well in promoting creativity in my joint projects with Barri Sanders are lateral thinking, backcasting, writing in different colors, circular listening, mind mapping and list exchanges. The number of creativity generators is as extensive as the facilitators’ capability for inventing them. Facilitators may discuss some of these ways for developing new ideas and talk about thinking as a self-organized informational system. Lateral thinking, for example, may be contrasted with hierarchical or linear (logical) thinking, which may lead to “tunnel vision” perspectives restricted by unexamined preconceptions of what is possible or relevant. Lateral thinking allows us to search horizontally for analogies between situations that seem very different but share characteristics with the conflict being discussed in the workshop. Earlier we discussed an example of lateral thinking in looking for models in existing microstates and autonomous regions, models that might open up the thinking of those dealing with the breakaway regions of Azerbaijan and Georgia.

Another option touched on earlier is backcasting, in which participants build back from the earlier “shared vision” exercise, revising the expected positive and negative outcomes of the problem from twenty years down to ten, five and then to the present. Other suggestions include “expanding the cake” before cutting it, meaning adding incentives for agreements by injecting assets other than those already under dispute. An example of this principle arises where territorial conflicts can be dealt with through gerrymandering. In the case of Jerusalem, one could define a much wider municipal area covering a hundred square kilometers (the area of the disputed Old City is only one square kilometer), covering what was under the Ottoman Empire the sanjak, or district, of Jerusalem, and then divide that into more ample Palestinian and Israeli capitals. Other tools for refocusing on problematic transactions and generating alternative options include: nonspecific compensation (one party concedes on the issue in return for some benefit received in an unrelated area), “logrolling” (each party concedes on issues that are of low priority to itself but of high priority to the other party), “costcutting” (one party gets what it wants but the other’s costs are reduced or eliminated) and “bridging” (neither party achieves its initial demands, but a new option is devised that satisfies the most important interests underlying those demands) (Rubin, Pruitt and Kim, 1994). Splitting the overall issue of water rights to a river, for example, not simply according to a percentage entitlements for each state but through identifying more specific values the river affords (irrigation, navigation, fishery, tourism, environment, domestic water consumption, power generation, cooling for industrial use, etc.) and asking stakeholders to assign numeric preferences to each allows these relative values to guide the division of access rights so that each state receives a higher percentage of its desired values than it would have received under a simple percentage split—a positive-sum outcome.

Agenda Setting

The agenda for the next day’s brainstorming session can be set in several ways. Ask the participants to identify the most viable and important agenda items they think should be addressed:

1. By getting feedback from the official first-track negotiations and finding either the impasses that have emerged or the points of discord that have been avoided but require addressing before the final agreement;

2. By looking back to the best possible and worst possible scenarios of the shared-vision exercise and backcasting from the future down to the immediate issues that need to be discussed; or

3. By splitting into small groups and reporting their collective preferences back to the plenary.

It is important that Partners build consensus about the topic to be addressed. This is best done through appointing a small preparatory committee early in the workshop to take on that responsibility, since the Partners will already have been identifying potential agenda items through earlier discussions and exercises. Criteria for selection can include: salience, gravity (levels of related violence, arrests, suffering), participants’ shared knowledge and expertise, simplicity, relevance for a majority of both communities, and the potential for generating early warning reports with appropriate recommendations.

The committee should meet with the facilitators a day or two prior to the brainstorming session to discuss the likely points. The recommended subject for the integrative phase should be presented to all the Partners during this session so they have time to reach consensus, think about the issue, and sleep on it before the integrative phase starts.

A note to facilitators: It is often obvious in international problem solving that those charged with finding solutions are too rooted in past history and current events to be forward thinking. The workshop has provided a different context, with extrapolation toward the future and reflexive exercises generating a recognition of joint perspectives, and with experimentation in techniques for freeing the imagination to think ahead creatively.

Day 9: ARIA—The Integrative Stage

Phase 1: Brainstorming

Setup

The day can begin with the participants once again seated not facing each other but in a curve facing the problem, which is mapped out on the flip chart or blackboard. Before beginning the creative process, we can help the Partners get into a “brainstorming mood” through brief tales and exercises.

Exercise in Creative Thinking: Thinking outside the Box

This is an effective tool for demonstrating that creative thinking can solve problems that people see as insoluble.

Figure 10.1 Thinking outside the Box

The instructions for the exercise are:

1. Connect all nine dots using no more than four straight lines.

2. The dots cannot be repositioned.

3. The connecting line must be drawn in one continuous stroke: leave the pencil on the paper until all lines have been drawn.

The concept behind the solution is not to allow our thinking to be contained and limited by imaginary boundaries. Thinking outside of boundaries and limitations is what creative thinking is about.

A note to facilitators: The title clearly reads “thinking outside the box,” and yet, overwhelmingly, people disregard it and try to draw the four lines inside the box.

Once the tone is set (if needed, remind them of the value of unconventional ideas for generating win-win outcomes, perhaps with a story ) the attributes of the brainstorming technique should be briefly reviewed and a list of rules for the exercise displayed: (1) all ideas are encouraged; (2) record them for display; (3) no criticisms, justifications or discussion of the merits; (4) avoid passing judgment either orally or through body language; (5) keep adding more ideas, including changing course to new lines of ideas; (6) do not focus on substantive differences; (7) all is confidential; (8) adding a footnote (or “hitchhike”) idea is acceptable; (9) combine related propositions or expand propositions with improvements; (10) depersonalize the ideas by not registering the name of the proponent; (11) encourage daring and freewheeling ideas (“the sky’s the limit,” “think big,” “no budgetary constraints”) and (12) keep the flow going for as long as possible.

A note to facilitators: It is difficult for many participants to refrain from offering comments or body language about others’ ideas. It is critical that the facilitators have the skills to keep this activity on track: reassure them that there will be an opportunity for evaluating the ideas later.

The Brainstorming Exercise

A brainstorming usually lasts from thirty to sixty minutes, depending on the number of Partners and levels of previous knowledge of the issues. Ideas should be stated briefly, since no justification is called for; this keeps the flow going and facilitates recording for later analysis. Two participants or facilitators should write down the ideas, checking to ensure accuracy, with proponents calling on the recorders alternately, so that the writing will not slow the flow of ideas.

If the group seems to be running out of ideas, and the facilitators would like to encourage more, they may announce how many minutes remain in the session, so that an extra effort can be made to generate more. Quantity is no guarantee of quality, but a larger harvest may include more powerful and creative suggestions.

Once this exercise is completed and before the break, all participants should be asked to mark on the charts those ideas they consider useful (for example, ++ for a very good idea, + for a good idea). This will serve to indicate to the small groups what the priorities of the larger group are and which ideas to focus on more. A long break between this phase and the next allows participants to recover from an intensive effort and switch to a different set of thinking skills.

Phase 2: Classification and Evaluation

Motivation and Rationale

In this section the Partners are asked to organize the ideas into thematic areas (such as economic, social, cultural, political, security and humanitarian) and then redraft them to make the language more accessible to people outside the workshop, and to avoid rough or potentially offending “hot button” wording (see exercise from Day 4). Once the solutions are divided into several baskets, preexisting zero-sum assumptions shift. Participants will attach different values to potential gains (and losses) in each of the baskets. Even if there is one basket that seems to have the most important issues at stake, the introduction of several alerts both sides to the potential for trade-offs, which they can get only if they are willing to be flexible on the more difficult and important issues. For example, it may be reasonable to leave for the end the most difficult problems (e.g., among Israelis and Palestinians, the issue of Jerusalem) to be tackled by a special group. Once there has been an accumulation of creative and attractive solutions to the smaller issues, the motivation to deal effectively with the core problems increases.

Classification and Evaluation Exercise

During the break, the facilitators and several Partners should separate the suggestions by thematic categories, according either to major issue areas within the conflict, the professional skills of the participants, or other explicit criteria. After the break the Partners should divide into small mixed groups, each with Partners from both sides. Partners may also be asked to join the group to which they can best contribute based on their professional interests or their personal cognitive strengths (avoiding, competing, compromising, accommodating or collaborating styles). The sense that they are acting in a capacity based not only on their own ethnic, national, or group identity may help open their minds toward dealing with the conflict based on complementarity with opposing Partners. No harm is done if an attractive idea or two is sent to more than one group; each Partner may choose to explore his/her own special area of interest.

Any outside observers who may be attending the workshop may be keen to participate and contribute with their own ideas. Normally, if security and confidentiality are not issues, Partners will welcome the opportunity to invite local observers. This should be encouraged, since a few people with different perspectives can help in defusing any continuing polarization and further expedite the search for common ground.

Group members are asked now to discuss the ideas assigned to them, clarifying them as needed and, taking into account the marks (++ and +) that were placed on the charts next to the ideas, rating them, say, on a five-point scale (five for the best, one for the poorest). Ideas and values assigned to them by the small groups are put on flip charts for the entire workshop. Within one or two hours, with a rapporteur recording the results, the rephrased ideas (usually about ten to fifteen for each group) are listed in order of assigned value, and the preferred notions are brought back to the entire group. Looking again into the fine drafting of the ideas is important, to make sure that they will be understood “out of the room” in the respective societies and to ensure that they are couched in appropriate language.

Phase 3: The Search for Common Ground

Motivation and Rationale

Partners should understand that consensus is not achieved through majority vote or avoidance of objections. Everyone should have his or her concerns brought before the entire group, and only when that participant is comfortable with relinquishing an idea should the group let it drop. In true consensus finding, people actively listen to each other and find ways to satisfy the important concerns of everyone. This takes longer than majority rule, but the resulting buy-in is critical to keep someone from sabotaging the project later. If participants feel unduly pressured, they will have a hard time implementing any ideas they are not happy with.

The Consensus Exercise

The small teams return to the main group, fixing their own chart pages on the walls. The facilitators should present some dos and don’ts of consensus.

Box 10.1 The Levels of Consensus

After the presentation by each small group, the Partners should be asked if there is consensus (it is not a good idea to ask if there are opponents). Where there are major reservations, the person holding them can be given additional clarification by the rapporteur, other members of his/her team and the group at large. There is always room for accommodation by adding, subtracting, or changing the original wording of an idea. Dissenters will feel pressure from their peers to approve the idea even if they do not fully agree; they may yield and let it pass. Although people should not be forced to go along with the majority, and consensus rule gives each Partner a veto, it is not necessarily unhealthy for a participant to drop his/her objection to what other members of the group consider feasible. In some cases, a participant who agrees to let go his/her objections becomes a king/queen for the day; he/she may come to feel good about accommodating instead of being intransigent. On the other hand, if anyone persists in his/her objection and no accommodation can be found, the idea should be dropped and the process moved along, without making anyone feel ostracized or excluded.

Once an approved list is completed, it can be typed up and distributed among the Partners and, if they agree, as a joint statement for other interested parties. The exercise may then be concluded with a short evaluation of the integrative stage and of the ARIA process so far. These three days will have been intense and productive. Feedback is important, so that the facilitators and organizers can learn what worked and what did not, and see the value of their collective and individual efforts.

A note to facilitators: I have had cases in which consensus has been reached, only to be approached a few days later on behalf of one of the Partners who is unwilling to go along with his/her previously agreed position. One can opt either to talk to the particular individual and explore refinements that the group may accept, or simply redraft the preamble to the joint statement to read “All participants from group A and an overwhelming majority of participants from group B”.

Day 10: Practicing Conflict Transformation in the Real World

Adapting the Workshop into the Partners’ Own Cultures

Motivation and Rationale

About two-thirds of the workshop has now been completed, and the feeling may be that the most difficult part is over. Thoughts may be shifting to the return home, and there may be some sadness and/or expectations about a new priority or, in some cases, a new career in the field of conflict resolution. The facilitators can now present the results of the previous day much more systematically for comments and discussion on how to follow up the main ideas. Concrete recommendations for policy makers may be discussed at this point, as well as how to formulate these ideas to elicit interest among colleagues and how to translate them into activities aimed at changing public opinion and initiating grassroots action. If the Partners are to promote a culture of conflict resolution in their own societies and train as facilitators to work with colleagues and others in their own environments, there is a need to adapt activities and concepts in order for them to gain value and acceptance. When we speak about adaptation to different cultures, we mean not only at the level of adequate language but also in terms of traditional forms and exercises that need to be identified and integrated with the newly developed techniques.

Discussion of Culture and Conflict Transformation

Moving to a more elicitive approach, the workshop may now also focus on revisiting the strengths and weakness of collaborative problem solving in light of the traditions and existing conflict resolution mechanisms and practices found in the Partners’ own cultures. The facilitators should lead a discussion on how the lessons learned can be best applied given the cultures of the Partners. This objective should be pursued in a systematic manner, beginning with basic concepts such as peace, conflict, management and reconciliation. As an example, in a workshop I was involved in, I used the Spanish phrase tormenta de ideas as a translation for “brainstorming.” A participant from Bolivia informed me that the preferred term was lluvia de ideas, or a “rain of ideas,” because it sounds less frightening than “storming.” It is worthwhile to listen and comment, and try to elicit ideas for adapting the model to help participants develop an integrative approach that will be effective in their communities. In developing their own plans for conducting conflict-resolution training, participants will need to adapt it to the mentality and culture of their own nations, incorporating autonomous elements from local traditions both in the naming and substance of the exercises. Respect for the role of elders in peacemaking may need to be factored in; seniority should not be unnecessarily challenged. Tight social networks make it difficult “to separate the people from the problem,” and alternative ways are required.

One of the perceived difficulties is the role-playing in the adversarial stage of ARIA. In some Confucian cultures in particular, the idea of being outspoken and aggressive is contrary to tradition, and often the participants are not able or willing to act along the prescribed lines. In experimenting on adaptation we were able to ascertain that Japanese high school students dealing with the conflicts with the Buraku and Korean-Japanese did not feel comfortable speaking aloud but were willing to write down how they felt. Another adaptation included not sharing personal statements but asking one of each group of Partners to act as a rapporteur or “leader” and bring to the fore the comments expressed by individual members of the inner group who would prefer to remain anonymous. Ground rules such as these can be worked out according to the needs of each culture.

Introducing Information Technology (IT)

Motivation and Rationale

Rapid developments in computer technology and electronic media also require that the IPSW be constantly adjusted, though only within limits set by technical and budgetary constraints in the Partners’ countries. In planning how to maintain postworkshop communication and dialogue among Partners, we have found that, paradoxically, in many developing countries our Partners have access to electronic communicative technology via the Internet, while older means of communication (phones, mail, fax) may not yet be available, at least not between the communities in conflict. We have been able to set up an embryonic “virtual community” of Partners that will endeavor to use all Internet channels available (e-mail, home pages, chat groups, video-conferencing).

A Discussion of Tools of Communication

Workshop organizers may arrange a session to present such IT tools and help in efforts to facilitate the Partners’ access to them. The advantage of using such non-face-to-face of communication cannot be neglected: when direct meetings are not available in the home region, given the level of conflict between the parties, ongoing discussion of the issues and action steps through the Internet is a valid alternative.

Once, for example, in a workshop at College Park, we were able to familiarize participants with the International Communications and Negotiation Simulations (ICONS) Project, a worldwide, multi-institutional, computer-assisted simulation program used to address issues of concern at the international, regional or dyadic levels. Partners expressed their enthusiasm for experimenting with ICONS as an additional tool to their face-to-face contacts, especially because operations as expensive as workshops can only occur sporadically. The Partners conducted simulations on topical issues at College Park in mixed teams, representing both themselves and the other party, as well as foreign actors (mostly the regional powers). If the workshop participants are academics, they may wish to use the ICONS network in training their students. In any case, if they will be keeping in touch via the Internet in the follow-up stages, they can also be trained in the use of such on-line negotiation simulations and use them as a vehicle for discussion among themselves and others. Adapting ICONS to particular issues of concern to the Partners may be worthwhile, if funding is available. Video-conferencing may also be an option for the follow-up phase, if equipment is available in the region and budget constraints permit.

Most of Day 10 may be spent in informal groups developing ideas for implementation. The facilitators should provide supporting information, such as opportunities and procedures for applying for funding. Representatives of relevant foundations might be invited to come speak, and good impressions of the group’s potentials may lay the ground for future funding (see Day 14).

Day 11: Acknowledgment and Healing

Rationale and Motivation

Given the human suffering that accompanies protracted communal conflicts, the Partners will need to develop their skills in dealing with traumatic situations, past wounds, present threats and possible future acts of violence that may derail a prolonged official peace process. Montville (1990: 538) brings up the question of how a person can overcome the sense of past injustice and victimhood, and become compassionate toward the other side. He states that “for the mourning process to occur, [it] requires that the victimizers accept responsibility for their acts or those of their predecessor government and people, recognize the injustice, and in some way ask forgiveness of the victims. In many cases, the contrition has to be mutual,” a point that is similarly stressed by Volkan (1985).

Social responsibility, contrition and forgiveness are powerful and even necessary elements in dealing with intense conflicts. They may not carry any direct tangible costs, but they can still be extremely difficult to express (Cohen, 1997a). Research and practical exploration on how best to facilitate these processes in real time are still in the early stages. A key issue is how to recognize in suffering an opportunity for reconciliation, rather than leaving it as a festering wound and source of further hatred and animosity. Such actions, often perpetrated by a small extremist minority, have a paralyzing effect, even among Partners who feel great goodwill toward each other under other circumstances.

We have found that due to sensitivity and lack of profound knowledge of the other party’s traditions of grief, benevolently inclined people have been unable or unwilling to share their feelings of sorrow and compassion with their “enemies.” Acts such as attending a funeral of a victim killed by one’s own people not only requires human courage but may in some situations be counterproductive or dangerous. Hence, there is a need to understand the traditions and expectations of the communities involved, and for careful preparation (jointly, where possible) before undertaking such acts.

The problem of healing is relevant not only for dealing with the past but also for the conduct of the workshop. There have been instances when acts of terror or massacres have occurred in the Partners’ communities during our workshops. As discussed earlier, explicit ways of coping with the trauma are required, and a discussion on healing should be undertaken immediately. During an Israeli/Palestinian workshop a short time after a Jew (Baruch Goldstein) massacred a large number of Muslims at prayer in Hebron, it was reported on the morning news that many Jews had just been killed in a bomb explosion at a bus station in Jerusalem. In cases such as these, when not everyone may have heard the news already, the facts should be brought in, with sensitivity, and the Partners can be asked what they think needs to be said to each other. They may also discuss the possibility of another such episode occurring, and what should be done about that. A group of Palestinian and Israeli women students once discussed the possibility of sending letters, with a small present or book, to children in the other community wounded in such violence. This, it was hoped, would open a channel of communication so that eventually Arab and Jewish students could together visit the victims of both sides in the hospital. The healing power of such humanitarian acts can also be multiplied if announced in the media.

Even when the majorities of two nations in conflict would like to move on and pragmatically reach a compromise agreement, the extremes of both sides, generating violent acts, can stop the peace process. A handful of fanatics can be a formidable barrier, unless more enlightened sectors of the silent majorities realize that they also need to play a moderating role, particularly, but not only, at the most difficult moments. Partners can brainstorm specific ideas or doable projects that can be included as personal commitments at the reentry stage.

Acknowledgment, forgiveness and healing is essential to short-term, and particularly long-term, reconciliation. In protracted and violent communal conflicts this makes the difference between a cold, fragile peace based on formal cease-fire agreements and the development of a sustainable “people-to-people” relationship. There are no shortcuts on this route. Eventually, the painful experiences of the past must be dealt with. Many such processes of “truth and reconciliation” have been undertaken as a governmental initiative (Chile, South Africa—see Borris, this volume) or at the NGO level (the “Nunca Mas”—never again—church-sponsored reports in Uruguay and Brazil). The Partners can discuss planning or cooperating together with such processes, particularly if the workshop is taking place at the postnegotiation stage, after a peace agreement has been signed.

Introducing personal stories can help. The facilitators and participants can ask each other if they have ever felt discriminated against, oppressed or have mourned the loss of friends and relatives as a result of the conflict. If an actual episode of this nature has occurred during or just prior to the workshop, it should be dealt with. If there have been no such cases involving the participants, role-playing can also be a useful alternative.

It has been suggested that acknowledgment of responsibility and actively seeking justice for the other party will produce lasting beneficial effects, though such an undertaking is less likely to happen immediately after a crisis. The potential for this can be discussed at the workshop, though I would not pressure the Partners for such recognition of responsibility in public, nor would I recommend that it occur immediately after an act of violence. This workshop should allow participants to show empathy not only for the humanity of their respective peoples as a whole, but also toward each other as individuals. Receiving faxes or telephone calls from Palestinian Partners and friends has helped in dealing with my own grief. Originating such communications to them has given me a sense of doing the right thing and allowed me, in expressing my concern, to express my gratitude for the concern expressed by them. In an ideal world the training process should empower Partners to make this area an integral part of their lives as peace builders.

Although such spontaneous gestures can be invaluable, protracted conflicts require a network of Partners to address in a systematic and sustained way the challenge of expressing humanity toward each other. From our own experiences we have come to realize how difficult is to agree to share victimhood. Past and present suffering are hard to compare, and so are the isolated but brutal acts of terror inflicted by one side and the sustained and widespread hardship caused by the policies of the other side (structural violence). The fact that this is a difficult mission does not imply that it is impossible. Beyond sensitivity training, organizations on each side can facilitate such expressions by bringing the participants into contact with the victims’ families, with the media, and even with the perpetrators of violence or their relatives. To illustrate, in 1997 a group of Israelis and Palestinians set up a HEAL (Healing Early Action Link) network to address on a reciprocal and joint basis the acts of violence committed by official and nonofficial perpetrators of both sides. The activities conducted by this group include visiting victims of political violence, writing letters to victims and relatives, conducting training courses, preparing a manual for wide circulation and joint media appearances. Early action can also include joint writing of press articles. Calls for establishing joint memorials can help achieve healing through association with the past suffering of both communities.

This session may also be useful to introduce the expectations of “justice” by both sides, particularly relevant for those that perceive themselves as the oppressed in an asymmetric dyadic relationship. Human rights principles can provide international standards that are shared by most nations and their governments.

I have seen even young students very moved by the sessions of this day, particularly if an incident has occurred real-time, generating an urgent need to work out a healing process together. Partners’ ability to commit to be active in this field upon reentry is crucial in cases of sporadic or continuous violence.

Day 12: Joint Activities before Departure and Reentry

Training for Reentry

Motivation and Rationale

The IPSW should not be an isolated event—that could leave the Partners feeling isolated and lost after reentry. The reentry process has been described as a culture shock attributable both to separation from those who have undergone a similar experience and to exposure to a sort of inquisition from others in a still-hostile environment. Participants who wish to share new and moderate ideas from the brainstorming session may be regarded by some as fools, naive or (even worse), as traitors and victims of brainwashing. Within a Partner’s family, tensions can be quite high when discussing how helpful the workshop was and how it has influenced their thinking. To avoid perceptions of proselytizing or preaching, the Partners should offer detailed pictures of lessons learned and actively seek feedback on these new perspectives.

Investment in personal transformation alone, when dealing with Partners in ongoing conflicts, is not justified. The internalization of experiential learning without the added phase of empowerment through follow-up action can result in frustration and inconclusiveness rather than fulfillment and growth. Hence, it is for the benefit of the individual as well that effective means for contributing to community transformation should also be planned. It is relatively simple to conceive of follow-up activities, if participants collaborate and time is allocated. “When re-entry is well planned, the lessons learned and the skills developed can be applied back home in beneficial ways, over an appropriate time frame and within a trusting environment” (Eshelman and Standish, 1996).

Box 10.1 Guidelines for Going Home

 

Box 10.1—Continued

 

 

 

Activities for Reentry

Generally, we suggest starting the reentry stage in the immediate aftermath of the workshop. If in the capital of a third country (such as Washington, D.C.) the Partners can submit documentation of their points of agreement and program of action in a joint delegation to their respective ambassadors. This was done, for instance, by the Peruvian and Ecuadorian participants, who were ceremoniously received in the two embassies. In the case of the Partners from the Transcaucasus, we set up joint lectures at different institutions and universities in the area, generating the opportunity to show to a wider audience their commitment to searching for common ground and avoiding adversarial discourse.

In addition to developing specific small projects, the Partners should consider expected problems upon reentry and how to confront them effectively. A two-hour discussion and advising session is recommended as a debriefing in their habitat or work place upon return. More enthusiastic participants should not be in a rush to share the outcomes and agreements from the workshop but should first give detailed accounts of the intricacies of the IPSW process. If they can remember how skeptical they were on the first day, perhaps they will better understand the need for this delay.

Keeping in touch with other participants inside and outside their own country or community is also extremely useful, so that no one feels alone in the process of keeping alive the commitments undertaken to themselves and each other. Use of IT technology (e-mail, a shared Web site, chat groups, video-conferencing, etc.) needs to be discussed, making sure Partners have access, often by the organizers’ making sure that budgetary provisions have been made in the original proposal.

In preparing for reentry, it may be worthwhile to role-play among the Partners an interaction with a friend or colleague from a home community who is skeptical of the IPSW process. A Partner tells the story as the local “friend” increases his/her critical response. Other participants can evaluate the performance and suggest improvements in strategy. Another suggested exercise is to ask the participants to take a few minutes and write themselves a letter, to be mailed by the organizers about two weeks after their return. In the letters, the participants should express their current feeling and willingness to undertake some specific joint actions and projects in the near future. A more collective equivalent is to ask the Partners to write a message for themselves and put all of them in a bottle, to be copied and shared after departure with everybody.

Additionally, it may be worthwhile for participants to organize an informal discussion session at a university, NGO, a friend’s house or in a Partner’s own home. The emphasis should be on process and content, avoiding buzzwords or phrases that were part of the internal language of the workshop. The experience should be shared with peers, even if it is not as well received as originally hoped. The stimulus for creative efforts to resolve the conflict will be transmitted to the larger community more by deeds than by words.

Team-Building Exercises

In order to stimulate team building, it is suggested that the participants prepare themselves for joint presentations in front of a local or even mixed audience, to write an op-ed together, or to use some other form for joint expression. At College Park we have often arranged for Partners in small groups jointly to visit schools where peer mediation takes place and have them talk to the students about their conflicts and current experiences in addressing ways to resolve them. If they are academics, the Partners can be asked to share the podium at a university or elsewhere (perhaps for a modest honorarium, which can be a helpful stimulus). Being an experienced team-teacher with an exceptional Palestinian Partner, I can confirm that team-teaching in classrooms provides us with adrenaline and empowers us to continue with other concrete activities in putting the collaborative experience into action.

When jointly speaking in public the Partners must take care to minimize the potential for ending the performance in an adversarial manner. One way of doing so is to suggest at least two rounds of presentations. In the first round the Partners speak introspectively and objectively about their own side of the conflict, looking at the performance of their own governments and societies. In the second part, they can comment on the performance of the other side to the conflict and, if necessary, correct any possible biases in the presentation of the other person. This two-staged approach alleviates the uncertainty of going first and attacking immediately, as a pre-emptive measure.

Day 13: Unstructured Social Activities

No matter how well the workshop has progressed, there is normally a need for some private space, away from the sustained intensity of workshop activities. The day may include individual or group activities resulting from participants’ special requests, such as visits to museums, shopping expeditions, or just quiet relaxation and reflection. Shared outdoor activities or excursions that require some investment of energy and human resources can also promote team building. The time may also be used for more detailed discussion about the Partners’ future cooperation. An optional evening outing to a cultural event or dinner may also be offered.

Basically, this day is a time for collecting thoughts and easing tensions that may have arisen in the workshop, particularly the more intensive stages of ARIA, so that everyone will be refreshed in the last days for discussions on joint projects and the sometimes difficult step of saying good-bye.

Day 14: Finalizing Drafts of Action Plans

The Partners come together again to design and develop action plans and joint projects, with timelines for their future activities and programs. This is a good time to familiarize participants with potential sources of funding, fund-raising issues and the possible involvement of the hosting institution in future plans. The current funders for the project may also be invited for a conversation with the Partners, along with other project development specialists.

The types of projects that can be developed are nearly limitless, but plans must take into account budgetary constraints. It is useful to begin developing a shared mechanism or institution for some of these projects. Loyalty can develop to a transnational joint enterprise or epistemic community that may transcend the original loyalty to the group. Such institutions may take on a life of their own and promote problem solving through the generation of shared values. My own team-teaching with a Palestinian colleague has for several years not only afforded me a good understanding of his arguments but made our views closer and more integrative. It is the recurrent practice of pedagogic activities which unites us, especially when we face hostile environments in our own societies.

There are many training resources for action planning, each often copywriting their own products. We have used different organizing frameworks, mostly based on systematic common sense, dealing with short-term objectives and long-term goals (what?), motivation (why?), division of labor (who?), timeline (when?), activities (how?), and budget (how much?).

When it is possible to involve representatives of foundations in dialogue with the Partners, the latter, in anticipation of possible funding, tend to work harder on their action plans, normally including a summary evaluation of the workshop as well of their prospects for related applied work. This in itself is an accelerator for future cooperation. Some minimal funding is critical for maintaining the Partners’ relationships in the future, given the dedication required to work effectively in the often shattered or impoverished societies from which they come.

Day 15: The Last Day

Motivation and Rationale

The completion of the workshop is likely to be an emotional event, as bonds and relationships between participants often grow strong during the project. Its importance can hardly be stressed enough, because the values, experiences and commitments that are developed during these final stages will strongly influence the attitudes of the participants toward future joint activities (Keyton, 1993).

How members terminate the workshop activities affects how they will approach similar situations. Being encouraged to say good-bye allows an opportunity apart from the task to talk about the interaction process and the relational components of that task group. It provides a time to diffuse and assess the emotional impact of the task. It is time to reflect on what has happened and how, a time to take the positive forward, and a time to learn from the negative (Keyton, 1993).

Evaluation

This session should not become an early farewell ceremony, which has a legitimate place at the very end of the workshop. Particularly, in cases were the general feeling is positive, we can easily find ourselves moving from facilitation to felicitation. We need to minimize ritual expressions of gratitude, saying that there will be another opportunity. Ideally, we should have used already the “action-evaluation” technique (Rothman and Friedman, this volume), and therefore the last day should only add incrementally to the revision of the goals and objectives set at the beginning of the workshop. If not, an overall evaluation of the workshop should be conducted in addition to the “one-minute evaluation” forms that have provided immediate inputs on the daily program and the assessment of the ARIA role-playing. Feedback, collected through personal and group interviews, should be gathered on the extent to which the workshop has fulfilled the goals and expectations of the participants. Personal interviews minimize group pressure. At the same time, as Rouhana and Korper (1981) write, “A genuine critical evaluation of the intervention’s effectiveness in furthering group goals requires that participant feedback also be done in group, thus introducing group pressures and social desirability that are the political reality in which the participants actually deal with the conflict.”

The criteria for evaluation are determined beforehand, so that the workshop is assessed in terms of previously defined intermediate or long-term goals, as well as immediate returns as judged from concrete outcomes and activities (such as declarations, joint lectures in the community, expressions of trust and confidence-building measures offered during the workshop).

Kelman (1997a) provides a long list of intermediate goals, including developing cadres with experience in and commitment to direct communication with the other side; viewing communication and negotiation as feasible; striving for mutually satisfactory agreements for the end of conflict; differentiating the enemy image from reality; identification of Partners from the other side; raising awareness of others’ perspectives; developing a de-escalatory language; identifying usually reassuring actions and symbolic gestures; generating shared visions of a desirable future; and getting the Partners to the table and overcoming obstacles in the dialogue process.

These individual and group evaluations can be supported by a prepared set of questions, particularly if we would have liked to measure before-and-after attitudinal changes. A complex questionnaire is not recommended. More importantly, the participants should be encouraged to speak aloud about their learning experiences and have them recorded (if they agree), to provide an outlet to express emotions and commitment to the continuing project and to each other. When there is no volunteer to start the oral evaluation, we can ask a couple of the participants to read their answers from the written form, trading places in the center of the room. Often, it may sound self-congratulatory as well as a repeat of expressions of thanks to the organizers, but it is a good idea to let a first round of statements go in this direction and allow for the Partners to express their often genuine sense of gratitude. However, the facilitators should encourage a second round if necessary, for which the participants are reminded how important it is to note what went wrong, how things could be improved, etc.

A note to facilitators: The facilitator needs to take into account that in some cultures (e.g., parts of East and South East Asia) there is a reluctance to express criticism in public, as well as to share feelings. Aware of this, the facilitator may either risk having requests for oral evaluation met largely by silence or request that individual participants talk to him or to a member of the delegation, who will be in charge of providing a list of suggestions without attribution.

Final Team-Building and Saying Good-bye

Some outdoor team-building activities can be included here, according to the age group and culture, from high-ropes to sharing a unique landscape. The physical sense of being one group is an added and lasting dimension. On the departing day of a workshop in Sinai, most Egyptian, Jordanian, Palestinian and Israeli Partners took part in a canyon expedition. One of the Palestinian participants was blind and insisted on walking with everybody else, asking only to be told what the landscape was like. Although at the outset we were concerned about whether he would be able to complete the journey, we soon discovered that his willpower overcame all difficulties. When there was a narrow passage or high slope where he needed active assistance, the main volunteer was a strong Israeli settler, whom the Palestinian sought out when back in the jeep. A Jordanian participant indicated she had vertigo and refused to climb down to the canyon. She was encouraged not to remain behind, and eventually she did join the rest of us, being periodically calmed and supported by the other participants.

Saying a few parting words can be done in different ways, from holding hands in a circle, to just reading from a prepared text. Abrazos, shaking hands, kissing both or only one sex, showing emotions or not—all of these expressions need to be respectful of the participants’ cultures and value systems. Holding hands in a circle with a moment of silence to collect thoughts seems to work across many cultures, but it is difficult to generalize on this point. Perhaps it is best to ask the participants themselves to organize the good-bye ceremony, and the facilitators and staff to be invited guests. In the Caucasian tradition, toasting is a nearly endless process, and the vodka glasses tend to be accompanied by ever-deeper expressions of respect, friendship and love. The process of departure sometimes may include private moments, or a moving ceremony with the host community and friends of the participants present as well. Part of the activity could be ceremonial and used to grant diplomas or certificates, which help bind the group together with one more shared identity, as “graduates.”

The workshop is now complete, and all that remains is for the Partners to return to their homes and lives. It is hoped that the lessons learned and friendships gained from the workshop will remain with all Partners, fostering a greater understanding of the nature of their conflict and, thus, of potential solutions which may put an end to the human suffering it has created.

Concluding Remarks

It can be argued, quite correctly, that the preceding ideas are based mostly on common sense and experience. Our experience is that their amalgamation creates a powerful process larger than its individual components. The activities described in this and the preceding chapter can potentially enable participants to feel their way through an intense experience of opening up to each other and to a personal transformation which allows them to commit themselves powerfully to working on the resolution of their communities’ conflicts. Now it is up to them to experiment and adapt the workshop to the conditions of their own situations. Clearly, it is more a gestalt than a universal recipe, requiring adaptation to the particulars of different cultures and constantly changing circumstances. Although some exercises may appear childish or naive, adults have found humanity in doing them. Most workshops are shorter than the suggested fifteen days, and facilitators will have to make hard choices selecting the initial activities of higher relevance to their Partners and completing the cycle in other encounters.

Looking back with the eyes of both a participant and experienced facilitator and cofacilitator, I complete this applied text by underscoring some important lessons.

A continuous preoccupation of the participants of the weaker side, and to a large extent of the organizers themselves, is how to overcome imbalance in power relations. What real incentives does the strong side have to come into an egalitarian type of exercise? I have developed some rationale for “top dog” participation in conflict resolution in the introductory lecture. Clearly, we can make a point that in second track diplomacy there is nothing to lose, that the deliberations are confidential and that any agreed outcome is acceptable only by consensus of all participants. Often, the attraction of a “quality time” in Washington, D.C., or another interesting part of the world carries some weight. Once we manage to get both sides on board, it has been our repeated observation that the stronger feels more sensitive to the needs of the other and becomes more aware of the value of taking the other into account for a more permanent and stable solution.

Second, the expectation for tangible results is natural, especially with new experiments. Sometimes it happens that a single new idea or concept emerges from the workshop and is implemented by policy makers. We can also say that successful IPSWs replicated over time can assist in the formation of epistemic communities from contending parties in developing a shared understanding of their political realities and thus help them to come up eventually with innovative solutions to the conflict. If we see this as a continuous process, we do not need to push for shared ideas in the first round, let alone a joint statement. Beware of premature commitments and pressure for immediate results. The solutions have to click in the minds of the Partners, and we can only help by providing them with the conceptual and practical ability to open up to each other in new ways, and by generating an esprit de corps that allows them to transcend the conflict divide.

Third, many IPSW graduates appear to be dedicated privately or publicly to advancing a culture of conflict resolution in countries and regions where it is desperately needed. It also establishes personal ties among the Partners that can endure. One example from a workshop at College Park relates to a shared expression of concern for suicidal violence in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. When a Jewish zealot machine-gunned a large group of Muslims praying in Hebron, perhaps it was to be expected that a long-standing Israeli “peacenik” would send a fax of condolences to his newly acquired friend, a young graduate and now administrator of an ardently nationalist Palestinian university. The fax was sent without actually imagining that it would be read over the phone while under curfew by the Israeli authorities in his own city of Hebron and mourning a relative killed in the massacre. What was less expected a few weeks later, immediately after a bomb went off in Tel Aviv, was that the same Palestinian friend, a ten-time former detainee as a member of a radical group, would send a fax to several of his newly acquired Israeli friends, which contained the following:

It was really a very hard moment not only for the Jewish people but for all peacemakers all over the world. I really know what the feeling is for the families and for normal people, and I felt shame for what some stupid peace killers have done, and how much pain they planted in the hearts of the families and the people of this region. I cannot find the words to express what I think about this terrible action. They did that just to kill the good things that we started together, and the best way to fight them is by going on in the peace process. So let’s go on and hope that this will be the last episode of bloodshed and suffering in this century. On behalf of myself and my people I express my deep condolences to the families of the victims, to your people and yourself. I hope this will not stop the peace process: now I believe we should double our efforts to make peace.

Clearly, the learning about the reciprocal expression and acknowledgment of grief through the IPSW had had an impact. Reconciliation may remain a distant objective, but we can often achieve much in a properly conducted workshop. So it happened that one day, as I was working on a draft of this chapter, I was awakened with the news that back home in Jerusalem, eighteen of my people had been killed and fifty wounded in the Makhaneh Yehuda market by two Muslim fundamentalists. Calling home, we found out that our son-in-law had been there, at precisely the same time, and that our in-laws had been leaving for the market when they heard the news. In this atmosphere, writing about conflict resolution requires us to throw our memories back to the fax of our Arab friend, to remind ourselves that all Partners are together in a shared enterprise to stop the killing and move toward a lasting peace.

Focusing on process in itself is a necessary but insufficient condition for learning, and the IPSW is not a panacea. Historical knowledge of the region, issues and culture is a prerequisite. The workshop can meaningfully contribute to new ideas on conflict resolution, provided at least the facilitators take into account a current sociopolitical analysis by area specialists (see Gurr and Davies, this volume). Better again is to have cofacilitators from the contending parties, familiar with the problems, who have been previously trained in the conduct of IPSWs; but an adequate balance can be achieved by including in the facilitating team an expert from each of the Partners’ nations. In retrospect, we feel confident that a well-selected menu of the exercises has invariably opened the appetite of participants coming from diverse parts of the globe. We have been able to adapt them to Partners as young as Palestinian and Israeli high-schoolers in the “Seeds for Peace” project, or as “established” as high-ranking officers from Peru.

There are many additional tools that we have used that have not been mentioned, such as training in conversational English for foreign participants through a conflict-resolution curriculum, the early introduction of meditation or relaxation training and the use of psychodrama for the enacting of past traumatic events. We should not overburden a workshop with exercises at the expense of time for discussion of the substance of the problems. The delicate balance required for success means drawing selectively from an array of IPSW techniques and adapting them to the culture and situation. The IPSW should not become an occupational-therapy approach, displacing the unstructured space needed for substantive discussions. IPSWs are required in order to upgrade decision making in a conflict situation, and the best outcome is obtained when we leave sufficient space for constructive political exchange. The hosts or facilitators should not confuse hospitality with hospitalization but allow time both for substance and for breaks, where people have time to reflect and explore informally with their own team or other Partners their relationships and future activities.

We need to realize that often there are gaps between the IPSW concept and its actual implementation. Perfection is the enemy of good, and from our perspective, the workshops have undoubtedly promoted the learning curve and the motivation to do better. Whenever a crisis has erupted, it has strongly affected relations between Partners or those of one or more of them towards the facilitator. We can try to convert the moment of weakness into a source of strength. This is easier said than done, but possible. It has often been the case that the Partners realize that the initial investment of trust, energy and resources cannot be lost and that the momentum needs to continue. A frank discussion with the participants most likely will empower them to work hand in hand toward the successful completion of the workshop.

Budgetary and time considerations strongly constrain the nature of any second track program. It is important to plan the IPSW not as an isolated event but as one that at least has another IPSW or other joint activity built in for when the Partners reenter their communities. Our suggestion is to plan the original program for two weeks, plus two shorter workshops. At a minimum, a realistic model should include an initial workshop of seven days, followed by two follow-up sessions of three days each. Anything shorter than one week for the main workshop loses impact, although even a two-day IPSW can be run as a demonstration, whetting the appetite for further systematic use. In such cases, we should be very up-front with both the funders and the participants about the limited scope of such a presentation and training.

The importance of having at least some follow-up activities after reentry is not simply based on the difficulty of picking up momentum once it has been lost. We feel it is unfair to generate expectations (beyond personal enrichment of the participants during the workshop) and then, for all intents and purposes, drop them. The role of professional facilitators in initiating follow-up activities should be secondary to that of the Partners, but organizers and facilitators must undertake a responsibility to enhance possibilities for building on the second track process once it is begun, promising to continue with the project to the best of their abilities. This is the same responsibility that was required in the selection process and planning of the IPSW. At least one more activity with the Partners needs to be included initially. When funds first run out, it may simply mean that new and imaginative thinking is needed on how to move forward.

Paraphrasing Bernard Baroukh, we know that IPSW works in practice, and so we must hope that it works in theory as well. Yet, there is a need not only for further experimentation with the methods introduced in this book but also for research in new models. Development is needed of more sophisticated and theoretically grounded models that could be more appealing and relevant in promoting resolution of protracted conflict. For example, strategic choice problems played out as “games” among two or more parties have the potential for developing more cooperative behavior. Cooperative games based on impartial reasoning tend to increase consensus for generating safety nets in which all sides to the conflict should have their minimal needs recognized and provided. Tools for a more objective and quantifiable evaluation are being developed for collaborative problem-solving settings and need to be adapted to the IPSW.

The original version of IPSW called for absolute respect for the “rules of the game.” Over the years, we have learned to make better use of mixed models. Hence, having participants who are a mix of real Partners and locals in a third country in what for the latter is a simulation; bringing together several types of Partners as components of both groups; working on a small region with Partners of three comparable conflicts; and involving officials in reentry workshops, making them into “one and a half track” exercises—all these can improve and add new dimensions to the workshops. Once the basic principles are understood and applied, there is no reason not to explore jointly the construction of new formats.

Finally, to the best of my memory, I have thanked all those who inspired and helped us during the years of experimenting with IPSW. But many ideas have been transmitted anonymously, and I do not want to finish without acknowledging and apologizing to those whose names are omitted from the reference section. We have not sought to provide the reader with an extensive reference library. As mentioned, this section of the book is meant as a manual for action, and we trust that you will share with us the feeling that the main purposes of this type of work are to encourage the multiplication of this process and to support the development of a culture of conflict resolution among the nations that most need it.

As stated throughout, the purpose here is to provide a workable, effective and enlightening process of conflict transformation. It may not always work as planned, but the effort must be made. It is our hope that the facilitators and Partners who partake in these exercises will not only learn for their personal enrichment but also share methods that have worked best for them, and so add to the ongoing development, evolution and expansion of the general IPSW model.

It is also our hope that through the use of these procedures, second track conflict resolution can become a more powerful and practical aid to first track diplomatic efforts, as well as a viable alternative to the violent acts that are the plague of ethnopolitical and other disputes.

Paying Attention

Face the person who is talking.

Notice the speaker’s body language; does it match what he/she is saying?

Listen in a place that is free of distractions, so that you can give undivided attention.

Don’t do anything else while you are listening.

 

Eliciting

Make use of “encouragers” such as “Can you say more about that?” or “Really?”

Use a tone of voice that conveys interest.

Ask open questions to elicit more information.

Avoid overwhelming the speaker with too many questions.

Give the speaker a chance to say what needs to be said.

Avoid giving advice, or describing when something similar happened to you.

 

Reflecting

Occasionally paraphrase the speaker’s main ideas, if appropriate.

Occasionally reflect the speaker’s feelings, if appropriate.

Check to make sure your understanding is accurate by saying “It sounds like what you mean is . . . Is that so?” or “Are you saying that you’re feeling . . . .”

 

This ladder illustrates what different degrees of consensus may sound like. It moves from the clearest level of consensus to that showing most concern about the process.

1. “I agree wholeheartedly with the decision. I am satisfied that this decision was accepted by the group.”

2. “I find the decision to be acceptable.”

3. “I can live with the decision.”

4. “I do not totally agree, but I will not block the decision, I will support it.”

5. “I do not agree with the decision and would like to block the decision being accepted.”

6. “I believe there is no unity in this group. We have not reached consensus.”

 

1. The more intense the experience has been, the greater the chance for distress or dissatisfaction with any questioning about the “new you” when you return. You may need additional time to re-acclimate yourself back home. Adjustment may be aided or hampered by close relationships, personality issues and work stress. Allow more time than you t

 

yourself as well as with people at home. Also keep contact if possible with someone from your new network. They will probably be experiencing some of the same things.

3. Although you have had time to process what you’ve learned, those at home have not. Remember how skeptical you were initially. Allow the same period of skepticism for colleagues and friends at home. It’s a classical case of lag time between learning something in a cognitive way and experiencing it as reality.

4. As you describe what you’ve learned, be aware of oversimplifying or under-simplifying. Descriptions of past happenings bring visions to you that are inaccessible for those who were not there. Set a scene and then fill in the activity only to the level that you think is of interest. Monitor how others receive your information and modify your descriptions accordingly. If you want to incorporate what you’ve learned successfully, do not bore people or set unrealistic expectations with any proposed changes.

5. The things that you are bringing back home will be questioned. Avoid defending them or the whole experience as the “right way of life.” It may help if you share some negative aspects of your experience as well as the positive ones. It keeps your eye on reality and puts the whole experience in a more acceptable light.

6. Feedback is valuable. People will be more comfortable with you if they can tell you how your stories about your experience sound to them. It also provides an excellent way to modify any ideas that are not accurately reflected.

7. Learning continues long after presentation of material. It is not at all unusual to have “aha” experiences after returning home. This kind of realization is particularly likely after laboratory or experiential learning. It is refreshing to know that learning of this kind is continuous and may be triggered at any time.

8. Seek colleagues and friends who share your concerns and values. It is with these people that you will find the support necessary to implement change. Using allies to best advantage will spread excitement for your ideas farther than you can.

9. The culture of experiential learning is not accepted or understood globally. Be prepared to explain things in a very concrete sense. Avoid buzzwords or phrases and remember that some of the more insignificant aspects of the experience for you might be quite powerful for others. Respect others’ learning process as the leaders of your group respected yours.

10. There is never enough time to practice things that you’ve learned. If you can share, try learning by teaching others. Expect some mistakes, realizing that practice makes perfect.

11. Learning in a classroom or laboratory is temporary and needs to be both nurtured and reinforced before it becomes permanent or institutionalized.

 

These eleven guidelines are but a few of the areas that need to be reviewed periodically. Be sensitive with yourself and others, and you will find that reentry brings opportunities of which you never even dreamed.

 

1. The more intense the experience has been, the greater the chance for distress or dissatisfaction with any questioning about the “new you” when you return. You may need additional time to re-acclimate yourself back home. Adjustment may be aided or hampered by close relationships, personality issues and work stress. Allow more time than you think will be necessary before judging success or failure.

2. Because of the closeness established with other participants in a relatively short period of time, there may be an additional sense of loss when you return home, as well as a sense of jealousy from those close to you upon your return. Be gentle with

 

 

Notes

 

1. For a more systematic approach used in environmental conflicts, see Pritzker and Dalton’s (1990: 19), “negotiated rulemaking.”

2. I learned this exercise from a UNICEF facilitator.

3. For further discussion of self-determination and microstatehood options, see Duursma, 1996.

4. To illustrate how competitive norms result in confrontational attitudes, the “Robbers’ Cave” experiment may be cited. This involved vacationing students who, after a fun week of camping, were separated into two contending groups through a series of competitive games. The organizers kept the score close to a tie and promised attractive rewards for the team that achieved the highest points. The students soon adopted escalatory, adversarial attitudes devaluing the other side, assuming that the objective was to prove their superiority. This can be compared to a declamatory forum such as the UN, where delegations often speak at cross-purposes (e.g., Cuban and American delegates) and where the main effort seems to be scoring points over other delegates rather than convincing them.

5. This is a tale developed from a story by Edward De Bono. A poor farmer with a beautiful daughter was indebted to a spiteful moneylender, who came to demand either repayment or the farmer’s land. The farmer did not have the money and was preparing to give up his land when the moneylender saw the daughter and suggested another idea: “I will give you a chance to keep your land free of debt, if you allow me to marry your daughter.” As the farmer hesitated, he added: “Even better, I will let you try your luck. I shall pick up two pebbles, one black and one white, and if your daughter can choose which hand has the white one, she is free and the land is yours without any bonds.” The farmer felt miserable, but his daughter told him she was willing to take part, because they had no other choice. However, she noticed that the moneylender had picked up two black stones and put one in each hand. As she was looking around in dismay her lateral thinking process kicked in. She suddenly hit hard on one of the moneylender’s hands, and a black stone fell to the ground. “So sorry,” she told him. “But now I choose the other hand. If the stone in it is also black, we are both free.”

6. In some countries the exercise is widely known. An alternative is: We have nine golden balls, eight solid and one hollow; how can we discover the hollow one in two weighings? The answer is not starting from one or nine, but weighing three on each side the first time, and then taking the less heavy three (the third set, if the first two were equal) and weighing a second time, one on each side. Either one of the two will weigh less (it is hollow), or if both the same, the remaining one is hollow.

7. There is a Chinese fable that illustrates creative win-win solutions. A man was given his wish to see the difference between heaven and hell before he died. When he visited hell, he saw tables covered with mouth-watering foods of all kinds, but all the people there were hungry and angry. They were forced to sit one meter from the table using chopsticks one meter long that made it impossible for them to get any food into their mouths. When he visited heaven, he was surprised to see exactly the same situation, except that the people were well fed and happy. What is the difference? In hell people were trying to feed themselves without success. In heaven they were feeding each other.

8. A Peruvian colleague has suggested another method in the event of a second brainstorming session. This involves giving each participant five large index cards and asking them to write in large characters (with different-colored markers) one idea on each card. After about ten minutes of separate idea creation, the participants read out one idea at a time and post them in different groupings on the wall. There is no need at this point to label their groupings. Only later, when the participants are to be divided into smaller working groups, are these lists divided according to clear criteria. This second method has the advantage that ideas are normally better drafted; the first method provides more of a creative stimulus, through the collective enthusiasm of generating ideas together.

9. Avoiding (when the relationship and goal attainment are not more important than confrontation); competing (when relationship is not important, but achieving the goal is); compromising (when both goals and relationships are moderately important); accommodating (when relationship is more important than goal attainment); and colla-borating (when the relationship and goal are both important to all sides).

10. We draw the line for consensus at at least level 4.

11. Given the complexities in highly structured approaches such as IPSW, there has been some polarization of attitudes in the field of conflict-resolution training across cultures, between “prescriptive” and “elicitive” approaches (Lederach, 1995). On the one hand, the more anthropological “elicitive” approach considers that the best approaches to conflict can be found in the Partners’ own cultures and traditions and that the facilitators need only to help local partners bring out and refine techniques that may have been there for centuries, though perhaps only understood implicitly or subordinated to less appropriate practices which may have been imposed by foreign domination. Such a methodology implies a hands-off strategy confined to training “as an opportunity aimed primarily at discovery, creation, and solidification of models that emerge from the resources present in a particular setting, and responding to needs in that context” (Lederach, 1995).

On the other hand, the innovative methods developed mainly in the West by political and social psychologists and others can be powerful new tools for change in societies where conflicts have been brutal and protracted. Since traditional authorities may be providing mixed messages, third-party intervention may be needed to provide a fresh beginning, as exemplified in the previous days of this workshop. In the spectrum between the two approaches, I have tended to advocate this more hands-on approach as the more effective method, on the basis of my own background in a region of conflict. But we really need to go beyond this dichotomy in favor of an approach that aims pragmatically to incorporate “the best of each culture.” Indeed, we have integrated into the IPSW ideas generated in non-Western cultures and incorporated the feedback of many workshops provided by Partners worldwide, producing a more global approach. We suggest discussing this issue openly with the participants, asking them to what extent current or traditional conflict-management processes are adversarial, accommodating (yielding to power), compromising or integrating (problem solving). Before recommending that they try the “old way” we suggest offering a “new way” and letting the Partners consider the advantages of each.

12. Another example of the need for translation of basic concepts is the term “second track” diplomacy. In the Latin American context, there is a need to clarify that this approach has nothing to do with the “track two” operation that President Nixon’s White House and the CIA conducted in Chile when attempting to overthrow the socialist president Salvador Allende through the use of “dirty tricks” and covert operations. Nor is this the “second track” which U.S. senator Torricelli used to try to destabilize Fidel Castro’s Cuba by supporting antigovernmental activities. In Spanish, the term segundo carril is associated more with a negative connotation than segunda via, and one should be careful to clarify from the beginning differences such as these.

13. Study conducted for E. Kaufman and J. Davies (CIDCM) by Keiko Suzuno and Kana Fujii, “The Buraku and Korean-Japanese in Japan” (University of Maryland, 1999).

14. “Critical for the process of healing is the mutual acknowledgment of loss and hurt which make it possible to go on with a relationship” (Volkan, 1985).

15. For further information, contact the author, the WIAM Palestinian Center for Conflict Resolution, Bethlehem, or the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

16. “Monuments, inanimate objects with psychological significance, can facilitate an end to the mourning by linking external events to internal processes. Public shared rituals can serve the same function. What is critical here is the mutual acknowledgment of loss and hurt, which enables each community to complete a grieving process and establish a new relationship” (Ross, 1995).

17. For a development of this subject see Kaufman and Bisharat, 1998.

18. Based on a research project on English as a second language with a conflict-resolution curriculum conducted by Carrie Shaw at the College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park. This later resulted in an application involving a two-week “English for a Better Tomorrow” curriculum developed by her at CIDCM for the “Partners in Conflict in the Transcaucasus” program.

19. Fhrolich and Oppenheimer, 1996. This publication is one among the many relevant to the field produced over the years by the same authors, with whom I am currently working.