From the Director
Beginnings are important, for initial conditions generate systemic changes that can neither be controlled nor predicted over time. As the new director of ICAR, I am extremely aware that this is a time in which first impressions set relationships and stories in motion that can have, later on, tremendous impact on the existing climate of ICAR, as well as on development at the institute. My own beginning at ICAR has been radically shaped by Sept. 11; my first impressions have been sculpted by the way the ICAR community responded to the violence, the terror, and the pain. The faculty members and students gathered in separate and joint meetings to share their fears and sorrows and to begin to apply theory and research toward understanding.
Through these conversations, there have been many currents that blur the personal and the academic, as students bring personal experiences of terrorism to share with those of us for whom it is so new, as faculty members take personal and professional risks in a pro-war environment by advocating reflection, attention to history, and analysis of foreign policy, and as classrooms become places to process personal trauma and practice conflict analysis. Likely, these blurry boundaries and border crossings are indigenous to ICAR; after all, ICAR, with its commitment to interdisciplinary work, is itself a border space, a place between traditional academic disciplines; and, with its commitment to practice, ICAR is a place that straddles the requirements of the academic community.
First Impressions
In the shadow of Sept. 11, I have been trying to learn about ICAR—the faculty members and students, the curriculum and research projects, and the institute’s relationship to George Mason University as a whole. Here are my first impressions:
In ICAR is a place where conflict analysis and resolution intersect with social justice. There is a common heartbeat across diverse groups of students, across an interdisciplinary faculty people care not only about reducing violence and increasing the effectiveness of conflict resolution practice, but they also care about doing so in a way that reduces marginalization of those whose voices are less likely to be heard. Thus the ethics of conflict analysis and resolution function as an anchor for the community and are manifest across the curriculum, the pedagogy, and the research/practice.
ICAR is a place of incredible intellectual resources; faculty members and students together represent an enormous array of theoretical traditions. Coupled with the diversity of cultures and lived experience, the place throbs with interesting and important questions and projects.
ICAR is a place composed and supportive of adult learners; faculty members expect students to draw on personal experience and design projects that resonate deeply with that experience. Students are respected for what they bring to their own learning.
ICAR is a place where a culture of connection provides the basis for collective and collaborative learning. Sandra Cheldelin, as the previous director and an expert in organizational conflict, put her knowledge to use, fostering trust and transparency. She helped create an environment where hard issues can be addressed in an environment that values tolerance.
The George Mason University academic and administrative community is extremely supportive of ICAR. Alan Merten, the university’s president; its provost, Peter Stearns; and others have turned to ICAR for ideas and guidance on the design of the university’s response to Sept. 11. The university leadership recognizes the contribution that ICAR can make to the evolution of this conflict, as well as to our community. And they are very much looking forward to ICAR’s future as we move toward the development of Point of View.
ICAR’s Self-Reflection
ICAR’s intellectual and relational resources, along with its diversity, provide a platform to support reflective practice, aimed both toward the field, as well as toward itself. Last spring, in preparation for my arrival, Sandra Cheldelin’s class in organizational conflict exemplified ICAR’s capacity for self-reflection by conducting a survey of ICAR faculty members across a variety of topics. Here is what I learned from that study:
There is consensus on ICAR’s mission: to increase the knowledge base for conflict analysis and resolution and to integrate theory, practice, and research. However, there is less consensus on ICAR’s vision for itself—where it is going and how we will know it has arrived.
The faculty members reported being extremely over-committed; while teaching, practicing, and conducting research, they struggle to meet the needs of students. As a result, they find themselves all too often unable to spend as much time as they would like on research and publishing.
While there is a commitment to the integration of theory, practice, and research, there is little consensus on how to do this; as a result, faculty members have ongoing concerns about the quality or effectiveness of this integration.
ICAR is composed of adult learners, yet the funding support for students is not adequate to support adults who often must support not only themselves but their families as well. In addition, while ICAR is blessed with many international students, it offers very little financial aid, and, given the restrictions of their visas, these students are particularly dependent upon assistantships and tuition waivers.
Most of these problems are not unique to ICAR; like most other institutions, ICAR has survived and even managed to thrive while grappling with these problems. With the exception of the problem related to student aid, I prefer to address these problems obliquely, assuming that slight shifts in structure and process may facilitate their evolution. Furthermore, if we agree with Cooperider’s notion of the heliotropic principle, which presumes that organizations evolve toward the most affirmative vision of who they are, focusing on problems reduces, rather than expands, ICAR’s horizon of possibility.
Leaning into Our Future:
Program Development at ICAR
I have chosen to follow ICAR’s strengths and help it build its future in the direction of those commitments that are at the heart of ICAR.
The following are some current ICAR initiatives:
We have launched an intellectual initiative titled Globalization and Violence; this initiative will help us explore the relationship between political economics and conflict processes. We will develop courses that address the role of global economic institutions and development processes as they intersect with the emergence and transformation of value-based conflicts. While this initiative will help us address the complexities of Sept. 11, it is also intended to help us blur the boundary between the international and the domestic in our curriculum, in our research, and in our practice.
To support this initiative, we will hire a specialist in political economy. We are planning the launch of the Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict; this center, which will include faculty members from both ICAR and other units at George Mason, will explore the role of religion in value-based conflicts and will study the role of religious leaders and institutions. In addition, this center will host and study interfaith dialogues. Faculty members and students will work collaboratively on research and practice projects. ICAR is seeking funds to support this center.
We are considering the launch of a Center for Global Dialogue, which would function as a place for the design and facilitation of global issues with global stakeholders. As global issues, like DNA, carry with them deep differences, the context for these discussions must reflect recognition of these differences; thus the funding for and location of these discussions are critical to their success. Should this center actually come into being, we could host some of these dialogues at Point of View.
We have reopened enrollment in our certificate program in Conflict Analysis and Resolution for Health Care Professionals; we are offering a new course this spring titled Research Seminar in Health and Conflict Analogies, which focuses on reflective practice in health systems and stresses both research and intervention. Alumni are encouraged to enroll in the certificate program. See the description of the certificate elsewhere in this newsletter.
I will be working with John Nande to create an electronic forum for threaded conversations that will, I hope, enable alums to share ideas and resources with each other and with current students. It is my hope that we can create more connections among alumni and students, as our alumni network is an invaluable resource.
We have begun to discuss creating a set of combined degrees and concentrations with other academic units at George Mason. Specifically, we are interested in
• A combined degree with the School for Visual and Performing Arts; this degree would enable students to create connections between art and conflict resolution. This would greatly contribute to the field of conflict resolution.
• A combined degree with the School of Information Technology and Engineering. This would provide engineers with the skills and analytic tools needed to address the relational/social conflicts that adversely impact teamwork in technical fields.
• A concentration in conflict analysis and resolution with the School of Management. This would enable M.B.A. students to manage the conflict that is inevitable in organizational and business settings. Furthermore, as part of our interest in globalization, M.B.A. students will be able to contribute to our collective knowledge about the relationships between economics and conflict.
The diversity of these programs would, if and when they are launched, contribute to the diversity of the student body at ICAR, as well as to our understanding of value-based conflicts.
Point of View
Meanwhile, as we move on our initiative on globalization and as we create links to other units at George Mason, we are very actively moving toward the development of our vision for Point of View. Drawing on the documents from the Future Search Process, we are specifying the nature of the services to be offered at Point of View; in an effort to widen the circle of participation at the university, we are planning to host a town hall meeting with faculty members from several university units to engage them in the questions at the heart of the development and use of Point of View. Given the current crisis, it is even more important that our policy makers and the stakeholders to global conflict have a place where they can have access to skilled experts, in a place that calls them to reflection.
Given the current context of crisis and economic uncertainty, it is even more vital that ICAR develop alternative sources of funding—for students as well as for research projects. I plan to focus my fundraising efforts in the short term on student support. Many of these initiatives, centers, and new degree programs will also require funding; and while we as yet have not developed a business plan for Point of View, that too will become a funding priority as we move forward.
September 11
At the same time, it is surreal to imagine moving forward in a context where a seemingly infinite set of terror -ISMs have turned our world upside down; here, close to the nation’s capital, we have already suffered multiple attacks that have disrupted our government, our infrastructure, and our dreams.
Yet it is precisely this moment and this place that call us to imagine our role in building a future that is more collaborative, more just, and less violent. These times both invite and demand our participation. Given the rich contribution of ICAR to the development of conflict studies, it has positioned itself as an important resource for policy makers and analysts. In response to Sept. 11, ICAR has created a new working group called War, Violence, and Terrorism; we have developed a new course designed to explore multiple theoretical frames toward the analysis of the conflict; we have designed and hosted a series of teach-ins on the topic; and we are preparing a series of campus wide conversations and presentations on the theme “Imagine Peace.” Additionally, we are almost ready to launch our web site about Sept. 11, which will feature articles, interviews, and position papers by faculty members and students. Life goes on. As a person, I feel the weight of an uncertain future.
As director of ICAR, I feel concerned that we mobilize ourselves to make a difference. And for now, all I know to do is to try to help ICAR do what it already does so well—to foster reflection and analysis on violence, understanding violence as a cycle where each act, each turn has its origin in some place and time, made invisible, if not erased, by the other side’s imperviousness. For violence is a marker, a placeholder for words in a place where words no longer fit, where words are inadequate to express the hatred that flows from and fuels stories of victimization. Making sense of violence is thus a process of helping frame the issues, of filling up the space with words—stories of pain and stories of victimization, stories of hope and morality. Through its pedagogy, research, and practice, ICAR is working to frame the issues, helping the stories that otherwise would be erased to materialize.