The Online Journal of
Peace and Conflict
Resolution is intended as
a resource for students,
teachers and
practitioners in fields
relating to the reduction
and elimination of
conflict. It desires to be
a free, yet valuable,
source of information to
aid anyone trying to
work toward a less
violent and more
cooperative world.
The Conflict Within: The
Interpersonal Conflict Between
Netanyahu and Arafat
Military Intervention in
Lesotho: Perspectives on
Operation Boleas and Beyond
Graduate Studies in Dispute
Resolution: A Delphi Study of
the Field's Present and Future
Integrating Buddhist Philosophy
and Peacemaking Theory:
Further Thought for
Development
Women, the Bridge and the
Media: Correspondence of
Ursula Oswald Spring and Ada
Aharoni
An OJPCR interview with Erin
McCandless and Eric Abitbol,
Co-Editors of Cantilevers
Review: Basic Skills for New
Mediators and Basic Skills for
New Arbitrators
Graduate Studies in Dispute Resolution: A Delphi Study of
the Field's Present and Future
By William C. Warters
For a printer-friendly version, click here.
Within the last 15 years there has been tremendous growth in academic courses and programs in
conflict management and dispute resolution, especially at the graduate level. In this article I
present findings from recent exploratory research attempting to map the contours of graduate-
level academic study in dispute resolution. Changes in the field as it has matured are examined, as
are the core skills, knowledge and literature considered essential for future practitioners in the
field, ethical challenges faced by dispute resolution programs, and thoughts on the possible role of
universities in certifying conflict intervenors. For current purposes the terms conflict management
and dispute resolution programs are used more or less interchangeably, and are meant to be
distinguished from peace studies programs, which have also experienced important growth and
change, but which are beyond the scope of this study.
In 1986 sociologist Paul Wehr conducted a national survey (Wehr 1986) exploring the teaching of
conflict resolution. He identified a rapidly growing number of academic courses in conflict
resolution that were widely disbursed among various disciplines and practice areas. Out of 500
universities surveyed, 294 offered at least one course. The survey showed a great deal of course
proliferation, but not much integration. Instead, the emphasis was on curriculum infusion, with one
or more courses on conflict resolution-related topics being added to existing courses of study in a
broad range of areas. Over 50 percent of the courses surveyed were concentrated in law,
government/political science, sociology/anthropology, business/commerce, and
management/organization. Techniques such as negotiation (31.0 percent), collective bargaining
(27.9 percent), arbitration (20.0 percent), and mediation (14.3 percent) topped the list of methods
addressed in these courses. The survey further revealed that the predominant conflict "arena" was
by far Labor Relations (34.1 percent), followed by Public Policy (11.0 percent), Commerce (7.9
percent), and Minority/Majority Relations (7.0 percent).
In the ten years since Wehr's study the field of dispute resolution has continued to grow and
change, and academia has followed suit. The field is adopting a more integrated and
comprehensive approach to the study of dispute resolution, something relatively absent in 1986.
This trend is evidenced by the rapid emergence of numerous graduate-level academic programs
focused specifically on conflict management. The very existence of these programs adds growing
support for viewing dispute resolution as a distinct academic discipline in its own right. There is
also an increased emphasis being placed on conflict interactions at the interpersonal level, and on
the development of mediation skills, in comparison to the earlier emphasis on intergroup conflicts

and arbitration and collective bargaining skills that was evident in Wehr's findings. Mastering
negotiation techniques, which cross many areas of practice, still remains central to the field.
There are now at least 20 programs in the United States that offer graduate certificates, master's,
or doctoral degrees specifically in dispute resolution or its equivalent, and many more are under
development. With about half of these programs just beginning to offering their degrees in 1995 or
later, the field is quite young overall.
Responding to issues raised by the rapid growth of graduate programs, the Department of Dispute
Resolution at Nova Southeastern University hosted a national meeting to explore the direction the
field is taking. A number of prior graduate program gatherings helped set the stage for this
meeting. A group of conflict resolution degree program representatives met at the National
Association for Mediation in Education (NAME) conference in 1994, and a day-long session on
dispute resolution in higher education was held at the National Conference on Peacemaking and
Conflict Resolution (NCPCR) in 1995. Participants at the NCPCR session recommended a longer
meeting of faculty and administrators from academic programs, to provide adequate time to
explore the wide range of issues faced by emergent programs. The subsequent 2 1/2 day meeting
at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale occurred in March of 1996, and was attended
by representatives from 15 different graduate-level university programs.
In preparation for the Nova symposium the author conducted a Delphi survey entitled "Mapping
the Contours of Graduate Study in Dispute Resolution" (Warters, 1996) to identify areas of
concern for these programs, and to explore current practices and beliefs about how to prepare
professional dispute resolvers. The Delphi survey method was originally developed in the 1950's
by the Rand Corporation for use in military planning and forecasting, but it has since seen much
wider application. The method involves a multi-stage process that requires the collection and
synthesis of data from a panel of experts from within the field of study. The approach has been
characterized as "a method for the systematic solicitation and collection of judgements on a
particular topic through a set of carefully designed sequential questionaires interspersed with
summarized information and feedback of opinions derived from earlier responses" (Delbecq 1975,
p. 10). The strengths of the method, with its anonymous responses and multiple rounds, are that it
permits a group of individuals experienced in a particular field to learn more about what others in
their field are thinking, develop some shared judgements and an understanding of where strong
differences may exist, develop priorities, and modify their initial impressions based on feedback.
Delphi Survey Methods
The process for conducting the study reported here involved an initial gathering of topics of
interest to graduate program representatives, followed by a broad internet and mailed solicitation
of nominations of people who would be appropriate participant "experts" for the study, based on
the following general criteria:
a) One or more years experience teaching dispute resolution at the Graduate Level; and/or
b) Three or more years experience teaching dispute resolution at the undergraduate level, and/or
c) Significant experience as an administrator of a graduate program specifically focused on
dispute resolution.
From the initial pool of nominations, thirty-five (35) respondents were formally invited to
participate, and of these, twenty-two (22) agreed to complete the required three rounds of the
survey. This group of participants ranged in age from 29-58 years old, and had a collective
experience of over 137 years teaching or administering ADR courses. Their areas of academic
training included 20 different advanced degrees covering the entire spectrum of social and
behavioral sciences. It may be important to note that none of the participants were teaching or
working in a law school, although a number had law degrees.
The survey process began with the distribution of a relatively open-ended set of elicitive questions
used to identify beliefs and practices in areas such as 1) core knowledge and skills that graduate
students should master, 2) essential reading and resource materials, 3) skill training supervision

methods, 4) beliefs about certification of practitioners, 5) beliefs about necessary academic
standards, 6) the role of research in these programs, 7) ethical challenges faced by programs, 8)
distinctions between doctoral and masters programs, and a number of other areas. The qualitative
results received in the first round were summarized. Similar statements made by various
respondents were grouped together into succinct statements 1, with all responses remaining
anonymous.
The resulting series of statements and lists were then sent back to the whole group in a second
mailing, to be rated on a 7-point scale (for most items) according to how accurate or important
participants thought these concepts were for the field. Participants were also invited to comment
on any statements from round one. The second round of surveys was collected and some basic
statistics were calculated for each item, including the average score (the mean), the range (i.e., the
highest and lowest score each particular item received, an indication of how wide a difference of
opinion exists), and the interquartile range (which provides information on where the central 50
percent of the group placed each item, providing the central tendency of the group). This statistical
information on how the group as a whole rated various statements was then sent back to the
participants in round three, where they were given one final opportunity to rank and rate items
based on the new information and any additional comments made during round two.
A portion of the results from the third round is presented here. While not definitive for the field as
a whole, as each group of experts will differ in their perceptions and practices, these findings are
thought to represent a pretty good sketch of the current thinking and practice in graduate programs
in dispute resolution, illustrating areas where there is some consensus, and areas where there is
still considerable differences of opinion and practice. The results should help lay the groundwork
for future discussions, elaborations, and refinements as the field defines itself and continues to
mature.
Results from Study
Some of the results from the study's third round are presented in a series of tables, with items or
statements with higher average scores (i.e. higher levels of agreement or perceived importance)
listed first in descending order. The statements or items on the lists were drawn directly from
participant responses to the open-ended first round of the survey. While rankings provide
important information, readers should consider list items important in themselves because they
provide some indication of what people in the field are concentrating on. In addition to looking at
the average score of each item, it is also useful to consider the range, as this indicates how widely
the scores varied, giving one a sense of how broad the diversity of opinion there was in the group
on any particular item.
As a starting place, participant experts were asked to comment on the current focus of dispute
resolution as an academic field. As the statements and rankings presented in Table 1 indicate,
Dispute Resolution was thought to be by its very nature interdisciplinary, both theoretical and
practical, and to hopefully be more science than an art.
Table 1
(Note: 1 = no agreement w statement, 7=complete agreement w statement)
Overall Focus of the
Dispute Resolution
Academic Field
Average
Score
Central 50%
of Responses
Range of
Responses
DR is essentially
interdisciplinary
6.6 6-7 5-7
DR in academia is
essentially about the
interrelationship between
5.9 5-7 4-7

practice and theory
DR is essentially a
problem-focused area of
study, where students use
their skills and knowledge
to assess, intervene, and
evaluate conflicts
5.2 5-6 2-7
DR in academia is
essentially about the
generation of knowledge
and frameworks for
understanding and testing
5 4-6 4-7
DR is essentially an art, not
a science
3.1 2-4 1-4
When queried as to what they might hope to gain from a meeting of dispute resolution graduate
program representatives there was a broad range of responses as indicated in Table 2. The
emphasis was on simply getting to know what others were actually doing in this still emergent
field. There was also considerable interest in collaboration among programs to help define the
field's core curriculum and set some general standards to help further develop and refine it 2.
Table 2
Meeting Goals
Average
Score
Central 50% of
Responses
Range of
Responses
Increased knowledge of
other program's practices
6.1 6-7 3-7
Articulation of major
issues in the field
5.7 5-7 3-7
Identification of areas for
further collaboration
5.7 5-7 4-7
Articulation of core
curriculum for DR
programs
5.3 4-6 3-7
Identification of resources
in need of development
4.8 4-6 1-7
Statement of basic
standards for graduate
programs
4.4 3-6 1-7
Laying the groundwork
for future meeting every
year or two
4.3 3-6 2-7
Ongoing organization of
graduate DR programs
4.0 3-5 2-6
Time for stepping back
and reflecting on practice
3.8 3-5 1-6
Core skills and knowledge areas
To get at the very essence of the academic enterprise, participants were asked to identify and then
rank the core skill competencies students should take away from masters-level programs 3. As
seen in Table 3, the list of core essential skills indicates a shift away from the labor relations,

arbitration-oriented emphasis found in Wehr's 1986 study. In the current survey, mediation skills
are listed as most important, and while arbitration skills are still mentioned, they are ranked last
out of a group of 19. Negotiation appears in the group of skills considered second in importance
only to mediation.
Table 3
Core skill areas for
Masters-level students
Average
Score
Central 50%
of Responses
Range of
Responses
Mediation skills and
procedures
6.4 6-7 5-7
Conflict assessment 6.3 6-7 5-7
Communication skills -
listening/assertion
6.3 5-7 4-7
Ethical sensitivity 6.3 6-7 5-7
Negotiation (distributive
and integrative)
6.3 5-7 5-7
Creative thinking/
problem-solving/
decision-making
6.2 6-7 4-7
Critical thinking 6.0 6-7 3-7
Communication - written
(basic and scholarly
papers)
5.7 5-6 4-7
Application of DR
theories in particular
contexts
5.6 5-6 4-7
Understanding of full
range of DR theories
5.6 5-6 4-7
Group facilitation 5.2 4-6 4-6
Understanding the use of
social science research
5.1 4-6 1-7
DR systems design
principles
5.0 4-6 2-7
Self-knowledge (self-
awareness)
4.9 4-6 2-7
Mastery of a specific
subject area specialization
4.9 4-6 3-7
Working in teams 4.8 4-6 2-6
Research design, data
gathering and analysis
4.5 4-5 2-7
Basic understanding of
the legal system
4.2 3-5 3-6
Arbitration, adjudicatory
skills
3.7 3-5 1-5
In addition to skills, study participants were asked to identify essential areas of content knowledge
that graduate students should master. The 12 areas most highly rated are listed in Table 4, out of a
total of 28 areas identified. The diversity of areas identified is perhaps not surprising, given the
interdisciplinary nature of the field, and the wide range of academic backgrounds study
participants came from. Knowledge about the Labor-management area, which was the most
common area of emphasis in Wehr's study, was listed as important by respondents, but was not

highly ranked, at number 22 out of 28. Game theory, another key area of research and theorizing
in the early days of the conflict resolution field, is also mentioned, but is listed last out of 28.
Table 4
Essential areas of knowledge for students in DR (top 12 out of 28 mentioned)
Essential areas of
Knowledge
Average
Score
Central 50%
of Responses
Range of
Responses
Continuum of methods for
addressing conflict
6.6 6-7 5-7
Ethics 6.4 6-7 4-7
Negotiation theory 6.4 6-7 4-7
Problem-solving methods 6.3 6-7 5-7
Power issues 6.2 6-7 4-7
Range of mediation models 6.1 6-7 4-7
Competition/cooperation
theories
6.0 5-7 4-7
Cross-cultural: gender, age,
race, class
5.8 5-7 1-7
Dispute system design 5.6 5-7 2-7
Social psychology/group
dynamics
5.5 4-7 3-7
Sociology of conflict/social
institutions
5.4 4-7 3-7
Communication, language,
persuasion, debate
5.4 5-6 3-7
Participants were asked to list readings that they felt were essential for students in the field. The
entire combined list was then reviewed and rated by all participants, resulting in a ranked list of
suggested readings. While the rating of the list is biased based on how well known a book is, the
list does provide an interesting glimpse at works that are currently seen as central to the field. The
top 25 books of a much longer list of books and articles 4 is presented below in descending order
of ranked importance.
Top 25 essential readings
(Books, in descending order of ranked importance)
Getting to Yes; Fisher, Ury and Patton (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981)
The Mediation Process; Moore, C. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986)
The Promise of Mediation; Bush and Folger (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994)
Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement; Rubin, Pruitt and Kim (New York: McGraw
-Hill, 1994)
The Art and Science of Negotiation; Raiffa, H. (Cambridge: Kelknap Press of Harvard University
Press, 1982)
Getting Disputes Resolved; Ury, Brett, and Goldberg. (San -Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988)
The Resolution of Conflict; Deutsch (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973)
When Talk Works: Profiles of Mediators; ed by Kolb (San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994)
Negotiation Theory and Practice; ed by Breslin and Rubin (Cambridge: Program on Negotiation at
Harvard Law School, 1995)
Dispute Resolution; Goldberg, S. B, Green, E. and Sander, F. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1985)
Mediation Research; Kressel & Pruitt (San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989)
Getting Past No; by Ury, W. (New York: Bantam Books, 1991)
The Manager as Negotiator; Lax and Sebenius (New York: Free Press, Collier Macmillian, 1989)

The Functions of Social Conflict; Coser (Glenco: Free Press, 1956)
Negotiating Rationally; Bazerman and Neale. (New York: Maxwell Macmillian, 1992)
Breaking the Impasse; Susskind & Cruikshank (New York: Basic Books, 1987)
Negotiation; by Lewicki and Litterer (Homewood: R.D.Irwin, 1985)
Mediation: A Comprehensive Guide; Folberg, J and Taylor, A. (San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1984)
The Mediators; Kolb (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1983)
Conflict: Resolution and Provention; Burton, J. W. (NY: St. Martin's Press, 1990)
The Evolution of Cooperation; Axelrod (New York: Basic Books, 1984)
The Skilled Facilitator; Schwartz (San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994)
The Sociology of Social Conflicts; Kriesberg (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973)
The Culture of Conflict; Ross, M. H. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993)
Disputes & Negotiations: A Cross-Cultural Perspective; Gulliver, P.H. (NY: Academic Press,
1979)
In terms of becoming a discipline with its own body of knowledge, the increasing amount of
scholarly writing on dispute resolution is quite encouraging. In addition to books, survey
participants also listed and then ranked the journals that they used and felt were central to the
field. Table 5 presents their final ranked list.
Table 5
Essential Journals
Rate the following previously identified journals according to their importance to the DR field
Journal
Average
Score
Central 50%
of Responses
Range of
Responses
Negotiation Journal 6.4 6-7 6-7
Mediation Quarterly 6.0 6-6 5-7
Journal of Conflict
Resolution
5.6 5-6 3-7
International
Journal of Conflict
Management
5.4 4-6 4-7
Peace and Change 5.2 5-6 4-7
Journal of Social
Issues
5.1 4-6 4-7
Missouri Journal of
Dispute Resolution
4.7 4-6 3-6
Journal of Dispute
Resolution (Ohio)
4.6 4-5 3-6
Law and Society
Review
4.5 4-5 2-7
Family and
Conciliation Courts
Review
3.3 3-4 1-6
Pedagogical Issues
As an applied field that is attempting to focus both on theory and practice, graduate dispute
resolution programs are engaged in the challenge of developing and refining methods of
instruction that will meet the needs of a diverse group of students working in a wide range of
practice areas. Survey participants were asked to identify some of the common pedagogical
challenges that are faced by emergent dispute resolution programs. Table 6 presents the list they

identified. As you will see, the primary concern is helping students develop critical thinking skills,
rather than simply mastering and applying a rigid set of intervention techniques. Also interesting
to note is the concern mentioned over finding faculty qualified to teach in such an interdisciplinary
field as dispute resolution. Most faculty currently active in the field were trained in a single
discipline, and approach dispute resolution from that disciplinary perspective. As more doctoral
students graduate from Ph.D. programs emphasizing dispute resolution, a more truly
interdisciplinary faculty base for dispute resolution should emerge.
Table 6
(Note: 1 means not at all important, and 7 means extremely important)
Pedagogical concerns for
quality DR graduate
programs
Average
Score
Central 50%
of Responses
Range of
Responses
Developing critical thinkers 6.4 6-7 5-7
Identifying and teaching core
skills needed for DR
6.2 6-7 3-7
Evaluating student skill
acquisition
6.1 6-7 5-7
Evaluating student knowledge
acquisition
6.0 6-7 2-7
Developing and mastering
appropriate methods of
instruction (role-plays, case
studies, participatory learning,
video and computer-assisted
teaching)
5.6 5-7 2-7
Finding a balance re emphasis
on theory and practice
5.6 5-6 3-7
Finding and hiring qualified
faculty
5.6 5-7 1-7
Locating and maintaining actual
practice opportunities/sites for
students
5.3 4-6 4-7
Developing an appropriate
approach to instruction
5.3 5-6 2-7
As Table 6 also indicates, one of the challenges facing programs is developing methods of
evaluating student skill acquisition. Most programs make use of some form of practicum or
internship as part of the basic curriculum, but skill training is also going on in most other courses
as well. Survey participants currently working in a graduate program were asked to identify the
methods their programs were using to supervise and support student skill development. Table 7
presents these methods, beginning with the most commonly used approach, which is watching and
evaluating students as they intervene in roleplayed simulations of disputes. This area continues to
be a challenge for programs, as they seek to impart both knowledge and skills, and most academic
programs are more proficient at measuring students knowledge acquisition (i.e., through quizzes,
exams, and papers) than they are at measuring and evaluating skill acquisition and demonstration.
Table 7
Methods used to supervise student skill
development
Percentage of
respondents using
method

Observation and evaluation of students
doing simulated interventions or skill
demonstrations
90%
Students keep self evaluation forms and/or
journals
85%
Student serves as co-mediator or co-
facilitator with more experienced
practitioner, receives feedback from mentor
75%
Peer supervision by other students 55%
Videotaping and analysis of student
simulated interventions
40%
Feedback from real disputants re student
intervention in their dispute
15%
Videotaping and analysis of student
interventions in real disputes
5%
Use of observation by supervisor behind
one-way mirror
0%
Other (site supervisor does performance
assessment, faculty internship advisor
evaluates student via papers on experience,
etc.)
30%
The survey also surfaced a range of general issues facing program administrators and faculty that
were lumped under the rather broad heading of ethical concerns. As you will note when reviewing
this list in Table 8, most of the statements deal with concerns over maintaining the general
integrity of the field as it grows and matures. Of primary concern was avoiding the imposition of
one method of practice as the only way. Given the current debates over facilitative versus
evaluative mediation, this concern is not surprising.
Table 8
Ethical issues facing DR programs
Rate the following issues as to how important a concern they are for DR programs
Ethical issue
Average
Score
Central 50%
of Responses
Range of
Responses
"Imperialism" of one
model or form of
practice
5.7 5-6 4-7
Overselling the value
of mediation and
mediation training
5.7 5-7 4-7
Masking concerns
related to structural
violence
5.6 5-7 4-7
Underprepared
intervenors taking on
"big" cases
5.5 4-7 4-7
Neutrality of
intervenors
5.3 4-6 3-7
Too much advocacy of
DR without supporting
evidence
5.2 4-6 3-7
Lack of willingness by

existing practitioners to
mentor new entrants
into the field
5.0 4-6 3-7
Too much focus on
process to the
exclusion of content
learning
4.9 4-6 4-7
Inadequate job market
for the number of
students programs will
be producing
4.7 4-6 1-7
Overprofessionalization
of the field
4.4 4-5 2-6
Effects of research
efforts on participants
4.0 3-5 2-7
Persons of low moral
character practicing DR
3.9 3-5 1-6
Participants approached the question of how professional practice ethics should best be addressed
within the academic context, as presented in Table 9. The general consensus was that discussions
of ethics should occur continuously throughout the academic program, rather than being relegated
to one course or simply left in the hands of professional organizations that may provide some
monitoring of students after they graduate.
Table 9
Method for Addressing
Ethics
Average
Score
Central 50%
of Responses
Range of
Responses
DR programs should weave
ethical issues throughout the
curriculum
6.7 6-7 6-7
DR programs should have a
separate course on ethics
4.1 4-5 3-5
DR ethics are best left to the
various professional
organizations in the field
2.1 1-3 1-4
While there was a relatively strong belief that professional certification was coming, as you will
see from the variety and range of responses in Table 10, there was no consensus within this group
as to how it should best be dealt with, and what role universities should play in this process.
Table 10
Colleges and Universities as
Certifiers (of ADR
Practitioners)
Average
Score
Central 50% of
Responses
Range of
Responses
Certification of DR intervenors
will be a reality in most states
within the next 10 years
5.0 5-6 2-7
Colleges and University programs
would have difficulty setting a
high enough practice standard due
to market pressures to keep
enrollment high
4.5 4-5 3-6

Colleges and universities are
appropriate sites for the
certification of local practitioners
4.0 2-6 1-7
Graduate programs should support
the idea of certifying intervenors,
whether or not it is universities
that provide the certification
3.7 2-5 1-7
Colleges and Universities would
do a better job of certification
than governmental or professional
bodies due to their relative
objectivity and neutrality
3.7 2-5 1-7
Due to the wide range of DR
practice areas, certification of
competency is not feasible
3.7 2-5 1-6
Finally, given all the energy put into preparing students for conflict intervention work, a central
concern of new ADR programs was the type of job market that exists for students of the field.
Most programs have a professional orientation. Table 11 presents a list of belief statements from
the Delphi group on this topic. The statements were rated in a manner suggesting that students of
dispute resolution will need to be entrepreneurial in carving out new roles within existing
structures. Some of the older academic programs are now beginning to track their graduates as
they move through the workforce, which should provide us with more concrete data on this
important area in the future. This kind of research will be quite important as we look to see if the
skills and content taught by programs is actually what students need when they get out in the field.

Table 11
Job opportunities for
DR graduates
Average
Score
Central 50%
of Responses
Range of
Responses
Most jobs for DR students
will be within existing
professions that are
modifying their practices
using DR concepts
6.0 5-7 4-7
The number of people
interested in doing DR is
greater than the
opportunities to practice it
5.3 4-6 2-7
The DR job field is wide
open for all students with
an entrepreneurial spirit,
creativity, and patience
4.5 4-5 3-7
There are few if any
distinct careers for DR
students
3.9 3-5 2-6
Conclusion
The field of graduate studies in dispute resolution is growing rapidly, and student interest in the
programs seems high. As the amount of research, specialized knowledge and distinct practice
areas in the field continues to expand, it becomes harder and harder for aspiring dispute resolvers
to learn all they need to know through self-study or mentoring. Thus, it appears that graduate level

dispute resolution programs will inevitably become an important site for the training of new
dispute resolvers.
As a truly interdisciplinary area, dispute resolution programs face the ongoing challenge of
integrating knowledge and concepts from a wide range of disciplines and practice areas, while at
the same time developing their own identity and point of view on conflicts and conflict
management approaches. The Delphi study results presented here help to define the current
contours of the field, and to highlight some of the changes in the study of dispute resolution since
the mid-1980's. More research is needed on the types of students going into the field, the kind of
skills they most need to be successful, and the best practices for teaching dispute resolution
approaches. While there is some interest in establishing basic standards for graduate programs in
dispute resolution, it seems prudent to avoid overly rigid standards and support the continued
proliferation of diverse program designs as we study what works and for whom and for what type
of practice. Hopefully the collaborative spirit evidenced by the graduate programs representatives
up to this point will continue, and the sharing of knowledge, approaches, and challenges will
continue to enhance the development of the field.
Notes
The author would like to thank all of the Delphi survey participants for their willingness to share
their ideas and opinions so freely, and for their willingness to participate in multiple rounds of
surveying.
1. The author thanks Loraleigh Keashly and John Lande for their assistance in summarizing the
large number of comments made by Delphi study participants, and Loraleigh Keashly for her
assistance getting the mainframe to properly run the statistics for the study.
2. While information on proposed program standards was gathered, it is not presented here, as it is
beyond the scope of this article.
3. This was also done for doctoral programs, but is not reported here due to the relatively small
number of doctoral programs currently in existence.
4. The complete reading list is available at the Campus Mediation Resources Web.
References
Delbecq, Andre , Andrew Van de Ven, and David Gustafson. 1975. Group Techniques for
Program Planning: a guide to nominal group and delphi processes. Middleton, WI: Green Briar
Press
Warters, W. C. 1996. Using the Delphi Method to Map the Contours of Graduate-Level Training
in Dispute Resolution. Unpublished paper presented at International Association for Conflict
Management, June 2, Ithaca, New York.
Wehr, Paul. 1986. Conflict resolution studies: What do we know? NIDR Dispute Resolution
Forum April: 3-4, 12-13.
The Online Journal of Peace
and Conflict Resolution is
published by the Tabula Rasa
Institute .
About OJPCR | Subscribe | Submit| Contact | Archive | Support
Table of Contents | Author Information
Article Copyrights held by authors. All else ©1998-2000 Tabula Rasa Institute.