Running head: ICCCR CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Conflict Resolution at Multiple Levels across the Lifespan:

The Work of the ICCCR

Peter T. Coleman

International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution

Box 53

Teachers College, Columbia University

525 West 120

th

St.

New York, NY 10027

[phone]

E-mail:

[e-mail]

and

Beth Fisher-Yoshida

International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution

Box 53

Teachers College, Columbia University

525 West 120

th

St.

New York, NY 10027

[phone]

E-mail:

[e-mail]

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 2

Conflict Resolution at Multiple Levels across the Lifespan:

The Work of the ICCCR

In 2001, 17.3% of high school students in the United States admitted to carrying a

weapon in the last 30 days (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002). Reported

incidents of school violence remain at an all-time high, with 1-in-20 students claiming to

miss school during the 30 days preceding the survey because they felt too unsafe to go.

Alienated youth between the ages of 15-19 continue to commit suicide at an alarmingly

increasing rate (Anderson, 2001). And ongoing conflicts between parents, teachers, and

administrators, different racial and ethnic groups, and members of vastly disparate

socioeconomic groups in our schools continued to have destructive consequences on the

quality of life and education of our young people.

It would be a mistake to assume that the causes of such problems reside only or

primarily in the school. Child abuse and neglect, a culture of violence, economic and

social injustice, the easy availability of weapons, and many other factors contribute to the

occurrence of personal and interpersonal conflict and violence but are largely not under

school control. Nevertheless, there is much that schools and communities can do to

prevent violence and alienation and counteract the harmful influences emanating from

outside the school. In recent years it has been increasingly recognized that our schools

and communities have to change in basic ways if we are to raise and educate children so

that they are for rather than against one another, so that they develop the ability to

resolve their conflicts constructively rather than destructively, so that they are prepared to

contribute to the development of a peaceful and just world.

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 3

In this article, we present an overview of the work of the International Center for

Cooperation and Conflict Resolution at Teachers College, Columbia University. This

work is aimed at transforming individuals, schools and communities. We begin by

outlining the basic elements of our theoretical approach and then present four projects

initiated by our Center over the past decade which span from work with pre-schoolers to

work with delegates to the United Nations. We conclude by presenting a set of practical

guidelines for implementing conflict resolution interventions in schools and communities.

Our thesis is that schools, communities and other organizations can create caring,

cooperative environments characterized by a culture of peace and, in doing so, can

prevent much of the violence within our communities.

The ICCCR

The International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution (ICCCR) was

founded in 1986 by Professor Emeritus Morton Deutsch, a world-renowned scholar in

conflict resolution. In 1988, Ellen Raider, a renowned and innovative teacher, practitioner

and social activist, joined the Center and together with Dr. Deutsch forged an approach to

work in conflict resolution that carefully integrated theory and practice.

The Center’s mission is an educational one: to help individuals, schools,

communities, businesses and governments better understand the nature of conflict and

develop the skills and settings that enable them to resolve conflict constructively. We

particularly emphasize the importance of the social, cultural, organizational, and

institutional contexts within which conflicts occur. Our philosophy links theory and

research closely with practice. Consequently, we employ a “reflective scholar-

practitioner” model in our many scholarly, educational and practical endeavors.

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 4

The basic elements of our theoretical approach are as follows:

• Conflict is a naturally occurring phenomenon that has both constructive and

destructive potential, depending on how it is managed. Engaging in conflict tends to

generate anxiety in many people who associate it with negative or violent outcomes,

which leads to fight or flight responses. In fact, conflict can provide a uniquely

human opportunity to learn about ourselves and others, to motivate necessary

changes in the status quo, to challenge obsolete ways of thinking, relating, working,

and to innovate. Thus, our objective is not to eliminate conflict, but to help establish

the skills and settings for its constructive resolution.

• Conflict behavior is a function of the person x the environment (Lewin, 1947).

Behavior is determined by the interplay between certain characteristics of the person

(such as their needs, motives, expectations, ability to control their impulses,

knowledge, attitudes and skills) and the characteristics of the situation (the norms,

roles, history of relations, task and reward structures, culture, availability of

weapons, etc.). Therefore, we target change in both people and in the systems in

which they live and work.

• Cooperation and competition between people and between groups have been shown

to have profoundly different consequences. Competitive tasks or reward structures

induce people to fight for perceived limited resources, be they tangible or intangible.

Research has consistently shown that competition: induces the use of tactics of

coercion, threat, or deception; attempts to enhance the power differences between

oneself and the other; poor communication, minimization of the awareness of

similarities in values and increased sensitivity to opposed interests; fosters

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 5

suspicious and hostile attitudes; increases the importance, rigidity, and size of the

issues in conflict. In contrast, cooperation and cooperative tasks or reward structures

induce: a perceived similarity in beliefs and attitudes; a readiness to be helpful;

openness in communication; trusting and friendly attitudes; sensitivity to common

interests; a de-emphasis to opposed interests; an orientation to enhancing mutual

power rather than power differences (see Deutsch, 1973; Johnson & Johnson, 1989).

Too often, schools are structured so that students are pitted against one

another. They compete for the teacher's attention, for grades, for status, and for

admission to prestigious schools. Being put down and putting down others are

pervasive occurrences. Many of us can recall classroom experiences of hoping that

another student, who was called on by the teacher instead of us, would give the

wrong answer so that we could get called on (and give the right answer). Often,

these competitive or contentious behaviors are modeled by many of the adults in the

schools

• A constructive process of conflict resolution is similar to an effective, cooperative

problem solving process (conflict is perceived as a mutual problem to be solved by

both parties) while a destructive process is similar to a win-lose competitive

struggle (Deutsch, 1973). Many of the conflicts that we face have the potential for

satisfying, constructive outcomes for all. However, this potential is rarely realized

because of our tendency to see most conflicts as win-lose. Good cooperative

relations facilitate the constructive management of conflict and the ability to handle

constructively the inevitable conflicts that occur during cooperation, which

facilitates the survival and deepening of cooperative relations.

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 6

For example, when we approach school budgetary decisions as a fixed-pie

struggle, we engage in a tug of war over resources between various constituent

groups that can hurt the school as a whole. Instead, if we are able to view the

conflict from the perspective that we are all in this school together and that the

potential exists for us to all to meet our needs through creative means, we can

completely reframe the conflict. This can help to foster a more constructive process

resulting in more innovative and constructive outcomes.

• Competition begets competition, cooperation begets cooperation (Deutsch, 1973). A

win-lose approach to conflict tends to escalate the conflict and rigidify the positions,

leading to destructive processes and outcomes and negative expectations for future

interactions. A win-win approach tends to open up the conflict for exploration of the

root causes of the problems and leads to constructive, sustainable solutions and

positive expectations for future encounters.

In competitive conflicts when one side loses, there are often bitter feelings

of resentment and a lack of trust in the other side. People naturally become more

defensive as a way of protecting themselves from harm. In future encounters, they

remember vividly the way they were treated before and act accordingly. This means

they will be more likely than not to mistrust their opponents and to try to get an

advantage early on in the encounter. If instead the two parties had engaged

previously in cooperative processes, they would be more likely to have established a

more trusting relationship and act accordingly.

• There is an intimate connection between conflict and justice (Deutsch, 2000). The

relationship between conflict and justice is bi-directional. Injustice breeds conflict

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 7

and destructive conflict gives rise to injustice. Societal issues such as racism, sexism

and class conflict must be openly and effectively addressed as an ongoing concern

in the functioning of the community. School and community leaders must model

inclusion, respect, and a commitment to social justice in order to demonstrate non-

violent means of fostering social change and building a peaceful culture.

• A systemic approach can facilitate change in a predominantly competitive culture.

Systemic approaches to conceptualizing conflict processes and intervening in

intense conflicts have been gaining increasing attention in the field for conflicts at

the individual level (Pruitt & Olczak, 1995), in schools ( Louis & Miles, 1990;

Raider; 1995; Crawford & Bodine, 1997), in other organizations (Ury, Brett, &

Goldberg, 1988; Costantino & Merchant, 1996), and in or between nations

(Rouhana & Kelman, 1994; Pruitt & Olczak, 1995; Lederach, 1997, Coleman, in

press). This perspective views conflict resolution processes as an integral

component in the overall functioning of a social system’s human, financial,

informational, work, and reward sub-systems. This approach combines various

strategies for fostering cooperation and constructive conflict resolution, which target

transformation of the culture of systems that breed destructive conflicts. Such an

approach involves everyone within the system, is aimed at both individual and

systems-level change, and is rooted in the values of empowerment, openness,

positive social interdependence, non-violence, and social justice.

We are often contacted by schools with a specific interest in implementing

peer mediation programs to lessen “nuisance” conflicts on their campuses. While we

support peer mediation, we encourage schools to work at various levels within their

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 8

school to provide the support necessary for peer mediation (or other stand-alone

programs) to flourish. We recommend that all teachers, administrators, support staff,

and others involved in the school, including parents, be introduced to the concepts

and skills the students are being asked to learn. In this way, there can be modeling

by the adults and opportunities for better communication as adults and students

share in learning.

• Program evaluation and action-research are invaluable for tracking and refining

individual and systems-level change initiatives (Coleman & Lim, 2001). Typically,

conflict resolution work in schools neglects to collect the data that answers such

basic questions as “Did the intervention work?”, and if so, “Who benefited and how,

through what type of training, for how long, by what trainers and in what

circumstances.” Such omissions in our practice are costly and lead to losses in the

accumulation of theoretical knowledge and to program inefficiencies and

ineffectiveness.

Applications across the Lifespan

Conflict resolution concepts and skills can be applied at any stage of our lives,

and in most situations in which we find ourselves. The ICCCR has had the opportunity to

work with different age groups in a variety of settings. In this section, we outline four

different projects to illustrate our approach to our work.

• The Peaceful Kids Early Childhood Social-Emotional (ECSEL) Conflict Resolution

Program and curriculum was created in 1997 to meet the need for a developmentally

appropriate, theory-based approach to promoting social/emotional, cognitive, and

conflict resolution skills development in preschoolers (ages 2-6 yrs). The ICCCR

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 9

received a four-year grant from the Hewlett Foundation to develop, test and

disseminate the program in three cities: Boston, Dallas, and Los Angeles. We worked

with Head Start staff, parents, and children, focusing on the social-emotional skills

underlying constructive conflict resolution. Children were taught to identify their

emotions and to use language to express them. A variety of youth-friendly mediums,

such as song and dance, were used to teach these skills. Parents and staff were taught

the same concepts and skills, so that they could model and reinforce these behaviors

for the children.

From the Fall of 1997 through the Fall of 1999, an evaluation of this program

occurred in 18 classrooms in day care Head Start centers around the country. Each

classroom was randomly assigned to one of three conditions: ECSEL training for (1)

day care staff, parents, and children, (2) day care staff and children (but not their

parents), and (3) control, no-training. As predicted, children in the condition where

both parents and day care staff were trained showed significant increases in

assertiveness, cooperation, and self-control, and significant decreases in

aggressiveness and socially withdrawn behavior. Parents receiving training showed

significant reductions in authoritarian and permissive parenting styles and an increase

in authoritative parenting style (Sandy & Boardman, 2001).

• The Alternative High School Longitudinal Field Study was our first major project

focused on adolescents, and began in the spring of 1988 (Deutsch, Mitchell, Zhang,

Khattri, Tepavac, Weitzman, & Lynch, 1992). Its objective was to determine the

effects of introducing cooperative learning and training in constructive conflict

resolution to adolescents undergoing the difficult circumstances typically found in

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 10

attending an alternative high school in New York City. The results of the two-year

field study showed that the combination of cooperative learning and conflict

resolution training resulted in the students demonstrating a marked improvement in

their ability to manage their conflicts, which in turn led to their experiencing

increased social support and less victimization from others. This improvement in

relations with others led to an increase in self-esteem, a decrease in feelings of

anxiety and depression and to more frequent positive feelings of well-being. Higher

self-esteem, in turn, produced a greater sense of personal control over their own fates.

These changes were also positively associated with higher academic performances.

The following year, 1989, ICCCR contracted with the New York City Board

of Education and conducted a two-year project to train one mediation and one

negotiation specialist in every high school in New York City. Following this

initiative, principals and assistant principals in every New York City high school

were also trained in conflict resolution. This initiative included an internal evaluation

component conducted by the New York City Board of Education.

• In 1995, in an attempt to reach educators and educational leaders and administrators

early in their careers, the ICCCR established its Graduate Studies in Conflict

Resolution at Teachers College, Columbia University. This concentration involves

five courses in conflict resolution covering the state-of-the-art of theory and practice.

Our most basic course in the sequence, the Basic Practicum in Conflict Resolution, is

an experiential course aimed at developing collaborative negotiation and mediation

skills for managing interpersonal conflict. This course is attended by approximately

300 students annually.

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 11

The Basic Practicum utilizes a time-delayed, multi-source, data-based

feedback instrument, the Negotiation Evaluation Survey (NES), as an integral part of

the course (see Coleman & Lim, 2000). The NES was developed as a method of

assessing pre-training to post-training change in participants’ knowledge, attitudes,

feelings, and skills regarding negotiation, and is used as a coaching tool during the

course. However, instead of relying on self-report data from surveys, which is

notoriously biased, the NES acquires data from others from the participants’ personal

and professional lives. This data is presented to the participants in the form of two

personalized profiles; one administered at the beginning and one after the conclusion

of the training.

In 2000, we conducted a controlled study of the effects of the Basic Practicum

with the NES instrument (see Coleman & Lim, 2000). The results from the study

overwhelmingly supported the assertion that a 20-hour training in collaborative

negotiation can have a substantial effect on how people think, feel, and act in

negotiation, and that these differences can effect the outcomes they achieve and the

more general climate of their work environment. When compared to the control

condition, training had significant effects on the use of constructive conflict behaviors

30 days after training, with more use of opening, uniting, and informing behaviors by

trained participants than by non-trained. There was also significantly less attacking

and negative evading behaviors by trained than non-trained participants. Responding

to how they felt when engaged in conflicts with others, trained participants reported

significantly less negative emotions than non-trained. Trained participants also

indicated that their attitudes toward conflict were more cooperative and less

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 12

competitive, and that their thinking regarding conflict was generally more

constructive than participants in the control conditions. Finally, there was a

significant difference in constructive conflict outcomes and work climate between the

groups, with the collaborative negotiation training having substantially more positive

effects on outcomes and work climate one month after the training when compared

with the no training condition.

• The United Nations Consultation and Training Project was also begun in 1995 to

offer training and support in conflict resolution to the leadership and staff of the UN

Secretariat. Since that time, we have offered numerous workshops in collaborative

negotiation and mediation, as well as, cross-cultural training and consultation to all

levels of staff and management of the UN, worldwide. Internal consumer satisfaction

research on these initiatives has consistently supported their usefulness and

popularity. In addition to this work, since 1998 we have co-sponsored and co-taught a

course at the UN with the UN Studies Program and the Conflict Resolution Program

of the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs on “Preventative

Diplomacy & Conflict Resolution in the United Nations: Integrating Theory and

Practice.” Participants in this course engage in lively dialogue with top scholars and

practicioners and have included the leadership and staff of UN agencies and

diplomatic missions including several UN Ambassadors.

Guidelines for Implementation at Multiple Levels in Schools and Communities

Systemic approaches to intervening in schools and communities reflects the

recognition that individuals are often members of groups - they affect the groups and are

affected by them; groups are components of organizations which affect them and which

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 13

they affect; and a similar two-way causation exists between the organizations and their

communities. It also reflects the recognition that any particular school program, such as

conflict resolution training for students, must be seen as one of the many influences in the

programs and activities within and outside the school (e.g. cooperative learning,

competitive grading) which may support or counteract the influence of the conflict

resolution program.

Raider (1995) proposed that there are four levels of school systems through which

one can introduce cooperation and conflict resolution concepts, skills, and processes: the

student disciplinary system, the curriculum, pedagogy, and the school culture. We

suggest that adding a fifth level, the community, will enhance the view of the school

system as an “open system” embedded in a larger communal system which can aid in the

sustainability of school system change. Interventions at these five levels differ

considerably, and are outlined, in brief, below.

Level 1 - The Student Discipline System: Peer Mediation Programs

When there are difficult conflicts that the disputing parties are not able to resolve

constructively themselves, it is useful to turn to the help of third parties such as

mediators. To deal with such conflicts, mediation programs have been established in a

number of schools. Typically, in these programs students as well as teachers are selected

and given between ten and thirty hours of training and follow-up supervision to prepare

them to serve as mediators. Students as young as ten years as well as high school and

college students have been trained. The mediation Centers in schools get referrals from

deans and teachers as well as students. We place peer mediation programs at Level 1

because they are typically what schools are most eager for and they tend to be the easiest

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 14

and least expensive to implement. This readiness is often in response to an increase in

student disciplinary problems, incidents of violence, or to the threat of violence in

schools. However, they are usually brought into a school to enhance the overall

disciplinary system of a school, not replace it

Research has shown positive effects on the student mediators: on their self-

confidence, self-esteem, assertiveness and general attitudes towards school (Crawford &

Bodine, 1997). At the school level, mediation programs result in a significant drop in

disciplinary referrals, detentions, suspensions, and in more positive perceptions of school

climate (less perceived violence and hurtful behavior among students) by both staff and

students. However, it is our assessment that mediation programs alone, although useful,

are not sufficient to bring about the paradigmatic shift in education that we suggest is

needed to prepare students to live in a peaceful world.

Level 2 - Curriculum: Conflict Resolution Training

Schools and school districts are bringing conflict resolution concepts and skills

into the curriculum, either as a course that stands alone or as a unit within existing

programs. These curricula provide lessons and activities for pre-schoolers through

university graduates which focus on such themes as understanding conflict,

communication, dealing with anger, cooperation, affirmation, bias awareness, cultural

diversity, conflict resolution and peacemaking. There are many different programs and

their contents vary as a function of the age of the students being trained and their

background; however there are some common elements running through most programs.

In effect, most conflict resolution training programs seek to instill the attitudes,

knowledge, and skills which are conducive to effective, cooperative problem-solving and

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 15

to discourage the attitudes and habitual responses which give rise to win-lose struggles.

From a school system perspective, these trainings establish and reinforce a basic frame of

reference and language for collaboration, and orient students to a process and skills that

are familiar but underutilized.

Level 3 – Pedagogy

To further enhance the learning of conflict resolution skills from specific units or

courses, students can practice these skills in their regular subject areas with two teaching

strategies - cooperative learning and academic controversy.

There are five key elements involved in cooperative learning (Johnson, Johnson,

& Holubec, 1986). The most important is positive interdependence. Students must

perceive that it is to their advantage if other students learn well and that it is to their

disadvantage if others do poorly. In addition, cooperative learning requires face-to-face

interaction among students in which their positive interdependence can be expressed in

behavior. It also requires individual accountability of each member of the cooperative

learning group to one another for mastering the material to be learned and for providing

appropriate support and assistance to each other. Further, it is necessary for the students

to be trained in the interpersonal and small group skills needed for effective cooperative

work in groups. Finally, cooperative learning also involves providing students with the

time and procedures for processing or analyzing how well their learning groups are

functioning and what can be done to improve how they work together. In addition, it is

desirable to compose cooperative learning groups so that they are heterogeneous with

regard to gender, academic ability, ethnic background, or physical disability. Hundreds of

research studies have been done on the relative impact of cooperative learning (compared

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 16

to competitive or individualistic learning) which indicate very favorable effects upon

students (see Johnson & Johnson, 1983, 1989).

David and Roger Johnson (1987; 1992) of the University of Minnesota have

suggested that teachers, no matter what subject they teach, can stimulate and structure

constructive controversy in the classroom which will promote academic learning and the

development of skills of conflict resolution. There are five phases involved in the

structured controversy. First, the paired students learn their respective positions; then,

each pair presents its position. Next, there is an open discussion where students advocate

strongly and persuasively for their positions. After this, there is a perspective-reversal and

each pair presents the opposing pair's position as sincerely and as persuasively as they

can. In the last phase, they drop their advocacy of their assigned position and seek to

reach consensus on a position that is supported by the evidence. In this phase, they write

a joint statement with the rationale and supporting evidence for the synthesis their group

has agreed on. Constructive controversy has been found to enhance people’s

understanding of opposing positions and encourage a better integration of diverse ideas

(Tjosvold & Field, 1984; Tjosvold & McNeely, 1988), which results in higher quality

solutions to problems, more productive work and strengthened relationships (Tjosvold,

1989; Tjosvold, Dann & Wong, 1992; Tjosvold & Weiker, 1993).

Level 4 - The School Culture

Most training and intervention concerning cooperation and conflict resolution in

schools throughout the country focuses primarily on children. This focus denies the

reality that most adults working in the school systems have had little preparation, training

or encouragement to conduct their own work collaboratively or to manage their own

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 17

conflicts constructively, let alone teach these skills to others. A culture of competition,

authoritarianism, coercion and contention still appears to reign supreme in schools in this

country (Glasser, 1992; Raider, 1995). For example, research has shown that destructive

interpersonal and intergroup conflicts are one of the major obstacles inhibiting the

successful implementation of important school initiatives such as site-based management

and shared decision making in schools (Leiberman, Darling-Hammond & Zuckerman,

1991).

In order for school systems to take full advantage of the gains brought by peer

mediation programs and cooperation and conflict resolution curricula, the adults in

schools also must be trained. This, unfortunately, is often an area of significant

resistance. However, adult training can be accomplished through two means: individual

level training in collaborative negotiation skills and work to restructure the school’s adult

dispute management system. Collaborative negotiation training for adults often parallels

the training offered to students, but focuses on problems that are more germane to the

personal and professional life of adults. We stress that all adults in schools should be

trained; teachers, administrators, counselors, bus drivers, lunch room aids, Para-

professionals, librarians, coaches, etc. Such extensive training can be expensive, but the

costs can be significantly reduced by the training of in-house staff initially, who then

become trainers themselves for other school personnel. Such training engenders

commitment from the adults. In so doing, it can help to institutionalize the changes

through adult modeling of the desired attitudes and behaviors for the students, by

demonstrating the values of such approaches, and by encouraging the development of

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 18

new language, norms and expectations around conflict and conflict management

throughout the school community.

University campuses have also begun applying conflict management systems

design techniques to campus disputes (Barnes, 1998). The restructuring of a dispute

management system encourages movement away from the use of administrative authority

and litigation to resolve conflict (power-based and rights-based approaches, respectively)

towards a greater emphasis on negotiations and mediations between disputants (see Ury,

Brett, & Goldberg, 1988; Costantino & Merchant, 1996).

Level 5 - The Broader Community

Collaborative trainings and processes need not and should not stop at the school

doors. In fact, many of the student conflicts originate outside of school: at home, on the

school bus, or at social events. Parents, caretakers, local clergy, local police officers,

members of local community organizations, and others should be trained in conflict

resolution and involved in the overall planning process for preventing destructive conflict

among children and youths. We encourage school administrators and conflict resolution

practitioners to envision the school system as embedded in a larger community system

that, ideally, can be brought into this change process in order to better stabilize school

change.

Conclusion

In emphasizing cooperation, constructive controversy and conflict resolution

processes as the core of any comprehensive program for a peaceful world, we have been

guided by the view that it takes more than a single course to bring about fundamental

change. Students need to have continuing experiences of constructive conflict resolution

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 19

as they learn different subject matters and an immersion in a caring school environment

that provides daily experiences as well as a model of cooperative relations, constructive

resolution of conflicts, and social justice. This pervasive and extended experience,

combined with tuition in the concepts and principles of cooperative work and of conflict

resolution, should enable the student to develop generalizable attitudes and skills which

would be strong enough to resist the countervailing influences that are so prevalent in

their non-school environments. Hopefully, by the time they become adults, they would

have developed the attitudes, the knowledge, and the skills that would enable them to

cooperate with others in resolving constructively the inevitable conflicts that will occur

among and within nations, ethnic groups, communities, and families.

References

Anderson, M. A., Kaufman, K., & Simon, T. R. (2001). School-associated violent deaths in

the United States, 1994-1999. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 2695-

2702.

Barnes, B. (1998). Research in higher education conflict management. The Fourth R, 82,

March, April. National Institute on for Dispute Resolution.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2002). Injury Fact Book 2001-2002.

Washington, D.C.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/fact_book/31_Youth_Violence%20s.htm

.

Costantino, C.A., & Sickles Merchant, C. (1996). Designing conflict management systems:

A guide to creating productive and healthy organizations. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crawford, D. & Bodine, R. (1997). Conflict resolution in schools. Washington, D.C.:

National Institute for Dispute Resolution.

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 20

Coleman, (in press). Characteristics of protracted, intractable conflict: Towards the

development of a metaframework. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology.

Coleman, P. T. & Lim, Y. Y. J. (2001). A systematic approach to evaluating the effects of

collaborative negotiation training on individuals and groups. Negotiation Journal,17 (4),

329-358.

Deutsch, M. (2000). Justice and conflict. In M. Deutsch and P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The

handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice, (pp. 41-64). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes.

New Haven: Yale University Press.

Deutsch, M., Mitchell, V., Zhang, Q., Khattri, N., Tepavac, L., Weitzman, E.A., and Lynch,

R. (1992). The effects of training in cooperative learning and conflict resolution in an

alternative high school. International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution,

Teachers College, Columbia University.

Glasser, W. (1992). The quality school. New York: Harper Collins.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, F. P. (1987). Joining together, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1983). The socialization and achievement crisis: Are

cooperative learning experiences the solution? In L. Beckman (Ed.), Applied Social

Psychology Annual 4. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Creative conflict. Edina, MN: Interaction Book

Company.

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 21

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and

research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Creative controversy: Intellectual challenge in the

classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1986). Circles of learning: Cooperation

in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Lederach, J.P. (1997) Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. United

states Institute of Peace.

Leiberman, A., Darling-Hammond, L., & Zuckerman, D. (1991). Early lessons in

restructuring schools. New York: National Center for restructuring Education, Schools,

and Teaching, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, (pp. 5-41).

Louis, K. S., & Miles, M. B. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and

why. New York: Teachers College press.

Pruitt, D. & Olczak, P. (1995). Beyond hope: Approaches to resolving seemingly

intractable conflict. In Bunker, B.B. & Rubin, J. Z. (Eds.) Cooperation, conflict, and

justice: Essays inspired by the work of Morton Deutsch. New York: Sage.

Raider, E. (1995). Conflict resolution training in schools: Translating theory into applied

skills. In Bunker, B.B. & Rubin, J. Z. (Eds.) Cooperation, conflict, and justice: Essays

inspired by the work of Morton Deutsch. New York: Sage.

Rouhana, N. and Kelman, H. (1994). Promoting joint thinking in international conflict.

Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.157-178.

ICCCR Conflict Resolution 22

Sandy, S. V., & Boardman, S. K. (2001). The peaceful kids conflict resolution program.

International Journal of Conflict management, 11 (4), 337-357.

Tjsovold, D. (1989). Interdependence and power between managers and employees: A study

of the leader relationship. Journal of Management, 15, 49-64.

Tjsovold, D. & Dann, V, & Wong, C. L. (1992). Managing conflicts between departments to

serve customers. Human Relations, 45, 1035-54.

Tjsovold, D. & Field, R. H. G. (1984). Managers’ structuring cooperative and competitive

controversy in group decision making. International Journal of Management, 1, 26-32.

Tjsovold, D. & Johnson, D. W. (1983). Productive conflict management: Perspectives for

organizations. New York: Irvington Publishers.

Tjsovold, D. & McNeely, L. T. (1988). Innovation through communication in an educational

bureaucracy. Communication Research, 15, 568-81.

Tjosvold, D & Weicker, D. W. (1993). Cooperative and competitive networking by

entrepreneurs: A critical incident study. Journal of Small Business Management.

Ury, W.L., Brett, J.M., & Goldberg, S. B. (1988). Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing

Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict. Jossey-Bass.