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
(212) 678-3112
E-mail:
pc84@columbia.edu
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
(212) 678-8106
E-mail:
fisher-yoshida@exchange.tc.columbia.edu
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.