Building Bridges Between Research and Practice

Learning Together to Improve the Resolution of Public Policy Disputes

by Gail Bingham, Juliana Birkhoff and Janet Stone. Resolve No. 28, 1997. RESOLVE

We have learned a lot since the first efforts to mediate environmental and other public policy disputes. As the field of dispute resolution has grown and our case experience has expanded, so has our interest in and ability to learn from this experience. However, those interested in such information report that the results of existing research are not widely disseminated, that there are many questions for which little research has been done, and that research could benefit from greater access to information about practice. Clearly, the field has much to gain through collaboration.

Since RESOLVE was founded in 1977, one part of our mission has been to promote the effective use of dispute resolution processes, and sponsor activities to build bridges between dispute resolution practitioners and researchers with this mission in mind. Recently, RESOLVE and the National Institute for Dispute Resolution (NIDR) brought together practicing mediators and researchers for a roundtable discussion we felt was one of our most successful yet. The roundtable, titled "What is Success in Public Policy Dispute Resolution?" took place in June 1997 at RESOLVE’s offices in Washington, DC.

Inspired by the contributions of those who attended the roundtable, we decided to share with our readers some of the thought that went into this roundtable in the hope that it will inspire others, and that it may serve as a model for future bridge-building efforts. As you read about the roundtable, we invite you to join us in asking: What do we know already? What do we want to know? And especially, how can we work together to learn more?

Why promote dialogue between practitioners and researchers? Our general purpose in hosting this roundtable was to foster a greater exchange of information between practitioners and researchers in the public policy dispute resolution field. Specifically, we hoped to accomplish three objectives: 1) to identify and disseminate information about what people think we do know from research about the field; 2) to be a catalyst for collaborative research projects on questions of interest to both practitioners and researchers; and 3) to encourage others to build bridges of their own ž as no one project can do it all.

Given the time and resources such dialogues require, it is worth asking why dialogue is important. The benefits are many. Practitioners can bring to the discussion a rich and diverse set of experiences that those who do not practice may otherwise not be able to draw from. Yet by being more removed from practice than practitioners, researchers can be reflective in a way practitioners may not be, and draw from disciplines of study that practitioners may not be exposed to.

Through joint reflection on past experience, we can begin to find insight into the extent to which dispute resolution processes are meeting society’s needs; by examining these processes, we may better understand the nature of different types of conflict and the behaviors of parties involved in conflicts. Past successes and failures can provide insights into the barriers to resolution that can arise, the tools and techniques that have been helpful to parties to overcome these barriers (and those that have not), and where certain dispute resolution processes may or may not be applicable or appropriate. Finally and most importantly, such reflection will help us make sure that we are meeting the interests of the stakeholders involved in these processes and helping them to achieve the results they want.

At the same time, such dialogues are challenging for several reasons. First, practitioners do not always find that the questions asked by researchers are useful for practice, and researchers find that practitioners do not always ask questions that are "researchable." Practitioners also feel vulnerable when their work is being evaluated. Concerns arise both about whether researchers will accurately reflect the information shared with them, only knowing the case from a distance, and whether practitioners can be objective about a case in which they were personally involved. Disagreements also arise over what criteria should be used to evaluate success or failure. The purposes of dispute resolution processes vary depending on the process and the wishes of the stakeholders ž who, then, is most qualified to decide what is success and what is failure? The feeling of vulnerability on the part of practitioners can be heightened when researchers interested in an ongoing process are not sensitive to the potential impact they may have on that process or on the parties involved.

How did we overcome the challenges to dialogue? The key in planning for this roundtable was to involve researchers and practitioners from the beginning. We asked them what would captivate their attention, and we engaged them in a conversation about how to structure the dialogue before the roundtable started so that these issues would not consume too much of our short time together. We, and they, wanted the roundtable to focus on specific questions of mutual interest that could generate future topics for collaborative research. We also decided to create an observers’ table and invited several colleagues who might themselves plan future bridge-building activities and who could be catalysts for reflection about how to continue these activities in the future.

Three steps were taken in advance of the roundtable that we felt were useful in building the basis for successful bridge building.

We interviewed practitioners and researchers, asking what questions or topics for research would be interesting to them and what other factors should be taken into account to succeed in building bridges between the two communities.
We held two planning sessions with those we interviewed and others to select topics of mutual interest and to discuss how to design the roundtable.
We provided honorariums to pairs of researchers and practitioners who were willing to prepare "white papers" in advance of the roundtable outlining a question or theme of interest to them, within the general theme of factors influencing success. This allowed the specific topics for small group discussions to come from the participants.

The theme of mutual interest to researchers and practitioners selected was "What is Success?" The point was not to define success for others, but rather to create a sufficiently broad framework to allow discussion of many different "researchable" questions for future collaboration.

It was apparent during both the interviews and the planning sessions that some practitioners and researchers were skeptical about the likelihood of success either for the roundtable or for future collaborative research because of negative past experiences. Several suggested that we develop a "dating etiquette." This we did. Roundtable participants suggested we document the protocol for collaboration they developed, since it proved to be very helpful in creating a comfort zone in which researchers and practitioners felt comfortable speaking freely to one another.

What did the roundtable accomplish? The quality of the discussions at the roundtable exceeded our highest expectations. And, we felt the entire experience was a wonderful example of how practitioners and researchers can work together. Roundtable participants produced two very useful products ž a series of white papers that articulate interesting ideas about what we might want to learn about the field, and commitment from the participating practitioners and researchers to continue to collaborate in the future.

The white papers, written by pairs of practitioners and researchers, addressed a wide range of topics related to success in the field of dispute resolution and served as starting points for small group and plenary discussions. These white papers explain some of the key factors seen by the authors to successful consensus-building practices, what we think we know from existing research about each topic, and what we would like to know more about. Synopses of the white papers, listed below, have been included in this issue of Resolve:

What are Parties’ Criteria for a Fair Process?
Economic Components of Success in Resolving Environmental Policy Disputes,
What are Success Factors for Environmental and Public Policy Dispute Resolution When there is More Than One Table?
Social Learning and the Building of Social Capital,
Exploring Symbolic Successes in Public Policy Dispute Resolution,
Enhancing Practice Through ‘Best Practices’ and the Professionalization of Public Policy Dispute Resolution; and
A Dialogue Across Areas of Practice and the Researcher-Practitioner Frontier.

We hope you find these topics as interesting as we did, and that they may stimulate further thought and research. Working with so many thoughtful people to explore these interesting and salient issues was incredibly rewarding. We hope this effort will inspire others to continue to build bridges for the benefit of the field.

What Assumptions Are Implicit in Discussions About Success and How Do They Influence What Questions We Ask?

In establishing any theme for discussion, it is important to clarify what that theme is intended to mean. The following is our attempt to describe some of the elements and underlying assumptions about success. It was not the objective of the roundtable to define success, and we hope this description provokes further thought on the meaning of success.

Experience shows that parties describe many elements as of importance to them in characterizing a successful negotiation. Examples of elements of success mentioned by parties to disputes include:

substance: an implementable agreement satisfying interests and principled criteria, better than otherwise could have been achieved, and which can be corrected or modified in the future;
process: the process treats all parties fairly and consistently, creates no undue delay, allows parties adequate consultation with constituencies and control over the process, not overly costly in time or money, is consistent with applicable procedures and laws, represents all affected parties, and does not set precedent for parties not at the table, and
relationships: relationships are civil, provide mutual recognition and respect, and improve the parties’ capacity to solve problems together.

Our assumptions about success include:

Success should be considered from the perspective of the parties and has many dimensions. Conflict is a normal social phenomenon and can be an important force for positive change. We recognize that our description of success does not address how dispute resolution processes affect social groups, institutions, or societies.
Voluntary resolution of disputes is only one of perhaps three distinct and appropriate modes for making decisions (those fundamentally based on power, those on rights, and those that are consensual). Thus, success also includes making appropriate choices about when to mediate.
Agreement for agreement sake is insufficient (and perhaps wrong); actually achieving solutions requires a focus on implementation. This, in turn, requires integrating sound legal, technical, economic, political and other analyses that come from bringing considerations that might otherwise be outside the process into the conversation.

Protocols for Collaborative Research and Evaluation

Prior to and during the roundtable, both practitioners and researchers pointed out that while allowing outside parties to observe dispute resolution processes provides opportunities to learn more about the field, it has the potential to influence and interfere with the processes themselves. The following protocols for practitioner/researcher collaboration were developed by the roundtable participants to address these concerns and encourage collaborative research and evaluation projects.

Begin by jointly defining the purpose of the project. Explore interests, hopes and fears, and discuss objectives and audiences.
Discuss how the research/evaluation will be carried out. Explore the kind of information that will be needed to meet the objectives, and identify potential products.
Finalize a statement of purpose, objectives, and expectations about how the research will be conducted.
Develop groundrules regarding: communication (with each other and others), confidentiality, roles, timing, reporting and how reports will be developed and reviewed, and how problems will be resolved if they arise.
Develop a written agreement incorporating all of the above.

Gail Bingham is a practicing mediator, author of Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience, and president of RESOLVE

Juliana Birkhoff is a mediator and dispute resolution scholar and has taught at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. Currently, she directs research dissemination activities for NIDR as a consultant and is working on her doctorate.

Janet Stone is a senior associate at RESOLVE