chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.
    November 30, 2022

    Facilitating Unprecedented Change: Conflict Resolution, Readiness & Resonance

    Ashley J. Davis, Esq.
    Facilitators “outside” of the traditional vision of the industry are reimagining tools of the profession.

    Facilitators “outside” of the traditional vision of the industry are reimagining tools of the profession.

    Maskot via Getty Images

    The focus of my fellowship project was to review the past, present, and future of the field of conflict resolution with a goal of engaging practitioners and inspiring internal conversation to review where the field is headed, especially post-George Floyd. The presentation on the past specifically covered the ‘origins of the field’ which are rooted in era of the 60’s and 70s. Andrew Mamo describes this time of unrest, social change, and codification of civil rights as when, “contemporary dispute resolution theory began to take shape”. Ideas about conflict resolution and what it should look like in the United States were debated in varying sectors, such as business, international policy, critical race theory, communications, and the law. Although hints of these conversations occasionally surface at a basic level, the elements that make up the current field of alternative dispute resolution ultimately takes shape in the 80’s, post the release of the seminal text, “Getting To Yes” by Fisher and Ury. The framework introduced in this book becomes solidified and expanded via law school clinics, community mediation programs, Ombuds offices, 40-hour mediation trainings, and other state court programs from the 90’s to the early 2000’s.

    At present, American society is revisiting historical conversations and difficult dialogues from the 60’s and 70’s regarding race, labor, equity, politics, and social justice. These pivotal questions are being asked as the country simultaneously navigates unprecedented pandemics, frequent natural disasters, unstable economics, and an ill-equipped public health system.

    With a nation in flux, everything seems to be on the table and individuals are looking to ‘peacemakers’ or conflict resolvers to support the nation in this uncertain time. At conferences and in conversation after my presentations, practitioners discussed the increased level of complexity in the situations they are being called upon to support or resolve, along with requests to do more. If there is no return to pre-2020 “normal”, various questions emerge, such as: What will the neutral’s role be during this time? How ready are we to engage these complex topics? What will our vision or practice be? Is the “Getting to Yes” framework enough to sustain practitioners in this moment?

    These are the kinds of questions I reviewed with a colleague at the ABA DR Conference, Annalise Buth, during our presentation about the modern practitioner and the future of the conflict resolution industry. As we reflected together through our experiences and research, it became clear that the field has grown very little beyond its original formations. “While the structure of dispute resolution theory (and its privileging of the interest-based framework) continues to reflect the concerns of that era, it no longer speaks to the immediate concerns of the present”. The profession remains focused on civility and neutrality as sacred components, opaque in key ways, such as how one matriculates successfully into the field or how accountability/quality is managed in a confidential process, and has yet to resolve the lack of diversity at many levels (race, age, class, etc.). Further, the reflections, questions, and critiques that many in various industries wrote extensively about during the early years, have seemingly been lost. Ironically, these historical concerns and suggestions have recently resurfaced due to the current unrest in the country. Facilitators “outside” of the traditional vision of the industry are reimagining tools of the profession to directly engage some of these difficult questions (ex. systemic justice, power, rights, and current events) and responding to the needs of this time.

    As the waves of change remain pervasive both nationally and internationally, it seems that this might be the appropriate moment to reconsider our path and chart a course for the future of the field. The pace of change doesn’t seem to be slowing down and it seems that neither the 40-hour basic foundations trainings nor the annual practitioner summits are sufficient to prepare practitioners to facilitate an uncertain future. There may be no definitive answers provided in these spaces, but creating consistent containers to engage in high level discussions on these critical industry questions might play a role in preventing an industry in transition from manufacturing its own obsolescence.

      Ashley Jolice Davis

      Associate Ombud, University of Washington

      Ashley Jolice Davis currently serves as an Associate Ombud at the University of Washington. Ashley received her J.D. from the University of Wisconsin Law School and Bachelor of Arts from Northwestern University. Ashley began her career in dispute resolution several years ago, while working in her hometown Chicago as a mediator, program manager, coach, and trainer at a citywide mediation services provider the Center for Conflict Resolution. She is also a current American Bar Association Ombuds Dispute Resolution Section Fellow and a National Association of Community Mediation Committee Member.

      Entity:
      Topic:
      The material in all ABA publications is copyrighted and may be reprinted by permission only. Request reprint permission here.