Young to Old, Diffusion Strategies of the Bold

           I would like to write about our interesting and informative lecture by Geoff Colvin this past Wednesday. I found it extremely fun and enjoyable to hear what he had to say about interacting with school aged children, but also found his lessons to be easily translatable to adults and to conflict in general. I would first like to give a little background and explain why some of you thought that I might have talked a little too much.

            My father is a teacher at a local school and instructs elementary school children with learning disabilities. This Life Skills class is an alternative to a traditional classroom in that there are mixed grade levels, but a general theme amongst the students. Each of the students has certain needs or challenges that are not met in a “regular” classroom. Often times these students will act out and cause disturbances, react with violence, or have difficulty with a given subject beyond what is usual. Almost every week that I talk to my dad he has a new story about a student who bit, punched, kicked, cussed, or made some other action that is not acceptable. I often listen in amazement as he explains how he calmly deals with these students and how he interacts with their parents.

            The methods Prof. Colvin talked about such as creating entry tasks for students, using a student’s name, and probing were all seemingly common sense, but are not so commonly used. I recognized many of these methods in the stories that my dad has told me and was intrigued to hear more about them. Often it seems we are quick to react without thinking which leads to a much larger conflict. I believe that with the tools we learned, we may be able to pause and contemplate our next move better. If we only have a hammer to put a screw in the wall, that is what you use, but if we have a drill and a screwdriver, we make our work easier and we have options.

            One of the great things about this class has been the accumulation of tools to diffuse conflicts. We have learned how to identify conflict styles, the models for conflict, and resolution types related to conflict. Having these tools does not necessarily mean that we will use them, but the fact that they are somewhere in the back of our heads will allow us to at least analyze the situation better before, during, or at least hopefully, after a conflict has arisen. 

NYT Op-Ed - Getting Pay and Credit for a Legal Education

I found this in the NYT Op-Ed this morning.  

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/09/17/getting-pay-and-credit-for-a-legal-education

Only one more day?!

The time between orientation week and the end of this term feels warped; it seems so abrupt that tomorrow is already the last day of class. We are just beginning to wrap our minds around the concept of this path we chose and are only beginning to learn the breadth of what we don't know.

During this last week of class, I think the most meaningful activity for me was the UO faculty panel. Reading their published works, garnering our own interpretations, and then meeting the authors to learn more about their perspective was more than a worthwhile experience. Professor Gassama’s take on life was particularly moving in that he passes his days one experience at a time and pursues his goals one challenge at a time. It reminded me that, earlier in the term, Professor Reynolds asked each of us to write down a goal we want to reach with regard to our communication styles, and to come up with concrete, tangible ways to actively pursue those goals. We did not get a chance to follow-up that exercise within the group, so I thought it would be interesting to hear about those goals and operationalized methods for reaching them, from those who would like to share.  

My goal is to increase my active listening skills and be aware when I am interrupting someone during a discussion. My tangible action item is to wait three to five seconds before I speak. It may not sound long, but in real-time discussions, a few fully conscious seconds are sufficient to evaluate whether it is the appropriate time to speak. Anyone else willing to share?

Action and Re-action

I went to bed and alas, I remembered the BLOG! Oh my....I have 6 minutes....until the due date!! oops I'm a bit late....

Our speaker today, Geoff Colvin, was a dear man with oodles of knowledge and experience. When I sit and think about it, he had one of the most necessary passions for today. He has been striving to improve how people deal with one another for many years. I worked in a Jr. High school for 2 years with special needs kids. I went with them to mainstream classes, learned some 7th grade science and U.S. History that I missed back then, and observed the classroom dynamics. Some of these teens   were so apathetic to school. It was amazing they were even AT school. I wasn't in a position of authority, however I was supposed to help direct them in some activities. I was surprised and sad that so many of them had given up to the point of not caring about anything. It wasn't because they weren't capable or smart enough to learn the work. They were clearly discouraged and apathetic about engaging in life. I am speculating, but they didn't know how to tackle emotional conflicts; at home, with family members, peers, etc. People withdraw when they are scared and confused, or they lash out. I'm sad to say the school counselor seemed to be completely incompetent and even considered a joke to many of the students. Relating to this age group is a niche and should not be taken lightly. It's sad that a school administration wouldn't strive to get the best person and effectively try to teach the kids applicable skills that would help them with their lives. Additionally, the school district did nothing even when our classroom of paraprofessionals informed them of our struggles with the head teacher and our desire to learn team building skills. It is as if "conflict resolution" is a foreign word, a foreign language. I'm so philosophically curious about our collective resistance to the very thing that can move us forward.

 My take-away from yesterday. Our initial response to conflict, no matter who it is with, is the most important step in determining the direction a potential conflict will go.

I believe many people would be more interested in learning how to improve their communication skills and conflict management than they would be willing to go to a therapist or "shrink" as so many still think of psychologists. Jen said this was an emerging field (I can't remember what she called it) and that's exciting because it could be a great place where people can start to learn the basic skills that will help them at home and in every other aspect of life.

My question is, how willing are we, each one of us, to confront our ignorance and shortcomings; our biases and prejudices, in order to create a more pro-communication environment. How many of us are willing to admit even our smallest irritations with others and actually look at them as a window into our own growth? I try to do that. I try to admit to myself that I have shortcomings and that those are places where my human-hood still has room to grow in order to be more fully human. As Mr. Colvin said, I might not get it right today but I will have another chance tomorrow. Everything that happens is a lesson if we are willing to look at it that way.

Drama as mediation / mediator as dramaturge

Escalating conflicts often follow a structure similar to that of a dramatic plot.  Professor Geoff Colvin has described a seven-stage pattern of interactions that exhibit “Acting-Out” in conflicts that occur between teachers and students in the classroom.  Significantly, the analogy to drama is encoded in the title of Professor Colvin’s book.  The cycle of acting out he describes arises out of an opening situation of calm, develops by means of triggers or initial episodes, moves through agitation and acceleration, reaches a peak, and then enters de-escalation on the way to recovery.  

In the language of drama, the plot moves from exposition (calm), to rising action / inciting incident (triggers), then moves to a climax or crisis (peak), before reaching resolution in the denouement (de-escalation and recovery). Just as the narrative structures of conflict theory and drama seem to mirror each other, so do the observations that can be made about the function of drama (conflict) in revealing the basic cultural contradictions and pressure points in a given society.

Take Shakespeare, for example.  Not only did Shakespeare dramatize the great social conflicts of his day, he also encoded the repressed religious tensions between the established Church of Rome (Catholics) and the new Protestant regime known as the Anglicans or Church of England.  Shakespeare offers the perennial example of the dramatist who mediates the great conflicts of his/her zeitgeist to the culture at large by representing them in drama. 

Do mediators and negotiators also function as dramatists in the way they use narrative plots to structure conversations, develop what may be painful interactions, excavate tensions and trigger points, and then offer modes of resolution to a given conflict in the process of mediation?

The NFL: "National Failing League" by Barak Stringer

Over the past couple of weeks, the National Football League (NFL) has been under the public's "microscope". It is being criticized for its lack of leadership and it's lack of discipline towards the "actions of professional football players". At an alarming rate, NFL players are being arrested and persecuted for crimes that range from DUI's, domestic violence, assault, and even child abuse. On any given day, one can pick up a newspaper or log into Facebook and read about these incidents. Fans, supporters, and sponsors of teams of the NFL are becoming skeptical of the NFL's policies that deal with such behavior. Early this year, the Raven's running back, Ray Rice, was arrested for felony assault. Through a plea agreement, his representation was able to get the charges reduced to misdemeanor assault charges. As a result, there was an uproar for the NFL to intervene and issue out a disciplinary action as well. After an investigation into Ray Rice's domestic violence case , NFL President Rodger Goodell issued Ray Rice a two game suspension. Conversely, Rodger Goodell's decision did not go over well with many fans and sponsors of the NFL, especially since the NFL did not have a particular policy that dealt with domestic violence. Therefore, after months of backlash from any-domestic violence groups, Rodger Goodell formulated a new policy that addressed any arrests or charges dealing with domestic violence. However, when TMZ released the "unseen" video of Ray Rice upper-cutting his fiancé and knocking her unconscious, Mr. Goodell released a statement banning Ray Rice from the NFL indefinitely. This raised eyebrows for many fans and sponsors of the NFL. Then, on the hill of the controversial Ray Rice incident, Vikings Runner back, Adrian Peterson, was arrested for child abuse. It is important to note that there is not an NFL policy that deals with child abuse, but I can imagine that there will be one after this. Since Adrian Peterson's arrest, he has been deactivated, reactivated, and deactivated again from the Viking's roster! So why is it that Ray Rice was punished twice for the same crime? Why is it that Adrian Peterson was deactivated so many times? It is all about the NFL and the NFL teams saving face. In studying the NFL, there tends to be a common trend when conflict surfaces. When handling conflict,the NFL does not analyze and create policies based on merit but on the public reactions. Especially sponsors with deep pockets who usually oppose or affirm an issue based on fans reactions. But is that an efficient, effective way to resolve conflict? If so, the NFL is basically saying that which ever way the wind blows is where we stand. But how is that truly fair to the players? As I stated above, Ray Rice's initial punishment was a two game suspension. However, after the public's outcry, the NFL landed a second, more severe punishment. Why? Because they wanted to appease the public and show that they could handle these conflicts appropriately. This brought great criticism to the NFL and the NFL President Rodger Goodell because everyone could see that the NFL was not punishing Ray Rice because of his actions but to save face of the NFL. If they truly wanted to make Ray Rice an example and punish him justly, they would have suspended him indefinitely when the crime was first reported and analyzed by the NFL.

Compassion Fatigue

While reading Ibrahim Gassama’s article, I came across an interesting term: compassion fatigue. The article suggests that society tends to push certain catastrophes out of our mind, as a sort of self-preservation method. Intrigued, I looked further into the concept of compassion fatigue. As it turns out, the term is most commonly associated on a smaller scale with caregivers like nurses, therapists, and emergency workers who deal with victims of trauma. Even the American Bar Association advises lawyers of the symptoms of compassion fatigue, and suggests methods to treat it. These caregivers (and lawyers) struggle on a daily basis with the emotional stress of dealing with patients and clients affected by trauma and, as a result, sometimes internalize and absorb these issues as their own. In fact, other terms for compassion fatigue are “secondary victimization,” “secondary traumatic stress,” and “vicarious traumatization.”

In the article we read for today, compassion fatigue is discussed on a larger scale in that we, as a society, are compassion fatigued. During our panel discussion today, Mr. Gassama mentioned the role that the media has on our culture. The media constantly inundates us with images of horrible events going on throughout the world. The news is saturated with tragic images that are oftentimes taken out of context. Additionally, because there are so many tragic events, the news tends to skip from story to story, causing disconnect between the viewers and the victims.  Such disconnect decreases the feeling of being called to action, especially if such action is not likely to make any difference. In today’s discussion, Mr. Gassama posited that adventurism leads to false hope, which leads to despair. Is that what compassion fatigue is? The realization that, essentially, we cannot help those in need? Do we, like Mr. Gassama, question the possibility of substantial change?

Interestingly, another article notes that most people that are attracted to caregiving are already suffering from compassion fatigue. This is because they often strongly identify with those that are suffering. Generally, these types of people were raised to put others’ needs before their own, thus resulting in a lack of practice in self-care. While no cure really exists for compassion fatigue, it is always helpful to be aware of it when it happens, or at least of the possibility that it is likely to occur.

As students of conflict resolution, are we more prone to compassion fatigue than others due to the content of the material we study? We all chose this field for one reason or another. Perhaps we feel the need to make a change in the world. Perhaps we know that we are better at helping others than ourselves. Either way, we should be aware of the risk of falling victim to compassion fatigue. In order to prevent such an occurrence, we should take Mr. Gassama’s advice to embrace the struggle and not bemoan our fates.

“One more time, my friends…Let’s go out there and meet the world as it is.” – Ibrahim Gassama.

Metaphors for Mediators: What's Yours?

Why are there so many metaphors about mediators In our recent readings and discussions about conflict resolution?  What purposes are being served by using metaphors to explain conflict resolution and/or mediation?  Some of these metaphors are active images, some are passive, and some are in direct conflict with the rest.  How helpful are metaphors as a means of understanding ADR practices, and why do so many people in the field seem to turn to metaphor as a way to explain what they do?

Below I have gathered a sample of some of the metaphors found in our recent readings.  For example, Menkel-Meadow in her chapter, “Mediation: Concepts and Models,” suggests that the mediator performs the role of host and chair, guide and educator, referee, master communicator, and translator.  As if this weren’t enough, the metaphors begin falling even faster as Menkel-Meadow somewhat breathlessly adds that the mediator-translator is really a sort of alchemist, but one who functions as an agent of reality and also as a watchdog. [Woof!]

Meanwhile, among other creative displays of mediator metaphors, Jennifer Schulz announces that in films about food, many of the cooks are actually mediators in disguise who “resolve disputes by preparing and offering food” (Schulz, 2007, p. 455). Mediators, meditates Schulz, are like the “slow food movement … [that] slows down, ruminates, chews things over, and allows for silence” (p. 458).   I’ll mention only a few more of the other metaphors dotting the pages of our reading. In Stories Mediators Tell, we saw mediators as bridge builders (Crumpton, “Rosa and Gordon”) and therapists (Hoffman, “The Whistle-Blower”); also, mediators who serve as gatekeepers (Liebman, “Mediation as Parallel Seminars”); and mediators as river guides or sometimes even the river itself (Love, “Conversational Shifts”).  If you are feeling somewhat dizzy at this array, recall that after watching No Man’s Land, our professor suggested that in some  situations that appear to be irresolvable, mediators are like mine experts who can’t defuse the mine. At any rate, you get the idea  -- mediator metaphors In the literature on mediation are as prolific as dandelions on a summer lawn.  But beyond serving as catchy images to decorate writerly prose, do metaphors about ADR practice serve any other purpose?  Do they hold the possibility of advancing our thinking about mediation and conflict resolution in any meaningful way? Or do they perhaps provide insight into the ways that mediators and ADR professionals understand themselves?

First of all, it seems that the wide range of metaphors used by professionals in the field highlights the difficulty experienced in defining exactly what it is they do.  This comes as no surprise, since even the theorists of conflict resolution are divided over how to define mediation, in particular.  In a recent article discussing the difficulty of arriving at a consensual understanding of mediation, Brenda Daly and Noelle Higgins distinguish three separate strands of argument about mediation; first, mediation as facilitation; second, mediation as formulation; and third; mediation as manipulation (Frenkel, 2011, p. 99). So no wonder that such a continuum of metaphors exists among practitioners in the field.

 But beyond illustrating the identity problem faced by mediation and conflict resolution studies, do metaphors have any other use?  Some would argue that understanding the way metaphors function and employing them to build conflict narratives in culturally coherent ways may actually change the way people think. Such mind-changing metaphors can reframe the conflict and offer new perspectives and even new language for the discipline. In a recent op ed in the New York Times, one cognitive scientist opined that the problem-solving system in our brains critically depends on alternating phases of attention and daydreaming. In this alternating cycle of attention, it is during the daydreaming phase that our great flashes of creativity are triggered, because that is when we are able to make “connections among disparate ideas and thoughts.”  The process of connecting ideas with vastly different images is an accurate description of the function of metaphor. 

If metaphors hold the power to make new connections that illuminate problems and offer solutions, then how do you view the process of conflict resolution and mediation?  Which metaphors of the process of mediation or conflict resolution make sense to you?

Memorial days

 I am writing this blog post in honor of September, 11^th . I believe that today is one of the most significant day for the U.S. and after checking some news on American web sites. I noticed that there were many pictures and stories about 9/11.I believe that today is one of the most significant day for the U.S. and after checking some news on American web sites. I offer my deepest condolences for victims.

The reason why I decided to write about 9/11 on the blog, is because I think that it is important to recognize the different perspectives from each person and country. Although it is a matter of course, I thought that it was important to raise awareness in order to think about international relationship.

I do not think that Japan considers 9/11 as being unimportant event because all main newspapers wrote about 9/11 on the international pages yesterday. (We have sixteen hours of time differences.) Many Japanese people know about 9/11 however it is generally a different experience from the American people. We may know less than American people.

I believe that awareness about history of other cultures is really important to establishing a good relationship in the international society. It is because, as Sequoia wrote on the comments, our past has made us. Knowing cultural history is knowing about the country and you.

Also, countries and foreign policy makers should consider the various perspectives involved in a given event. As professor Reynolds said in the class yesterday, there are many narratives about the one fact. If people avoid knowing different perspectives, they could not make a good relationship with people who have different perspectives. Sometimes, listening to the different perspectives may be painful. It was difficult hearing a Chinese student say that Japan should apologize about WWⅡfor me. However, if we keep avoiding other stories about WWⅡ, our historical problems would go unresolved.

Finally, I am going to ask questions which I want you to think about. Can you speak about your opinions on Pearl Harbor and the atomic bombs honestly with Japanese people? If you feel uncomfortable to talk about them, why do you think so? Do you think that you will make a conflict? Do you think that it is important to be able to discuss about them with Japanese people in order to make better relationship between the U.S. and Japan? In Japan, our history class focused on the war in Okinawa, the air raid in Tokyo, the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki than Pearl Harbor. I heard that in the U.S. students learn Pearl Harbor than the atomic bombs. These events occurred in World War Ⅱ but depending on your experiences to learn about World War Ⅱ, perspectives are different. For American people, the importance of the day of dropping atomic bombs is different from Japanese people like 9/11. Please let me know, if you have some my ideas which you cannot understand.

Lets talk about "food"

We all eat. Whether we eat food simply for sustenance or for entertainment value, it's an important part of life. In the U.S. we are starting to see a rising debate over "food", from farming practices, to food production, to diets, to grocery costs. A major player in the campaign for ingredients transparency is Vani Hari of foodbabe.com. Vani is famous for researching what ingredients are hidden in popular, main stream foods. Earlier this year she pulled the rug out from under Subway for using “yoga mat” (azodicarbonamide) in their bread with a petition that reached over 50k signatures in 24hrs; the next day Subway released a statement that they had decided to create a new recipe for their bread because they want their clientele to have the best possible experience. Now she’s going after Starbucks for their Pumpkin Spice Lattes, which she claims contains a host of ingredients that are inconsistently available at stores and even inconsistent between store bought lattes and the at home mix. The difference with the responses to these investigations is how strongly people are supporting Starbucks for not using real pumpkin, and ignoring the other ingredients exposed in the mixes. I wondered why so many people were ready to take down Subway, but are defending Starbucks. What is the difference? The perception I have of the ways Vani presented the arguments against each company seemed to threaten “America” in contrasting ways. In the Subway investigation she compared the bread ingredients in the US to the ingredients in the UK and Australia; in the Starbucks investigation she claimed that Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte has anything but pumpkin. I imagine this put “America” in a defensive position for both investigations. With the Subway investigation I imagine people reacting with “Why should they get better ingredients than us? We deserve as good, if not better, than anyone else gets”, and with the Starbucks investigation I imagine people reacting with “Starbucks is an American institution and we stand by America”. Whatever their reasons are for defending Starbucks on this, I wonder why Americans fight so hard to defend companies that have marketed as an American institution, and are potentially making us all sick, instead of saying that as Americans we deserve better than this to every company. Shouldn’t every company be treated with the same expectations of “doing us right”?

Check out Vani’s blog for more information on her investigations http://foodbabe.com/