TABLES for Graduate Studies in Dispute Resolution:
A Delphi Study of the Field's Present and Future

by William C. Warters, Ph.D.
Wayne State University

Table 1

(Note: 1 = no agreement w statement, 7=complete agreement w statement)
OVERALL FOCUS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACADEMIC FIELD Average Score Central 50% of Responses Range of Responses
DR is essentially INTERDISCIPLINARY 6.6 6-7 5-7
DR in academia is essentially about the INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRACTICE and THEORY 5.9 5-7 4-7
DR is essentially a PROBLEM-FOCUSED area of study, where students use their skills and knowledge to assess, intervene, and evaluate conflicts 5.2 5-6 2-7
DR in academia is essentially about the GENERATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND FRAMEWORKS for understanding and testing 5 4-6 4-7
DR is essentially an ART, NOT a SCIENCE 3.1 2-4 1-4


Table 2

Meeting GOALS Average Score Central 50% of Responses Range of Responses
Increased Knowledge of Other Program's Practices 6.1 6-7 3-7
Articulation of Major Issues in the Field 5.7 5-7 3-7
Identification of Areas for Further Collaboration 5.7 5-7 4-7
Articulation of Core Curriculum for DR Programs 5.3 4-6 3-7
Identification of Resources in Need of Development 4.8 4-6 1-7
Statement of Basic Standards for Graduate Programs 4.4 3-6 1-7
Laying the groundwork for future meeting every year or two 4.3 3-6 2-7
Ongoing Organization of Graduate DR Programs 4.0 3-5 2-6
Time for Stepping Back and Reflecting on Practice 3.8 3-5 1-6

Table 3

CORE SKILL AREAS FOR MASTERS-LEVEL STUDENTS Average Score Central 50% of Responses Range of Responses
Mediation skills and procedures 6.4 6-7 5-7
Conflict assessment 6.3 6-7 5-7
Communication skills - listening/assertion 6.3 5-7 4-7
Ethical sensitivity 6.3 6-7 5-7
Negotiation (distributive and integrative) 6.3 5-7 5-7
Creative thinking/ problem-solving/ decision-making 6.2 6-7 4-7
Critical Thinking 6.0 6-7 3-7
Communication - written (basic and scholarly papers) 5.7 5-6 4-7
Application of DR theories in particular contexts 5.6 5-6 4-7
Understanding of FULL range of DR theories 5.6 5-6 4-7
Group facilitation 5.2 4-6 4-6
Understanding the use of social science research 5.1 4-6 1-7
DR systems design principles 5.0 4-6 2-7
Self-knowledge (self-awareness) 4.9 4-6 2-7
Mastery of a specific subject area specialization 4.9 4-6 3-7
Working in teams 4.8 4-6 2-6
Research design, data gathering and analysis 4.5 4-5 2-7
Basic understanding of the legal system 4.2 3-5 3-6
Arbitration, adjudicatory skills 3.7 3-5 1-5

Table 4

ESSENTIAL AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE FOR STUDENTS IN DR
(top 12 out of 28 mentioned)
ESSENTIAL AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE Average Score Central 50% of Responses Range of Responses
Continuum of methods for addressing conflict 6.6 6-7 5-7
Ethics 6.4 6-7 4-7
Negotiation theory 6.4 6-7 4-7
Problem-solving methods 6.3 6-7 5-7
Power issues 6.2 6-7 4-7
Range of mediation models 6.1 6-7 4-7
Competition/cooperation theories 6.0 5-7 4-7
Cross-cultural: gender, age, race, class 5.8 5-7 1-7
Dispute system design 5.6 5-7 2-7
Social psychology/group dynamics 5.5 4-7 3-7
Sociology of conflict/social institutions 5.4 4-7 3-7
Communication, language, persuation, debate 5.4 5-6 3-7

Table 5

ESSENTIAL JOURNALS
Rate the following previously identified JOURNALS
according to their importance to the DR field
JOURNALS Average Score Central 50% of Responses Range of Responses
Negotiation Journal 6.4 6-7 6-7
Mediation Quarterly 6.0 6-6 5-7
Journal of Conflict Resolution 5.6 5-6 3-7
International Journal of Conflict Management 5.4 4-6 4-7
Peace and Change 5.2 5-6 4-7
Journal of Social Issues 5.1 4-6 4-7
Missouri Journal of Dispute Resolution 4.7 4-6 3-6
Journal of Dispute Resolution (Ohio) 4.6 4-5 3-6
Law and Society Review 4.5 4-5 2-7
Family and Conciliation Courts Review 3.3 3-4 1-6

Table 6

(Note: 1 means not at all important, and 7 means extremely important)
PEDAGOGICAL CONCERNS For QUALITY DR GRADUATE PROGRAMS Average Score Central 50% of Responses Range of Responses
Developing CRITICAL THINKERS 6.4 6-7 5-7
IDENTIFYING AND TEACHING CORE SKILLS needed for DR 6.2 6-7 3-7
EVALUATING student SKILL ACQUISITION 6.1 6-7 5-7
EVALUATING student KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION 6.0 6-7 2-7
Developing and mastering appropriate METHODS OF INSTRUCTION (role-plays, case studies, participatory learning, video and computer-assisted teaching) 5.6 5-7 2-7
FINDING A BALANCE re EMPHASIS ON THEORY AND PRACTICE 5.6 5-6 3-7
FINDING and hiring QUALIFIED FACULTY 5.6 5-7 1-7
LOCATING AND MAINTAINING ACTUAL PRACTICE OPPORTUNITIES/SITES for students 5.3 4-6 4-7
Developing an appropriate APPROACH TO INSTRUCTION 5.3 5-6 2-7


Table 7

METHODS USED TO SUPERVISE STUDENT SKILL DEVELOPMENT Percentage of respondents using method
Observation and evaluation of students doing simulated interventions or skill demonstrations 90%
Students keep self evaluation forms and/or journals 85%
Student serves as co-mediator or co-facilitator with more experienced practitioner, receives feedback from mentor 75%
Peer supervision by other students 55%
Videotaping and analysis of student simulated interventions 40%
Feedback from real disputants re student intervention in their dispute 15%
Videotaping and analysis of student interventions in real disputes  5%
Use of observation by supervisor behind one-way mirror  0%
Other (site supervisor does performance assessment, faculty internship advisor evaluates student via papers on experience, etc.) 30%


Table 8

ETHICAL ISSUES FACING DR PROGRAMS
Rate the following issues as to how important a concern they are for DR programs
ETHICAL ISSUE Average Score Central 50% of Responses Range of Responses
ÒImperialismÓ of one model or form of practice 5.7 5-6 4-7
Overselling the value of mediation and mediation training 5.7 5-7 4-7
Masking concerns related to structural violence 5.6 5-7 4-7
Underprepared intervenors taking on ÒbigÓ cases 5.5 4-7 4-7
Neutrality of intervenors 5.3 4-6 3-7
Too much advocacy of DR without supporting evidence 5.2 4-6 3-7
Lack of willingness by existing practitioners to mentor new entrants into the field 5.0 4-6 3-7
Too much focus on process to the exclusion of content learning 4.9 4-6 4-7
Inadequate job market for the number of students programs will be producing 4.7 4-6 1-7
Overprofessionalization of the field 4.4 4-5 2-6
Effects of research efforts on participants 4.0 3-5 2-7
Persons of low moral character practicing DR 3.9 3-5 1-6

Table 9

Method for Addressing Ethics Average Score Central 50% of Responses Range of Responses
DR programs should weave ethical issues throughout the curriculum 6.7 6-7 6-7
DR programs should have a separate course on ethics 4.1 4-5 3-5
DR ethics are best left to the various professional organizations in the field 2.1 1-3 1-4

Table 10

Colleges and Universities as Certifiers (of ADR Practitioners) Average Score Central 50% of Responses Range of Responses
Certification of DR intervenors will be a reality in most states within the next 10 years 5.0 5-6 2-7
Colleges and University programs would have difficulty setting a high enough practice standard due to market pressures to keep enrollment high 4.5 4-5 3-6
Colleges and universities are appropriate sites for the certification of local practitioners 4.0 2-6 1-7
Graduate programs should support the idea of certifying intervenors, whether or not it is universities that provide the certification 3.7 2-5 1-7
Colleges and Universities would do a better job of certification than governmental or professional bodies due to their relative objectivity and neutrality 3.7 2-5 1-7
Due to the wide range of DR practice areas, certification of competency is not feasible 3.7 2-5 1-6

Table 11

JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR DR GRADUATES Average Score Central 50% of Responses Range of Responses
Most jobs for DR students will be within existing professions that are modifying their practices using DR concepts 6.0 5-7 4-7
The number of people interested in doing DR is greater than the opportunities to practice it 5.3 4-6 2-7
The DR job field is wide open for all students with an entrepreneurial spirit, creativity, and patience 4.5 4-5 3-7
There are few if any distinct careers for DR students 3.9 3-5 2-6

BACK to the ARTICLE

Accessibility | Privacy policy | Contact us | Feedback
©1997-2004 Wayne State University & William Warters. All rights reserved.
 Page Last Updated 4/29/04

Use FreeTranslation.com to translate this page into