 |
NOTES FOLLOW BELOW
The "Contentious Conversations" Series
"Contentious Conversations" is a planned series of moderated, informal discussions on some of the key tensions that define our field. By promoting dialogue on these themes, we hope to foster community in diversity, spark new insights and collaborations, and give us all a chance to get together for some intellectual exchange
CONVERSATION I: THEORY AND PRACTICE
Description: ICAR defines itself as a community committed to the bridging of theory and practice. Yet it is not always clear how we define these key terms, the range of approaches to conflict they reference, and their relation to each other. What do “theory” and “practice” mean to you? Where do they intersect or oppose?
Convenors: Leslie Dwyer, Thomas Flores
Panelists: Terrence Lyons, Dennis Sandole, Leslie Dwyer
Format: Panelists will each spend 5 minutes offering their thoughts on the theme, followed by a moderated discussion including the audience.
Feel free to bring your lunch. Coffee and tea will be provided!
_____________________________________________________________________
NOTES FROM THE CONVERSATION:
Panelists: Profs. Leslie Dwyer, Dennis Sandole, Terrence Lyons
Moderator: Prof. Daniel Rothbart
Welcome and Introduction
Thomas Flores welcomed panelists, moderator and all gathered to this first in the proposed series of Contentious Conversations:
The reason for gathering is to move conversations about the field out of the “hallways” of ICAR and into a space where we can all take part in them more fully. The next one will be on Thursday, Feb. 10, and will focus on the role of research at ICAR. Is it positive? Is it desirable?
Today’s conversation will focus on definitions of theory and practice. What do such terms mean to us?
Panelists
Leslie Dwyer began by offering that the intent of these conversations is an exchange of opinions in a spirit of informality. She continued with a set of questions and tensions, noting first the certain style of practice reflected in the ICAR Practice Project questions. E.g., the question, “Who are my practice clients?” manifested a traditional frame, in which theory is generated, then drives practice in the field. But she noted the way that discourse can privilege some and marginalize others.
Continuing, she noted that theory, explicit or implicit, always underlies practice. Alluding to Severine Autesserre’s essay “Hobbes in the Congo,” she reminded us that the frameworks for imagining society and personhood which we bring to conflict drive interventions in particular ways. But it is better to theorize openly. So, how do we define practice and theory at ICAR? How are we defining this tension? Is there a privileging of theory or practice at ICAR? Theory can become hegemonic. What about approaches to collaborative work and “democratizing” the production of theory? [This paragraph was clarified by LD in review of the notes.]
Dennis Sandole began by noting the good turn-out for the conversation, the “best in 30 years.” Referring to Leslie’s “tensions,” he raised the question of possible hegemony as a basis for fruitful collaborative work. In his view, research must be brought in as an essential bridge.
Theory provides the basis for explaining and/or understanding the conflict and as such, for effective intervention. But theory needs practice and research. Sandole offered Wilkonson and Pickett’s The Spirit Level as an example of excellent theory-based research that can serve as basis for practice. The volume, which he called “the most important book of my life,” offers 30 years of research on the wealthiest countries, with poor health metrics as indicators of structural violence. Structural violence is of course a major theoretical underpinning in the field of CAR.
Terrence Lyons observed that before coming to ICAR, no one had asked him, “What is your practice?” He remarked that perhaps there is something about ICAR or the field which raises this question, adding that is always puzzles him.
Reflecting on his own work, he described its parts: to research, write, teach, and lecture. But all of that is in his role as professor. Separate from that, what’s left? Which part is ‘practice’? Lyons showed two documents he had written for different audiences, one academic and one in the political policy field. Which is “practice”? Separating by audience, he argued, didn’t seem the best way to differentiate theory from practice. Possible positions seem that everything is practice or nothing is practice. What is to be gained by calling some part practice, some part not?
General Discussion (all participants):
These notes are paraphrases from type-written notes, not a transcript. They are kept in first person to keep the flow of the comments.
The ICAR Practice Project conversation reflected a tension. I didn’t separate out practice until asked to do a project by Dr. Bartoli.
Terrence does do practice. Practice, any practice with any parties involved in conflict.
Then what is field research?
We have theory, practice, maybe research inbetween. On the way to China, I asked by what right am I getting flown to China as an expert in anything to give advise to people in China? I have theories. Theories are simplifications of reality. Statistics imply uncertainty. Any theory that’s built has to be considered and contextualized before it can be put into practice. Would expect something deeper to move from grand theory to practice.
We need middle level theories, without which there is an epistemic gap between theory and practice.
The problem is identified but not sufficiently detailed yet. Is there not enough practice taught at ICAR ? A gap between theory and practice in the field?
Are we definitionally poor? We don’t have a well-differentiated, complex definition of practice. Is it action? Is it engaged, real-time feedback loops? Having clients? Existing systems? Engaging with conflict to ameliorate its effects?
I’m beginning to hear some points – ‘definitionally poor,’ ‘epistemic gaps’ – but I’m not sure we’ve fully fleshed out why [the theory/practice question] matters to us. What are the stakes of the question?
Something implicit about practice as something we ‘do’. At the end of the day, it’s the theories that are around. I think when we start worrying about practice, we lose the intelligent conversation.
Speaking on behalf of those proud to do practice… it’s an artificial differentiation. The issue is partly about meaning-making, which is necessary to reflective practice. I think we should see all parts as informing the others.
Of 39 protracted conflicts, 31 are recurrent conflicts? That’s a big miss in the field of conflict resolution. Are we getting at causes, the right levels? What are we doing if (we have) 80% recurrent conflicts?
What percentage of the work is “our” practice? Not sure if these … are part of the larger realm (such as the work of the defense department). We should talk to practitioners outside of “CR”.
I’m feeling things. Theory and practice need not be integrated. Theory is a temporary description of the world. It’s a way of making sense of the world that then needs to be engaged with the world. For me, the focus is conversations. I end up learning. There’s a continuum of theory/practice … one big conversation that loops back on itself in a way that never returns to where it started.
I have talked with defense folks. They want to ‘negotiate’ with locals. Two billion copies of ‘Getting to Yes’ have been sold! Yet that work expresses hegemonically defined conflict resolution as negotiating interests. That approach is enormously productive at some level and also completely destructive. I am excited to evolve conversation about negotiation. If we want to call that ‘theory’ fine, but “I am busy on the planet moving conversations as I can.”
‘Practitioners out there’… I’m remembering Sandy Chedelin’s “Practice is something we should aspire to.” Military folk just want to know what to do. They don’t want to know origins. There’s a disconnect, and that affects translation; it’s not a full cycle. I want to understand why the theory matters.
On global and local discourse, I assume we all think there’s interdependency between areas. Is it “collapsing” of areas? What should we do now? Advance the field? Make it better, clearer?
When I hear the term practice, (I come from an ADR background), I think of practice as models. This means that there’s an intentionality behind it… a design process, with a beginning, middle, and end. When I say, “ICAR doesn’t teach practice,” I mean we’re not learning how to do peacebuilding. For master’s students – what is their practice going to be in terms of processes and models? How do we answer the question from military folks – not why but ‘how’? What are the theories behind the practice? What are theories behind the questions, behind the words?
What’s great about ICAR is that it’s multidisciplinary. Confidence in theory falls away in face of embedded reality. Theory is a contingent, temporary way of making sense. Practice is an engagement, but the ways in which we engage tend to be all over the map. Theories reflect moral orders. At ICAR, we share a valuing of human beings. Where we’re ‘definitionally poor’ is in not talking about that stuff. There’s a lot of disagreement and silence around different models because we don’t have highly developed way of talking about that. We are mostly here because we care about people, but not everyone does it the same way. We talk about theories—policy options, etc.—but we don’t talk about moral order.
We need Aristotle again. But there are contemporary Aristotles.
For me, ICAR has been very practice-oriented. It’s given me great opportunities. We can make our own design.
In a more concrete way, Theory/Research/Practice is like learning. It’s cyclical: something critical happens, then reflection, then theories, then action. There’s a reflection cycle. If we really wanted to get long-term interventions, it would be best for me [for example] to partner with someone who complements me. I need a theorist. As a team, learning process could be very powerful…learning to work collaboratively, different cultures and meaning-systems.
Teams of students, perhaps… Wallace (Warfield) is in the room. Reflective practice, reflective analysis.
(We need to) do analysis of what’s being said when it is said. IPP is part of that. Also, examine what is said in different settings: are we scholars, experts? I have opted for “scholarship and practice” as opposed to “theory and practice,” which implies that I have theory, you have experience.
Are we talking about, do we need access to different kinds of comparisons? Spaces for different discourses?
Is there something about efficacy of action? Could I go lead an environmental workshop? Do I know enough?
…Hegemony of quantification
[Closing]
Submitted by Ted Thompson
Doctoral student, ICAR