Conflict Resolution
Program Concepts
Setting Expectations and Resolving Conflicts

Introduction

Research has shown that students who receive useful, early information about program expectations develop better working relationships, and are both more committed to the program and more productive in writing future publications (Green, 1991). Likewise, the more explicit these expectations, the better the role accommodation and the more productive these students are in the numbers of future publications (Bauer and Green, 1994). Hartnett and Katz (1977) posit that clarity about expectations results in more accountability on the part of both graduate students and faculty. Lovitts (1996) reports that students believe that they understand the formal requirements for a graduate program, but do not have the same understanding of informal expectations. Students who complete their doctoral degrees identify academic integration (interactions with faculty, other graduate students and life in the discipline) and an understanding of informal expectations as the most important aspects for successful graduate education ( Lovitts 1996).

Despite the research and the recommendations for improving graduate student attrition, the persistence rate of doctoral students (on average between 45-65% nationwide) has actually declined slightly (Tucker, et al, 1964; Bowen and Rudenstine, 1992) during the past 30 years. The persistence rate by discipline (highest for the physical sciences, lowest for the humanities) has not changed appreciably during the same time period. Although there is national recognition of the serious nature of interpersonal conflicts between graduate students and faculty, and the attrition rate for doctoral students still attracts attention as a research topic, our inquiries have not shown any other institution attempting to proactively reduce this problem. In fact, in the recent book Conflict Management in Higher Education (Holton, 1995), conflicts between graduate students and faculty are not mentioned. This lack of attention belies the extent of the problem and indicates a need to search for effective solutions to improve faculty-graduate student relations.

A Proactive Approach

Program goals are 1) to introduce interest-based negotiation strategies to faculty and graduate students for use in setting expectations and resolving conflicts, 2) to raise awareness of issues of potential conflict, particularly in doctoral education, 3) to improve graduate handbooks (where explicit expectations are codified), and 4) to improve retention.

The program does not assume that all issues in graduate education are negotiable or that the power differential between faculty and graduate students must become more equal; faculty are clearly still responsible for standards. The program also does not assume that all conflict is to be avoided. On the contrary, conflict over ideas is part of the intellectual core of graduate education. The program does not have a goal of 100% retention or completion of Ph.D. degrees. There are valid reasons for students not finishing; both by their choice and/or by the decisions of departmental faculty.

Program Description

• learning interest-based approaches and skills for negotiation and conflict resolution
• participating in facilitated discussions, using video vignettes as conversation triggers, about the specific areas of possible conflict and differing expectation within their discipline, or more broadly in graduate education generally
• using interest-based negotiation approaches and skills to establish collectively agreed-upon departmental understandings of mutual expectations and responsibilities
• improving effective communication skills (separate workshop)

The Video Vignettes

Interest-based Negotiation/Conflict Resolution Strategies

Interest-based negotiation and conflict resolution relies on five main strategies:

• the negotiation is focused on the problem and not on the people involved
• The focus is on the needs, desires, interests and fears underlying the positions
• a variety of options are generated that advance shared interests and creatively reconcile differing interests before making a final decision
• criteria reflecting a fair standard are used in reaching agreement. By discussing criteria, instead of firm positions, all parties can defer to a fair solution (which may include more than one option among those explored)
• successful negotiation that leads to a process whereby the parties respect flexibility and are willing to reenter the process again as the context changes

Program Options

The first option would focus on graduate students or faculty as separate groups of participants. All new graduate students need a clear understanding of the processes and demands of graduate education, and of the importance of their responsibility for the understanding of roles within the discipline. The acquisition of interest-based negotiation skills during orientation programs can aid them in this process of academic and social integration into their departments. Similarly, new faculty can use orientation programs to understand how university policies work and to understand the importance of clear communication of using interest-based approaches.

The exploration of these interest-based approaches by all interested faculty and students in cross-campus training sessions, either in mixed or separate student and faculty groups, is also a useful option and could be organized by the university within its faculty development programs, by the Graduate School for student groups and mixed groups, and by those campus units charged with raising university awareness of specific issues that can be addressed using these approaches (The Office of Intellectual Integrity, the Women's Resource Center, etc).

Whether training involves individuals as individuals or as members of larger groups, the campus-wide raising of consciousness of these approaches will result in interests, not positions, increasingly becoming the basis of discussion within those offices on campus responsible for adjudication of disputes. Making the implicit interests and desires explicit also makes the creation of multiple options and solutions more likely when a conflict does arise.

Although faculty and students in cross-disciplinary meetings can share and exchange experiences, it is really within their own departments that they can actively use these approaches to foster change and to set out mutually agreed-upon expectations of roles and responsibilities. Departments are home to multiple examples of implicit understandings and organizational folklore that affect the lives of graduate students and faculty, both as individuals and as a group. The use of interest based approaches could be used by faculty to discuss their understanding of key departmental policies and goals and to ensure that these are commonly understood. In addition, faculty can build a framework-- a net of common expectations-- that they can then use for discussions with students in setting individual expectations and goals. A second approach, which we believe holds the greatest promise, is a joint training and expectation-setting experience involving both graduate students and faculty in a single department, unit or sub-specialty.

Why Participate?

How Can You Participate?

Literature Cited

Bauer, T. N. and Green, S. G. (1994). "Effect of newcomer involvement in work-related activities: A longitudinal study of socialization." Journal of Applied Psychology (2): 211-223.
Importance of socialization to success, productivity for doctoral students.

Bowen, W. G. and Rudenstine, N. L. (1992). In Pursuit of the Ph.D. Princeton University Press. New Jersey. 442pp.
The classical work on doctoral retention.

Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books. New York. 200pp.
Popular press introduction to interest-based negotiation skills.

Golde, C. M. (1996). How Departmental Contextual Factors Shape Doctoral Student Attrition. Stanford University Ph.D. Dissertation. 432pp.
Importance of department environment to the success of students.

Green, S. G. (1991). "Professional entry and the advisor relationship: Socialization, commitment and productivity." Group and Organization Studies 16 (4): 387-407.
Importance of supportive faculty-student relationships to socialization.

Harnett, R. T. and Katz, J. (1977). "The Education of Graduate Students." Journal of Higher Education 48 (6): 646-664.
Optimizing graduate student intellectual and personal growth.

Holton, S. A. (1995). New Directions for Higher Education: Conflict Management in Higher Education 92: 129pp.
Summary of issues related to conflict.

Lovitts, B. E. (1996). Leaving the Ivory Tower: A Sociological Analysis of the Causes of Departure from Doctoral Study. University of Maryland Ph.D. Dissertation. 347 pp.
Very complete study across 9 disciplines and 2 universities.

Nerad, M. and Miller, D. S. (1996). "Increasing student retention in graduate and professional programs." New Directions for Institutional Research: Assessing Graduate and Professional Education 92: 61-67.
"Early Leavers" and "Late Leavers" - UC Berkeley data.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 257pp.
One chapter on graduate education.

Tucker, A., Gottlieb, D. and Pease, J. (1964). Factors Related to Attrition Among Doctoral Students. Cooperative Research Project No. 1146. Michigan State University. 296 pp.
Early examination of doctoral student attrition at MSU.

Websites on Conflict Resolution and Graduate Education

Association for Conflict Resolution
The Association for Conflict REsolution (ACR) is a professional organization dedicated to enhancing the practice and public understanding of conflict resolution. ACR represents and serves a diverse national and international audience that includes more than 6,000 mediators, arbitrators, facilitators, educators, and others involved in the field of conflict resolution and collaborative decision-making.