|
Introduction
Purpose of this publication
Six degrees of separation are too many: Everybody's just too busy. Experience
has shown that people who could really use a bit of advice are unlikely to cross
more than one or two bridges to find the right person. The Guide to Dispute
Resolution Practitioners and Researchers is intended to help serious people, in
what is now a scattered and wildly diverse field, to find each other more
easily.
The edition you are seeing is the third. Initially, this document was
published on paper, was intended for the exclusive use of researchers, and
listed about 75 highly experienced practitioners in a wide variety of settings,
who were willing to provide advice, and perhaps, entertain new or challenging
notions about practice. The second edition incorporated a cross_section of
scholars. This third edition updates the lists and moves them into the CRInfo
structure, where they will be more easily found---and cross_referenced against
other CRInfo data. I hope this will help program managers, policy makers and
experienced practitioners identify whom to call when existing policies,
practices and program evaluations seem to need a fresh look. Please note also
that this edition is also cross_referenced to serve as a "self_serve
speaker's bureau."
I hope you will discover in these pages forms and degrees of expertise you
were not previously aware of, and that you will find these purposes useful.
Chris Honeyman, January 2001
The Fine Print
How respondents were invited
The conflict resolution field is replete with vigorous competition for all
sorts of listings, but as yet it lacks objective standards of quality and
experience. No universally acceptable way of choosing whom to invite for such a
directory is likely to be found. So I owe the reader an explanation of my
approach.
Since the first (1997) version of this publication, self_referrals have not
been allowed. Instead, I contacted practitioners whom I had regarded highly for
a long period of time and whom I knew to have an interest in the world of
scholarship and research. I engaged in a similar process among scholars (but
seeking an interest in the realities and constraints of practice.)
For areas of both practice and research with which I was personally
unfamiliar, I began by asking well_known practitioners and scholars with
experience in those areas to name others whom they thought might be particularly
helpful in the context of this directory. Sources of such advice are anonymous
here, but I should note that some of the most obvious sources, who kindly
recommended other experienced practitioners and scholars in their own fields,
begged off from being listed themselves because they had been overloaded with
inquiries already. Fortunately, this was not the usual response, even among a
group with exceptional levels of experience and exceptionally difficult
schedules.
Biases must be admitted. The primary one here is inevitable in any such
document put together by an individual: Its composition is influenced by the
accidents of acquaintance. While an effort has been made to cover the likely
philosophical, experience and demographic bases, this document should be taken
as a starting point, and the goal of a truly cross_sectional portrayal of the
expertise of this field, which has now grown beyond any one individual's scope
of understanding, remains elusive. The best help I can offer is that I have made
an attempt to seek out people who have long Rolodexes of their own. Through
contacting one or two of them, you should be able to reduce materially the
"degrees of separation" between you and the person you really need.
A number of top_notch professionals are omitted either because they have in
the past seemed to me to be overcommitted, or simply because they happen not to
be personally known to me or to those I queried. This is a significant
limitation on the breadth of the listings. Together with an as_yet insufficient
level of ethnic diversity, these conditions mandate that this document be
offered with a certain amount of humility.
What's included
The elements included in listings are those identified by Theory to Practice
project members as being most likely to differentiate usefully highly
experienced practitioners and scholars. Interviews demonstrated the difficulty
of including full details about these sophisticated professional lives. Brief
descriptions will have to hint at what have often been complex and subtle
approaches, resulting in some of the most innovative practical and scholarly
work performed in this field. Note also that different people demonstrated a
different sense of the time spent on their various categories of work. Some
practitioners, for example, have made an effort to distinguish relatively
tightly between administrative and case work, while others have found "2000
hours" an adequate description of a year's work overall. The numbers are
accordingly loose and should be accepted as rough estimates only.
Possible misuse of this directory
There are several potential concerns which should be flagged here because, if
encountered with any frequency, they could seriously damage attempts to make
this an ongoing resource.
It should be, but sometimes isn't, obvious to anyone that the people listed
here tend to be very busy___which is how they acquired the knowledge that makes
them useful to you. Their time should be respected. Students, in particular, are
warned that while not all those listed here will be reluctant to hear from you,
requesting a faculty member of your institution to make a quick call or
email to introduce you would be a courtesy that's likely to be reciprocated.
Adroit selection of a local faculty member for preliminary advice will also help
you "get your ducks in a row."
A more important point is that the practitioners and scholars listed have
volunteered to give some brief advice on request when a new study is in the
works, and on similar occasions. That has included agreeing, at least in
principle, to give some priority to returning messages which cite this directory
as the basis of the call or email. They have NOT volunteered to fill out
surveys, or otherwise take part in any time_consuming way in ongoing research
projects, though some of them may be able and willing to help you find your way
to suitable panels of research "subjects." Similarly, scholars have
volunteered to make themselves available to experienced professionals and
program managers who need a bit of advice on how to rethink some of the
assumptions of their program's work, and the like. They have NOT
volunteered to provide assistance on routine papers, for students whose
questions could be answered readily by spending time in the library!
C.H., January 2001
Contents
| 
