Wednesday, July 5, 2017

Contemplating the Need for more Peacebuilders

Peacebuilders are trained professionals who deal with conflict inside organizations and between individuals, groups and organizations (including countries).  They have, for a long time, made important contributions in many different realms.  Their job is to not to tell people what to do, but rather to help disputants or stakeholders devise and implement ways of dealing with their differences. Often, their contributions don’t get the visibility they deserve.

I want to look at what peacemakers do in several different realms, enumerating the unique skills they need to be effective, and describe how they can go about acquiring these skills.  I also want to explore some of the reasons peacebuilders sometimes have difficulty finding work, and how they can overcome the barriers that sometimes keep them on the sidelines.

The chances of peacebuilders finding work improve if they are first specialists in a specific realm. That is, they need both peacebuilding skills AND specialized knowledge in fields like law, business management, public policy and urban planning, international relations, industrial relations, organizational studies, social media, or family counselling. In my experience, peacemakers are more likely to get hired if they have specialized knowledge in a particular realm; but, they are more likely to succeed because they have professional peacebuilding skills.

In many realms, disputants or stakeholders are unaware that there are people (sometimes sitting right next to them in their own organization) who can provide assistance, not by endorsing their objectives or advocating on their behalf, but by facilitating more constructive dialogue or engagement with the very people the disputant views as the source of their problem. Sometimes peacebuilders make their services available through stand-alone organizations or firms. Other times, they are embedded inside organizations (like the United Nations) where conflicts often emerge.

Many times, in the midst of a conflict, disputants don’t want someone to help them resolve their differences. Instead, they want someone to help them defeat the other side (at the very least, to teach the other side a lesson). Peacebuilders are almost always “Principled Pragmatists” seeking to help all sides achieve an outcome that meets their most important interests -- certainly something better than the parties are likely to achieve if they just let events unfold. For many disputants, that’s not the help they want. They’d prefer someone who will take their side and zealously advocate their interests in a battle to the bitter (win-lose) end. That not what peacebuilders do; and, that’s often the reason their services are rebuffed.

My own work sometimes involves a country trying to enhance its water security.  The country shares a river or a lake with its neighbors. The country thinks the only way to ensure its water security is to intimidate its neighbors, out-muscle them, or take as much water for itself before anyone else can. The country doesn’t realize that this actually decreases its water security. Other countries are often desperate enough that they will do anything they can to block efforts by someone upstream that puts them at a disadvantage. I try to point out, even to powerful countries, that the best way to guarantee your water security is to help your neighbors achieve their water security. Once they see this clearly, all sides can begin to work together on new methods of reducing water loss, promoting recycling, implementing new technologies that make it easier to move water to points where it is needed, and working out agreements by which neighbors promise to come to each other’s aid in periods of drought.

In many conflict situations, what the participants are battling about is a superficial representation of a deeper historical disagreement.  In conflicts between countries, for example, the latest skirmish may just the latest episode in an ongoing battle.  The partisans can’t imagine “making peace” with their adversaries.  That would mean acknowledging the legitimacy of the other side’s claims, or accepting all the bad things the other side might have done in the past. Peacebuilders, though, look at the prospect of escalation that might lead to increasing violence or serious social disruption, and think that some way can surely be found to help the parties reach a settlement (that meets the most important interests of all sides). They presume such an outcome would be better than the loss of additional life or further destruction.  That’s why I say that peacebuilders are principled pragmatists: they know how to de-escalate tension, avoid more serious confrontation and help parties engage in problem-solving. While settlement may sometimes include apologies for past actions or compensation for past losses, most settlements focus on ways of moving forward -- reducing risks to all sides while embracing mutually agreed upon principles of fairness and justice.  Better to have a pretty good agreement than to continue the battle.

Only a small number of people are cut out to be peacebuilders (in any realm).  These are the folks who are less concerned about establishing who’s right and who’s wrong, and more concerned about laying the groundwork for reconciliation, or a way of moving forward that improves working relationships and helps all sides meet their most important interests at the same time. One of the criticisms of peacebuilders is that they are usually willing to settle for an end to a conflict, even if the underlying causes of the dispute are not addressed.  

I will give an example of a person, group, or organization that does peacebuilding in each of seven different realms.  I hope you will notice the cross-cutting similarities.

Legal and Judicial Realm: When you go to court, there’s usually a winner and loser. The court has no obligation to help the parties reach a mutually satisfactory outcome. The only issues that can be debated are issues of law, and these are often narrowly framed, and may have nothing to do with the real source of the disagreement. All over the world, court systems now encourage prospective litigants to work with private mediators to resolve their differences. This can save all the parties money, and save the court time. (With overcrowded dockets, this is no small thing.)  Most of all, mediation gives the parties control over the outcome. They don’t have to roll the dice with a judge or a jury. There are private firms, like Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS) that provide peacebuilding services in court-annexed situations. There are also court systems that maintain rosters of qualified private mediation providers.  Some mediators are lawyers, some are not.  A few are former judges.  All have specialized training in the legal field. Many states in the US insist that mediators who want to help resolve court-annexed disputes complete state-approved (40 hour) training programs.

Mediated solutions don’t set a precedent. Sometimes they are not even recorded, although they must usually be approved by the court that encouraged litigants to try to settle. Usually, the parties in court-annexed mediation are still represented by counsel. The problem-solving that goes on, however, is more informal than a typical court proceeding; and, the parties can take up any matters they like.

There are thousands of trained peacebuilders working in the United States, Europe and a number of other countries. Most law schools now offer courses in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for students who want to learn how to help their clients settle. My colleague David Hoffman, runs a firm in Boston that offers Collaborative Lawyering for parties who want legal counsel committed to help them resolve their differences.

Managerial/Business Realm: When business partners have a falling out, or firms are battling over the ownership of intellectual property or the value of a certain deal, peacebuilders with substantial background in the business world can be of help.  Peacebuilders in this context often work with each party to help them prepare realistic calculations of what things are worth, and what each party’s “next best option” is likely to be if no agreement is reached. Peacebuilders in a business context usually have specialized skills in decision analysis or finance. Some of my colleagues at Harvard Business School, like Jim Sebenius and David Lax, have formed companies to provide this kind of service.  Also, within certain businesses, there are managers who have learned the skills of facilitative leadership.” While these are not synonymous with peacebuilding skills, they certainly overlap.  So, when conflicts occur inside organizations, leaders with facilitative leadership skills can sometimes help resolve disagreements by assisting the parties involved. Unfortunately, most business schools still teach classic “strong leader” management rather than facilitative leadership skills. So, senior officials in most organizations are not the right people to bring peacebuilding skills to bear when internal conflicts erupt.

Public Policy Realm (include environmental dispute resolution): At the federal, state and local level, disagreements often emerge over the setting of public policy priorities, the allocation of public resources (including budgets) and the setting of environmental, health and safety standards. While we have administrative processes in place to give the public a chance to speak out before or after such decisions are made, there are firms like the not-for-profit Consensus Building Institute (CBI) that provide peacebuilding assistance in public policy disputes around the world. Some governmental bodies are now convinced that bringing the relevant stakeholders together in a consensus-building effort -- before government decision-makers commit to a course of action -- is a good idea.  These public officials realize that it is valuable to know ahead of time how they might handle a contentious issue in a way that all parties will applaud. Government decision-makers are not allowed by law to cede decision-making authority to ad hoc assemblies of stakeholders, but there is no restriction on bringing groups together with the help of professional peacemakers to generate recommendations aimed at meeting the interests of all sides. Staff of the relevant government agencies usually participate in these efforts to ensure that legal and political concerns are taken into account. Ultimately, elected and appointed officials must make the final decisions, but when peacebuilding is effective, decisions are likely to be implemented more quickly, and at lower cost. And, public trust in government increases. 

The peacebuilders who provide services of this kind usually have a background in urban planning, public management or public administration. They typically apprentice in multi-party negotiation situations.  When CBI works outside the United States, it tries to involve skilled public dispute mediators from the relevant country. Mediation in the public policy realm requires a well-calibrated ability to read the relevant cultural context.

International Relations Realm:  Most people have heard of one country providing peacebuilding assistance to help settle a dispute between two or more other countries.  Often former heads of state are the mediators in these situations. But, there are also peacebuilding institutions, like the United Nations, that provide mediation assistance that is less visible to the rest of the world.  Red Cross/Red Crescent can provide neutral services in a war zone. Not-for-profit institutions, like the U.S. Institute for Peace, the International Crisis Group, or various religious organizations (like Quaker) have provided peacemaking assistance in many parts of the world.  There are individuals, like John Paul Lederach and my colleague, William Ury, who are affiliated with various universities, who have been very effective peacebuilders in a number of “hot” conflicts.  Why the secretaries-general of all the multilateral institutions in the world don’t avail themselves of professional peacemaking services, I don’t really know. At a meeting we once had at the behest of former-U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s Center in Georgia, the secretaries-general at the time were asked why they didn’t use professional peacebuilders more often. They didn’t really have an answer. Subsequently, the creation of the Global Elders, a group of former heads of state and secretaries-general committed to peacebuilding, was launched by Nelson Mandela in 2007. This appears to have increased  awareness of the assistance peacebuilders can offer in the realm of international relations.

I don’t think it is necessary for peacebuilders in this realm to have held high office. Indeed, we have many examples of professional mediators making important peacebuilding contributions.  The key, is for officials at the center of such disputes to seek and accept peacebuilding assistance.

Scientific Realm: When scientific and technical issues are in dispute, especially within the context of international policy-making, it is important that scientists with peacebuilding skills and experience get involved. Unfortunately, very few scientists are prepared to participate in such situations.  My MIT colleague, Professor Ernest Moniz, is a physicist with extensive technical background on nuclear issues. He has been able to bridge the scientific and political divide in a number of nuclear disputes, even when representing the United States government. Professor Paul Berkman at Tufts University has extensive experience as an Arctic and Antarctic explorer and expert.  He is committed to training a new generation of science diplomats who can help to facilitate polar policy discussions involving many nations (including First People) along with industry and environmental groups. This requires that scientists go beyond their normal training to gain expertise in diplomacy (and, in parallel, that some diplomats devote time to learning more than they might normally know about particular scientific and technical issues).  We need more universities to offer training in science diplomacy to scientists and engineers.

Workplace/Labor Relations Realm:  In the industrial relations field, peacebuilders have long played important institutionalized roles.  Collective bargaining is often assisted by mediators. In the United States, we have laws regarding the way that such peacebuilding activities are supposed to unfold.  At one time, schools of industrial relations trained a great number of mediators. This is no longer the case. Still, there are mediators in many countries with specialized sectoral knowledge who mediate contract bargaining disputes in particular segments of the economy.  There are also mediators who handle other workplace disagreements.  In some settings, these are ombudsmen and women who work full time for companies, hospitals, universities, government agencies or newspaper publisher, and provide neutral assistance aimed at resolving consumer complaints and workplace disagreements.  It helps when all parties (i.e. managers and employees) understand how peacebuilding in the workplace is meant to operate.  My colleague, Marcia Greenbaum, has served as a mediator in unionized work settings for her whole illustrious career.  I don’t know where the next generation of professional labor mediators is being trained.

Domestic Relations Realm:  Many family counsellors and social workers know that disputes in the realm of domestic relations are best settled with the help of trained peacebuilders.  This is a context in which ongoing relationships, after a presenting dispute has been settled, need to be maintained. So, working out disagreements in a way that improves relationships is important. This requires special skills. In the United States, divorce mediation is a sub-industry in the dispute resolution field.  Some family therapists and social workers are trained as mediators. For many years, there was a separate association of divorce mediators with members in most states in America. Not all professionals involved in domestic relations need to be peacebuilders, although they would all do well to learn some peacebuilding skills as part of their graduate education.


I don’t think there is any doubt that we need more trained peacebuilders in all the realms I have described (and in others as well).  Not everyone is emotionally suited, however, to provide peacebuilding services. Some people are more comfortable in advocacy roles. For many, Principled Pragmatism is not comfortable. While many peacebuilders are prepared to mentor or host apprentices, we need to create a lot more opportunities along these lines. The best way for people starting out in a peacebuilding career is to apprentice. This provides a chance to see close up whether this pathway makes sense, as well as an opportunity to begin formulating a personal theory of practice. While the “entrance requirements” are low in most of the realms I have described, opportunities to build a professional career requires dedication over an extended period of time. From my experienced, only the most passionate peacemakers are likely to succeed.

Sunday, May 28, 2017

We Need Science Diplomacy!

 My colleague, Professor Paul Berkman, has launched a Science Diplomacy Center at Tufts University. This is a campus-wide initiative coordinated through the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.  I look forward to working with him. We are going to offer a two day workshop this August for PHD students in Boston area universities interested in learning more about ways of ensuring that their dissertation findings are presented in a compelling way to policy-makers. To do this, we will try to equip them (including natural and social scientists) to function as “science diplomats.”  There has been lots written about the need to enhance the “policy literacy”of technical specialists; we are not talking about that.  That is mostly focused on the clarity and understandability of technical communication.  Rather, science diplomats jump into the PROCESS of managing change, particularly when common resources are involved (i.e. oceans, the atmosphere, the Arctic, Antarctic, outer space, ocean floor, great rivers, and more), especially those that cross as well as extend beyond the boundaries of nations. This involves taking action with an eye toward balance and inclusion. Being helpful requires taking account of the interests of all, not just voicing an (informed) opinion.

The science diplomacy process hinges on (1) the acquisition and presentation of evidence regarding the way socio-ecological systems have changed, are changing and might change in the future; (2) attention to the records of government agreements and commitments (i.e. constitutions, laws, treaties, regulations, contracts, etc.) that spell out the rights and responsibilities of citizens, corporations, non-governmental actors, state and multi-state agencies; (3) the voices of stakeholders, both those who are already organized and those who are not; and (4) negotiation, or problem-solving, aimed at reconciling the conflicting interests (of stakeholders and governments). From my standpoint, such negotiations need to be facilitated or mediated by professional process managers.   The output of these negotiations can be used or ignored by those with decision-making responsibilities. 

What do potential science diplomats neeed to know to be effective? With regard to evidence, they need to know how to model complex systems and explain the dynamics of socio-ecological systems. When they present forecasts, they need to know how to acknowledge uncertainty and explain the sensitivity of their historical explanations and prospective forecasts to non-objective assumptions scientists are obliged to make (e.g., what time frame or geographic area to use for purposes of forecasting). Finally, they need to know how to gather, sort and “clean” many kinds of data gathered in the field and turn these data into evidence for decision making.  With regard to government records, they need to know how to read and interpret official agreements and operating rules. This is not so straightforward as many people imagine.  There are often multiple agreements, at different scales, that all apply in the same situation. And, often, (as Justice Holmes once said) general principles don’t decide concrete cases. Interpreting which rights and responsibilities apply requires learned interpretation. With regard to interaction with stakeholders, science diplomats must learn how to engage in stakeholder assessment (i.e. figuring out which groups have a legitimate claim to be involved in particular decisions and who can speak for them). They also need to know how to present the views of hard-to-represent stakeholders (like future generations!). Helping stakeholders clarify their interests, especially when they are part of fractious groups, is difficult, but it is the science diplomats job to do so.

Science diplomats need to be “at the table” when negotiations begin.  We know that this is too often not the case.  Typically, each “side” comes with evidence prepared by “its” scientific advisors. At that point, the battle of the print-out begins. We are not talking about this kind of advocacy science.  Rather, we believe that science diplomacy requires the involvement of interdisciplinary teams of scientists as process advisors – at the table.  Most scientists have never received ANY instruction about how to function in this context.  We need to enrich the repertorie of individual science diplomats so they can help to craft case-appropriate ways of participating in the process of guiding change. 

Many scientists have no interest in serving as science diplomats.  That’s fine.  There is plenty of work for them as disciplinary specialists. But, we need a growing cadre of scientists who want to engage in the interdisciplinary process of science diplomacy. This becomes increasingly urgent, as decisions made now are foreclosing our ability to protect, preserve or renew the sustainability of our world on a planetary scale. We are mindful of the horrors of “world wars” and the acceleration of human population growth from one billion people at the start of the industrial revolution toward eight billion by end of this decade.    

Science diplomats can convene dialogues among allies and adversaries alike, pointing out common interests, and reminding everyone that we are a globally-interconnected civilization facing the fundamental challenge of balancing national interests and common interests for the benefit of everyone on Earth.

Sunday, May 7, 2017

What's Happening in the Field of Urban Planning?

The MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning is one of 72 university departments in North America that offers a professional (MCP) degree in urban and regional planning. MIT will graduate about 70 MCP degree candidates this year. All told, something close to 3,000 graduate degrees in planning will be offered in the United States and Canada this June.   

Graduates of planning schools, including MIT, can find work in the public sector, the private sector and as staff and leaders of civil society organizations both in the United States and elsewhere in the world. About 30% of the students currently enrolled at MIT are not US citizens.  The incoming MCP class includes citizens of Argentina, Switzerland, Canada, China, India, Indonesia, Spain, Israel, Mexico, Singapore, Pakistan, Viet Nam, Iraq and Trinidad and Tobago.  That equals the average non-US enrollment in all the urban planning schools in North America.  The percentage of non-US citizens in MCP programs has held relatively constant for the past few years.

Planning schools offer a variety of specializations.  At MIT, there are four primary areas of
specialization:  City Design and Development, Environmental Policy and Planning; Housing and
Community Economic Development and International Development.  In addition, there are three cross-cutting areas of study: transportation systems planning, urban information systems and multi-regional systems planning.  Each planning school offers a unique curriculum, but all college and university departments that are accredited have to cover certain basic skills and give students opportunities to learn by doing, either through paid internships or required field-based projects. Each school offers whatever specializations its faculty can support. Many schools also invest heavily in maintaining their alumni network and providing job placement assistance to their students.  While 5% of each year’s MCP class at MIT continues on for further graduate study, almost all the rest find rewarding planning-related jobs within three to six months after graduation.

The average planner in America earns about $80,000 a year, but most are less concerned with the salaries they make than they are with playing an active role in helping communities solve key problems like the provision of affordable housing, enhancement of meaningful job opportunities, protection of important natural resources, managing the risks associated with climate change, improving basic urban and regional infrastructure (including better transit and mobility),  and providing greater opportunities for citizens to participate in helping their communities make decisions that affect them.  The full list of problems is much longer, especially in the developing world.

In terms of the demographic mix of students entering the MIT MCP program in 2017, about 52% are female and 48% male. This is the same gender balance we have had for a number of years. MIT is not alone in this regard. In addition, MIT enrollment the past few years has been about 45% non-white (i.e. 15% Black or African-American, 30% Asian-American, and 1% Native-American).

While planners in the past were often preoccupied with the formulation of community master plans or zoning ordinances, that is no longer true. Today’s planners are committed to taking action – helping to implement improvements in the quality of life, particularly for the most vulnerable segments of society, often through public-private partnerships of various kinds. Whether employed by neighborhood, city, metropolitan, state or national agencies, private companies or NGOs, planners are busy trying to facilitate social change.  Many MIT graduates are engaged in entrepreneurial activities – often aiming to create new companies or organizations that know how to use digital technology to disrupt traditional ways of delivering public services or managing community economic development (again, both in the US and overseas).  

The U.S. Department of Labor Statistics says that there are about 35,000 practicing urban planners in the United States. Canada counts 6,500 (and currently lists urban planning as one of the top jobs in the country because of the rapid growth of cities). It’s hard to find reliable numbers for other countries.

To repeat: graduate students studying at MIT are as interested in planning in the developing world (i.e. the “global South”) as they are in working in the developed nations of the “North.” Many expect to work in both parts of the world during their professional careers.  And, if they stay mostly in the United States, they are probably going to move around quite a bit.

The DUSP faculty continues to diversify – demographically and by fields of expertise.  The most recent additions to the faculty over the past few years come from public health, law, political geography, anthropology, urban and regional economics, urban design, and infrastructure planning. The last two members of the DUSP faculty to receive tenure have been women.  We have new joint degrees with the Department of Civil Engineering and the Sloan School of Management along with continuing double degrees with Architecture, the Media Lab and Political Science. In any given semester, students can choose among field-based projects and faculty led studios and practicums in Malaysia, Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Israel, Singapore, Brazil, Philippines, China, Mozambique, Haiti, Kenya and a wide range of projects in various parts of the United States.

The Department of Urban Studies and Planning is in a leadership role on the MIT campus, participating in the Environmental Solutions Initiative, the MIT Energy Initiative, the reformulated interdisciplinary transportation degree program, undergraduate teacher education in STEM subjects, the Real Estate Entrepreneurship Lab and emerging cross-campus teaching and research programs focused on Negotiation and Leadership, Healthy Cities and Social Entrepreneurship. DUSP faculty have never been as fully engaged with colleagues in the Schools of Science, Engineering and Management as they are now.

I have been on the DUSP faculty for 47 years.  I’ve seen tremendous changes in what planning students want to learn, what they seek to accomplish in the world, what the faculty are able to teach, the kinds of action-research in which students and faculty are engaged, the shift from plan-making to collaborative problem-solving, and the way our field fits with the ever-shifting pattern of evolving disciplines.  The things that haven’t changed are our focus on improving the quality of life in places and spaces, our commitment to a range of progressive values, and our continued involvement in improving both our analytic capabilities and our understanding of the politics of social change.

I expect the number of students seeking to enroll in professional degree programs in urban planning will grow.  With more people living in cities around the world, and an increasing share of college graduates looking for meaningful work that allows them to contribute to real-life problem-solving, a career in urban planning looks increasingly attractive.