CAMPUS MEDIATION RESOURCES
Making the Case for Campus Mediation
by Bill Warters
(Originally published in The Fourth R, Vol. 55, Feb/March 1995)
Organizers of college and university mediation programs commonly face
the task of having to "sell" the concept of mediation services to reluctant
administrators. In this article, I briefly present a range of rationales
that I have used with some success to make the case for campus mediation.
As each campus setting is different, program developers will have to pick
and choose among these strategies based on their situation and the style
and personality of the particular administrators with whom they are dealing.
Unique Aspects of the College and University Environment
It is important to begin with some understanding of the unique aspects
of higher education settings. Analysts of higher ed have long pointed out
that colleges and universities are complex organizations that are different
in major respects from industrial organizations, government bureaus, and
business firms. For instance, Baldridge (Baldridge, et al., 1977) has argued
that in comparison to other more "rational-purposive" organizations, colleges
and universities must grapple with the following:
1) They rarely have a single clearly articulated mission and
thus suffer from goal ambiguity, and must therefore build decision processes
that can grapple with a higher degree of uncertainty and conflict;
2) They are "people processing" institutions that serve clients
who typically demand a voice in the decision-making processes;
3) They have a problematic technology, for in order to serve
clients (who are primarily students) their technology must be holistic
and adaptable to a wide range of individual needs;
4) They are professionalized organizations in which employees
demand a large measure of control over institutional decision processes;
5) They are becoming increasingly vulnerable to external political,
economic, and demographic pressures that make internal decision making
more difficult.
These and other similar characteristics have led higher education theorists
to describe universities as "organized anarchies" and "loosely coupled
systems (Weick, 1976). By providing a service that works to bridge the
gaps between different campus domains, campus mediation centers that work
with all sectors of the campus community can help "re-weave" and strengthen
a college's "loosely coupled" system in ways that will reduce destructive
conflict. A well-nourished mediation program play a key boundary-spanning
role in an effectively administered university. And because universities
are people-processing institutions that require flexibility, they can benefit
from a mediation service that is equipped to respond to the inevitable
exceptions that arise from ongoing attempts to standardize procedures.
There are a variety of good arguments for why campuses are conducive
settings for mediation. Some of them include:
-
1) Campuses create a definable community with clear boundaries and
shared social norms. This situation is similar in an unusual way to the
tribal and agrarian settings where mediation was first "discovered" and
studied by anthropologists in the 1950's and 60's. Simply leaving the community
or ignoring the other party as a means to resolve conflict does not come
as easily on college campuses as in some other settings, and thus mediation
makes sense.
-
2) Campuses typically include some very close quarters for both
student residents and staff. This almost invariably creates numerous situations
wherein a high density of people, often from very diverse backgrounds (urban/rural,
rich/poor, etc.), are required to interact frequently and interdependently
(as roommates, officemates, classmates, etc.), thereby creating both conflict
situations and the need to resolve them productively.
-
3) There is a great diversity of relatively strong "subcultures"
that co-exist on any particular campus. This leads to powerful differences
of perception, opinion, and lifestyle, which are common sources of conflict.
As Peterson and Spencer, in their article "Understanding Academic Culture
and Climate", remind us,
-
"The literature on differing perceptions of administrators, faculty, and
students and on the differences among disciplines and professions is extensive.
Sensitivity to the potential existence of subcultures and subclimates is
important for anyone doing (work) in this arena." (p 16)
-
The existance of these strong subcultures make campuses unique "conflict
laboratories" where individuals with great perceptual and value-based differences
must coexist in an environment that clings to overarching norms of collegiality
and reasoned persuasion.
-
4) Increasingly, the campus setting provides mediation program planners
with a range of in-house "conflict resolution experts" who have practical
and/or theoretical experience with various aspects of dispute resolution.
These people can be seen as allies and program architects. Asking around
at the Business School, Law School, Schools of Social Work or Teacher Education,
Peace Studies Programs, the Ombudsperson's Offices, Residential Life Offices,
etc. can often lead to a surprising number of people touched by the ADR
movement, and those who have extensive experience resolving campus disputes
informally.
-
5) Finally, it appears that a certain level of "cultural saturation"
is occurring around the ideas espoused by the mediation movement. The popular
press has made people more aware of mediation and negotiation as viable
options. Local community mediation centers have proven themselves, and
more and more elementary schools, junior highs, and highschools are turning
out students who have had direct experience with mediation/conflict resolution
programs or curriculum before coming to college. These highschool graduates
not only bring conflict management skills to their new campus, they also
bring expectations about how their chosen institutions will manage and
respond to conflict. While there is still a decided lack of programs at
the community college level, work has begun there as well. These educational
innovations at other levels are now beginning to bear fruit at the collegiate
level.
The Administrative Effectiveness Argument
As Girard, Townley and Rifkin (1985) and others point out, there are
many administrative concerns that potentially can be addressed by mediation
programs. From the point of view of an administrator, mediation may be
useful for the following reasons.
-
1) Internal, low-level resolution of disputes is clearly preferred
to more costly options such as litigation, internal upheaval, or bad publicity.
MIT ombudsperson Mary Rowe also argues that staff members in conflict actually
prefer a multiple-option approach to dispute resolution that includes the
option of an informal response.
-
2) During times of decreasing college enrollments and smaller pools
of college-bound highschool students, concern among college decision-makers
about retention of students increases. Mediation is another tool that can
assist administrators and staff in keeping those students who do opt to
come to their campus from leaving due to unresolved or painful conflict
experiences.
-
3) Mediation can support the educational goals of the organization
while still addressing breeches of the social contract. Disputants often
learn important lessons from conflicts that are handled appropriately.
-
4) Management studies have found that between 25-30% of the typical
managers time is spent responding to conflict. (see Dana, 1984) The more
that disputes can resolved at a low-level, the less administrative time
must be spent arbitrating the myriad of disputes that arise among both
staff and students.
-
5) Mediation can help maintain good relationships among individuals
and groups on campus and between the institution and the local community.
This is an important goal for most campus administrators, as it makes their
jobs easier in the long run.
Theories of Effective Campus Leadership
There are concepts of leadership in the field of higher education that
can also be used to argue for the value of mediation. For instance, researchers
Cameron and Whetton (Cameron, & Whetton, 1985) have outlined eight
tenets that they see as essential for administrative effectiveness in higher
education that fit well with a mediation approach. I would suggest that
campus mediation services can play a helpful role in all eight areas. Cameron
and Whetton argue that effective college administrators must:
1) Place emphasis on process and outcome;
2) Have low fear of failure, and willingness to take risks;
3) Nurture the support of strategic constituencies;
4) Not immediately succumb to the tyranny of "legitimate demands;"
5) Leave a distinctive imprint;
6) Error in favor of over-communication, especially in times of flux;
7) Respect the power of organizational cultures; and
8) Preserve and highlight sources of opportunity at the institution.
Campus administrators who buy into these ideas should embrace rather than
fear the introduction of mediation programs on their campuses, as well-developed
programs can help them achieve their overall goals more effectively, and
provide a "safety net" to support other innovative efforts.
The Student Satisfaction Argument
Students remain the primary "customer" on campuses, and it is useful
to point out that mediation can help maintain student (i.e., customer)
satisfaction. From student's point of view the option of using mediation
can be important because:
1) students don't want to have to "turn in" or "bust" others
in order to address problems;
2) students appreciate services that can address both off-campus
as well as on-campus life, and they appreciate tangible support in resolving
disputes;
3) "small" problems can get addressed, instead of falling through
the bureaucratic cracks;
4) mediation can help prevent escalation and prolongation of
conflict that disrupt their social and academic life;
5) students enjoy and benefit from the learning opportunities
provided through training as a volunteer or intern at a center;
6) mediation provides students with a new way to approach each
other and deal with disputes. This can mean a second chance for friendships
that might otherwise have been lost due to the negative effects that conflicts
can have on emerging relationships;
7) mediation provides another tool for dealing with conflicts
with roommates and club members from very diverse backgrounds and lifestyles.
In many cases students have been the most vocal supporters of programs.
Several programs are being run as student collectives. As more and more
students come out of highschools that have mediation programs, student
support and interest in campus mediation is very likely to increase.
The Fostering Positive Values Argument
Another compelling argument for campus mediation is that it provides
a mechanism to help instill and support certain values within the community.
Drawing on the experience of neighborhood-based programs such as San Francisco
Community Boards, campus-based mediation/dispute resolution systems have
the potential to provide strong community building function, one that can
respond to people's interest in performing significant "civic" work at
the campus or community level. The volunteer mediators and advisory board
members of a center, for example, are given the opportunity to work collaboratively
with others who may be quite different from themselves, building a community
cohesiveness that is based on common work and experience. At the Campus
Mediation Program I directed at Syracuse University, faculty, graduate
students, undergraduates, administrators, and staff members from many different
areas of campus life went through mediation training together, and built
relationships at a level that did not exist before. Through this process
common norms and values were established and promoted -- values such as
equality, appreciation of differences, cooperation, and nonviolence.
Some important values that can be articulated and supported by a campus
mediation center include the following:
1) Conflicts are a part of campus life, and they have value
when they are understood.
2) The peaceful expression of conflict within the community
is a postive value. It can help prevent damaging and costly conflict escalation.
3) Sharing the responsibility for conflict resolution more equally
between those experiencing the conflict and the institution at which it
occurs is a valuable teaching tool that builds responsibility and accountability.
It provides a hedge against people's tendency to want to "give away" their
conflict to someone else to handle.
4) The modeling provided by people who voluntary and nonviolently
resolve conflict can build and reinforce community norms.
5) Developing and nurturing diversity and tolerance for differences
is essential for campus survival. Mediation provides a good vehicle for
working through differences in a respectful manner.
Areas for Further Development
Arguments as to how mediation can address the perspectives and concerns
of faculty and unionized and non-unionized staff on campus is largely missing
from the above discussion. Programs addressing conflicts within and between
these groups have been slower to develop, due in part to faculty's focus
on autonomy, and to the reticence of human resource personnel (and union-leaders
on unionized campuses) to modify their existing conflict resolution and
grievance-handling systems. Another important campus constituency left
out of this discussion are the campus attorneys and legal services staff.
Only recently have their national organizations begun to explore the possible
utility of mediation. Developing the case for mediation for these groups
should be high on our collective agenda.
Finally, we might also begin to share ideas and perspectives on the
different rationales for promoting campus mediation more effectively. What
success have others had in petitioning for conflict resolution programs
at their institutions? For people who have tried the arguments suggested
in this article, what have been the results? It may also be worthwhile
to begin to explore and compile arguments used against campus mediation
as well as those used in its support. It is clear that there is much to
do besides argue the case for campus mediation. We must continue to develop
and refine the way mediation centers are run and the way that conflict
resolution is practiced within higher education. We must also improve and
refine our methods for evaluating campus mediation work, measuring less
tangible variables such as the impact of conflict resolution programs on
campus "culture." With improvements such as these, it is possible that
the arguments in support of the improved management of conflict in higher
education will become increasingly self-evident.
--------------------------
At the time this article was written, Bill Warters was the Director
of the PhD program in Dispute Resolution at Nova Southeastern University.
Dr. Warters was also the Chair of the National Association for Mediation
in Education's (NAME) Higher Education Committee.
References
Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G. P., & Riley, G. L. (1977).
"Alternative models of governance in higher education." In J. V. Baldridge,
& T. E. Deal (Ed.), Governing Academic Organizations (pp. 2-25).
Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing.
Cameron, K. S., & Whetton, D. A. (1985). "Administrative Effectiveness
in Higher Education." Review of Higher Education, 9:1:35-49.
Dana, D. (1984). "The Costs of Organizational Conflict," Organizational
Development Journal, Fall:5-6.
Girard, K., Townley, A. Rifkin, J. (1985). Peaceful Persuasion: A
Guide to Creating Mediation Dispute Resolution Programs for College Campuses
Amherst, MA: The Mediation Project.
Peterson, Marvin W. & Spencer, M. G. (1990) "Understanding Academic
Culture and Climate," New Directions for Institutional Research,
68:Winter:3-18.
Rowe, M. P. (1990). "People Who Feel Harassed Need a Complaint System
with Both Formal and Informal Options" Negotiation Journal, April:161-171.
Weick, K. E. (1976). "Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems."
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21:1:1-19.
Back to Campus
Mediation Resources Home Page
Back to MTDS Program
Home Page