ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

29 (2005) 635–638

0147-1767/$ -

doi:10.1016/j

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Introduction

Conflict, negotiation, and mediation across culturesHighlights from the fourth biennial conference of theInternational Academy for Intercultural Research

The fourth biennial conference of the International Academy for Intercultural Research,held on the campus of Kent State University, May 4–7, 2005, focused on the theme ofconflict, negotiation, and mediation across cultures. This particular conference was animportant event, not only for the Academy, but for Kent State University as well.Understanding the world and its people while facilitating intercultural and internationaldialogue and interaction has assumed greater importance for students and faculty in recentyears. This, coupled with the fact that the conference opening marked the 35th anniversaryof the shootings that occurred on the Kent State campus on May 4, 1970, encouraged us toconsider issues of conflict and mediation, not only on the domestic front, but across thewide range of cultural lines. I was a freshman at Kent State University and in the crowd ofstudents who were fired upon on that day 35 years ago. I can recall those events like it wasyesterday, having witnessed something that should not have happened to a group ofstudents exercising their right to voice their opinion on a college campus. On a personallevel, I attribute my commitment to improving interpersonal interactions and facilitatingdialogue among people to witnessing how easy it is for people to resort to violence andaggression to solve their differences. Whatever side of the political spectrum people wereon back then, the violence that occurred on the Kent State campus, as often occurselsewhere, should not have happened.The theme of the conference—conflict, mediation, and negotiation across cultures, is

more timely and relevant now than ever as we continue to witness countless examples ofcultures in conflict with one another—conflicts that emerge when basic assumptions abouthuman nature, identity, and morality collide without the opportunity for negotiation tooccur. As Anthony Marsella remarked in his keynote address on the second day of theconference, ‘‘the shootings that occurred at Kent State on May 4, 1970 brought homethe inevitable consequences of the unbridled nurturing of fear and anger engendered by thenational and international tensions associated with the Vietnam War, the civil rightsmovements, and a score of other counter culture concerns.’’Marsella went on to suggest that the Kent State tragedy was not a chance convergence

of forces and people. Rather, it was the opposite—an over-determined encounterbetween two radically different subcultures that had been years in the making, an

see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

.ijintrel.2005.07.014

ARTICLE IN PRESSIntroduction / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 635–638636

encounter fueled by vast differences in world views among people living within thesame nation but moved by different constructions of reality. The times were the samefrom the point of view of chronology, but they were different in the meaningsand interpretations people assigned to the events of the day. The cultural differencesbetween those seeking peace and American withdrawal from Vietnam and thoseattempting to continue the struggle at any cost were as different as night and day. Theirtemplates for reality had no convergence, no overlap, no similarity. How much of this isevident today in a variety of contexts? Such questions provided the foundation for thisconference.Throughout the 4 days of the conference, attendees participated in a number of

engaging and interactive sessions that honored both the theoretical or researchemphasis of the Academy with the solid practical applications of theory and researchin which many Academy Fellows are engaged. Conference activities were suspendedfor 3 hours on May 4 so people could attend the memorial activities that take placeeach year on the Commons—the site of the shootings. An evening musicalprogram focused on the merging of two distinctly different musical traditions—the classical world of Kent State University’s own Egyptian-born and world-renowned Halim El-Dabh with the music of two of Hawaii’s premier slack keyguitarists—Cyril Pahinui and Patrick Landeza. At the conference dinner, theAcademy honored and heard from one of its own, Dr. John Berry, who was recognizedfor a lifetime of achievement to the field of intercultural relations. His presentation isincluded in this issue.The papers presented here represent four of the keynote addresses that were presented

over the 4 days, with the addition of one paper. Herbert C. Kelman’s paper, entitled‘‘Building trust among enemies: The central challenge of international conflict resolution,’’focuses on over two decades of his work attempting to build trust among Israelis andPalestinians. He presents a brief description of interactive problem solving—his approachto conflict resolution—and then discusses five concepts that have evolved in the course ofhis work that point to ways in which he has attempted to deal with the dilemma of buildingtrust among enemies so as to enable them to begin and advance a productive peaceprocess. This was a most appropriate opening to the conference, and serves as the initialarticle in the special issue.Anthony Marsella’s paper, ‘‘Culture and conflict: Understanding, negotiating

and reconciling conflicting constructions of reality,’’ challenges readers to considerthe relationship between culture and conflict that emerges when parties withdiffering constructions of reality come into contention regarding the distributionof power, control, and influence. Marsella asks us to consider how differences inthe construction of reality that are codified and embedded in ‘‘unassailable’’ beliefsystems, such as those associated with fundamentalist political, economic, andreligious systems, can elicit and sustain serious forms of violence, including ethnicand religious cleansing, genocide, and torture. He goes on to argue that we must recognizethe power of culture in constructing our realities, and the reluctance we have as humanbeings to tolerate challenges to these realities because they introduce unacceptable levels ofuncertainty and doubt. Following a discussion of various examples of cultures in conflictassociated with political and religious fundamentalism, and a concern that the UnitedStates appears to be an emerging culture that encourages and promotes violence, the paperadvances a series of recommendations for understanding, negotiating, and mediating

ARTICLE IN PRESSIntroduction / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 635–638 637

conflict via the use of cultural understanding, learning, and the development of cultures ofpeace.John Berry, recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Academy, addressed

the conference theme through the topic of ‘‘Acculturation: Living successfully in twocultures.’’ In his paper, Berry suggests that the resolution and mediation of conflict can beunderstood to operate at both the group and individual levels. At the group level, itengages the fundamental issue of how collectivities, be they empires, nation states,communities, or institutions, work out how to relate to each other, ideally through aprocess of negotiation in order to avoid conflict. At the individual level, the focus is onhow persons who are members of different groups work out how to live together, againthrough negotiation so that conflict is avoided. Berry asks us to consider how people fromdifferent cultural backgrounds can encounter each other, seek avenues of mutualunderstanding, negotiate and compromise on their initial positions, and achieve somedegree of harmonious engagement.Mitch Hammer’s article, ‘‘The intercultural conflict style inventory: A conceptual

framework and measure of intercultural conflict resolution approaches,’’ reports on thedevelopment of the Intercultural Conflict Style (ICS) Inventory, a 36-item measure ofintercultural conflict resolution style. The theoretical model proposed in this study, and thefour derived intercultural conflict styles (Discussion, Engagement, Accommodation,Dynamic), offers an important conceptualization of culturally based patterns of differencearound conflict interaction. The Inventory, composed of the twin scales that assess Direct/Indirect approaches and Emotional Expressive/Restraint approaches to resolving conflict,provides an empirical measure of intercultural conflict style that can be used in futureresearch studies and training venues.Mark Davidheiser’s study is a culture-specific look at conflict and mediation in

The Gambia, West Africa. In his paper, ‘‘Culture and mediation: A contemporaryprocessual analysis from Southwestern Gambia,’’ Davidheiser draws on archival sourcesand data gleaned from fieldwork in The Gambia to provide a processual analysis of theintersection of culture in mediation. The results of his study uncovered tremendousvariance in societal preferences for structuring mediation as well as considerable diversityfound at lower levels of analysis, thereby problematizing the notion of widespread cross-cultural process similarities. Davidheiser suggests that theorizing about peacemakingbehaviors must delve much further than the meta-level of comparison and that constructssuch as individualism versus collectivism and high- and low-context societies must be usedcautiously.Finally, Stephen Worchel, of the University of Hawaii at Hilo, offers some

critique of the papers included in this volume. He begins his paper, ‘‘Culture’srole in conflict and conflict management: Some suggestions, many questions,’’ bysharing his own experience of living in Hawaii and of the conflicts he encounteredwith his neighbors (a Hawaiian, a Japanese, a Portugese, and a Chinese). He usesthis as an example of the various roles culture (and ethnicity) can play; one, inidentifying and distinguishing the groups that are likely to be parties to a conflict;and two, the manner by which culture shapes the way individuals perceive, and thusrespond, to a conflict situation. Worchel thoughtfully uses this as a backdrop to discusseach of the papers, categorizes them accordingly, and relates some of his own experienceand research studying and supporting and variety of efforts at conflict prevention andresolution.

ARTICLE IN PRESSIntroduction / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29 (2005) 635–638638

On behalf of the International Academy for Intercultural Research, I hope you findvalue in this special issue and invite you to participate in the next conference of theAcademy to be held in Jyvaskyla, Finland, May 9–13, 2007.

Kenneth CushnerDepartment of International Affairs,

Kent State University,

128 Bowman Hall, Kent, OH 44242, USA

E-mail address: kcushner@kent.edu