The annual conference is the main activity of the International Association for Conflict Management [IACM]. To date it has taken place every year but one from 1987 to 2004. Jessica Jameson, Linda Putnam, and Laurie Weingart graciously sent copies of 13 of the 17 conference programs for an analysis that provides a history of IACM conference participation and presentations.
Method
The method was no more elaborate than counting occurrences on each variable for each conference for which programs were available and using the sort feature of a spreadsheet to determine frequencies. Results were summarized in a single spreadsheet (Appendix A).
Limitations
Conference programs are not in consistent format and were not created with this post hoc analysis in mind. Only 13 programs were available and only eight of them were suitable for some analyses (leading to some discrepancies in the results). Session chairs and discussants were not counted unless their name recurred as a presenter. There are cases where presenters' sex could not be determined. Finally, there is no way to determine from the program whether a person listed actually attended the conference and presented as scheduled.
Results
The mean number of countries represented was 15.54, with a low of seven and a high of 29. Overall, 51 different countries were represented at one time or another -- about a quarter of the world total depending on just how and when one counts the number that exist. UN staff not identified by nationality made two presentations.
The mean number of institutions represented at each conference was 92.85 different institutions, 65% of them American. France in 2001 stands out as an exception, with 59% of participants being from non-American institutions. This was not because the number of Americans declined but because the number of non-Americans increased.
Faculty from Northwestern, Groningen, Carnegie Mellon, Illinois, Amsterdam, Cornell, Pennsylvania, Michigan State, Vanderbilt, and Columbia Universities (in that order) were the ten most prolific, accounting for 635 (53.86%) of all presentations made at the thirteen conferences! Faculty from only five institutions (with ties as many as eight) accounted for a quarter to a third of all presentations each year, although the specific institutions varied somewhat from year-to-year.
Presentations took many forms, most importantly papers, posters, panels, symposia, workshops, and keynote or other special addresses.
Two thousand twenty-nine people appeared 2483 times and made 1179 presentations at the thirteen conferences for which data are available, for an average of 97.15 presentations per conference. The mean number of authors at each conference was 165.38. Using data from only eight conferences, 643 (64.85%) were identified as male and 488 (43.15%) were identified as female (168 could not be identified by sex).
Six hundred and forty-three academic authors were identified by department. Of these, 248 are business or management faculty, 179 are psychology department faculty, and 57 were communication department faculty. Political science faculty made 28, public administration and urban affairs faculty made 25, and education faculty made 18 presentations. That is, seven academic departments accounted for 555 or 86% of all presentations by university faculty.
Levels of analysis include individual (6 papers), interpersonal (80), community (83), intellectual (3), organizational (148), intrastate (30), or interstate (26) conflict. Examples of these levels are a worker "going postal," a divorcing couple, a zoning dispute, whether immoral priests can conduct valid sacraments, a labor-management dispute, claims of indigenous peoples, and the dispute over the division of Cyprus. Eight papers were generic -- that is, theoretical or methodological papers applicable to conflict in general. Thirteen were multilevel -- usually addressing interpersonal and organizational conflicts. Levels could not be determined in 61 cases.
This analysis suggests that four types of papers that appear with some frequency. By far the most common investigate intercultural conflict, usually at the interpersonal or organizational levels. A small but noticeable number of papers dealt with environmental, ethical, and gender issues at various levels.
I was unable to determine methodology from abstracts (and sometimes only titles) often accurately enough to provide counts in this report, although considerable variety is apparent. The most common identifiable, non-empirical methods are traditional control group or factorial research designs, case studies, simulations, and theoretical papers.
Random observations and suggestions
Three academic disciplines dominate IACM although over two dozen have contributed to the success of the conferences. Interpersonal, community, and organizational conflict dominate the topics of presentations although there are many other types of conflict. The presentations seem to have become more narrowly specialized and technical over time. Those addressing broader issues or synthesizing research have become rare. A few universities in only two countries, and to a lesser extent a few individuals, dominate. These data raise the question of whether IACM is becoming narrow and if so, whether this is problematic.
Do we want to broaden the programs and participants? Should IACM continue a path toward specialization, or should it follow the lead of larger associations such as APA and AERA and develop divisions? If so, what should the divisions be? For example, should there be a division for pedagogy?
There are dozens of university programs where one can study conflict (See Appendix B). Do their faculty members know about IACM but are not interested, or would they be interested if they knew about it? Should joint conferences be held with other small associations such as the collaboration with ESN for the Elsinore conference (48 of 203 Elsinore authors are listed as ESN attendees, several from disciplines not normally in attendance at IACM)? Both International Studies Association and the Social Dilemmas conference come to mind as possibilities. Should IACM schedule its own conferences back-to-back with some of these associations, making it easy for people to attend two for the price of one trip, but preserving the identity of each group?
On the other hand, would trying to grow and diversify the association have undesirable effects on the ambience at conferences that is one of its greatest assets?
Conclusion
This "preliminary history" is based on things that are easily counted from thirteen conferences, and on some variables from only eight. I would like to solicit IACM members for copies of the missing programs (See Appendix A for which ones are missing) so that I can fill in the gaps and to tally the results from subsequent conferences as well. I also solicit anecdotes worth reporting, particularly from the key individuals who got IACM underway or served as officers and program chairs. If you have any information or ideas to share, please contact me at davidachurchman [at] ad.com.
|
