CR410; CR510: ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Spring 2001
Thursday, 5:30 p.m.-9:10 p.m.
Instructor:  Tom H. Hastings
office hours:  Thursday 1 p.m.-4 p.m.
  and by appointment
campus phone: 503.725-5575
home phone: 503.252-2220
campus e-mail: hastings@pdx.edu

Purpose of course:
This course is designed to introduce ourselves to the field of Environmental Conflict Resolution. We assume you have little experience in the field, though some will have extensive credentials in one aspect of conflict resolution or environmental studies, some will know a bit about most of what we examine and some will have much to teach all of us. No one knows it all and everyone can benefit from this open-ended look at a field of study just beginning to offer results to a world in need of better methods of halting environmental degradation and of violence avoidance. Our assumption and bias is that both pollution and destructive conflict are undesirable and that, paradoxically, our modern conveniences and modern weaponry (“protection”) are often the greatest threats to our species. The fields we will examine include conflict resolution, negotiation, intercultural communication, cross-cultural conflict resolution, environmental conflict from local to global, international political conflict, interpersonal communication and how these disciplines merge to provide background and tools for environmental conflict resolution. Our specific objectives include:

Scope and format of the course:
Class sessions are generally a presentation followed by discussion and a simulation (I hear and I forget; I see and I remember; I do and I understand.). Additional written materials for any particular discussion will be handed out at least one class session in advance, to be read in advance of scheduled lecture/discussion. The presentation will generally be a lecture (20-30 minutes). We will often use a few slides or video and audio bites (1-10 minutes) to bring multimedia messages to our discussions. Discussion participation will be factored into your grade, which is especially appropriate in a field based on clear, cogent, cooperative, collaborative, conciliatory communication.
I believe the scope of this field will allow you to make connections that might surprise you. You will find me very flexible in the latitude of your research interest (this is a wide-ranging course in a wider-ranging field); then you need to tightly demonstrate connections in your writing.
Texts:
Required: Schedule and assignments:
  1. Week 1, April 5: Tom’s talk: “Thinking like a mountain: environmental conflict.” Overview, intake, methodology discussion.
  2. Week 2, April 12: Tom’s talk: “The ecology of conflict: current theories and practices of conflict resolution.” Guest presenter: Chris Maser, “Relationships as Core Conflict Variable.” Discuss Chris Maser, Resolving Environmental Conflict: Towards Sustainable Community Development, through chapter 6 (pp. xiii-97) Hand in your reading choice for the class. Two-page paper due explaining why the article that you have selected (on any area of environmental conflict—local, state, regional, national or international) ought to be read by everyone in the class. Your reasoning ought to reflect your understanding of the field of conflict resolution and should be advocating for your article. A fully cited clean copy of the article must be attached.
  3. Week 3, April 19: Tom’s talk: “Sustainable conflict development: who wins and who also wins?” Guest presenter: Ed Dennis, Legislative & Redistricting Coordinator, Oregon Secretary of State. Discuss Chris Maser, Resolving Environmental Conflict: Towards Sustainable Community Development, chapter 7-end (pp. 99-190) Exercise: envisioning. Two-page paper due, same criteria. Also, make it connectable to your previous paper. You are building your final paper, week by week.
  4. Week 4, April 26: Tom’s talk: “Ecological identity conflict: post-Cold War questions.” Guest presenter: Michael Lang, negotiator, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, “Experiential Education: Learning in the Trenches.” Discuss Thomas F. Homer-Dixon, Environment, Scarcity, and Violence, through chapter 6 (pp. 3-132). Two-page paper due. Continue to cite current reading and at least one independently researched source. Continue to make this paper connectable to your previous papers.
  5. Week 5, May 3: Tom’s talk: “Ecowars: conditional surrender to nature.” Guest presenter: Janet Gillaspie, environmental consultant, “Advocating and changing power relationships.” Discuss Thomas F. Homer-Dixon, Environment, Scarcity, and Violence, through end (pp. 133-182). Two-page paper due. Continue to cite current reading and at least one independently researched source. Continue to make this paper connectable to your previous papers.
  6. Week 6, May 10: Tom’s talk: “Rivalry and resolution: hydroconflict cycles.” Guest Brooks Koenig,Discuss Weber,  Edward P., Pluralism by the Rules: Conflict and Cooperation in Environmental Regulation. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1998, first third. Two-page paper due. Continue to cite current reading and at least one independently researched source. Continue to make this paper connectable to your previous papers.
  7. Week 7, May 17: Tom’s talk: “ECR in a democracy: constituencies and conflict.” Guest presenter: Dr. Gregg Walker, “Collaboration and ECR.” Discuss Weber,  Edward P., Pluralism by the Rules: Conflict and Cooperation in Environmental Regulation. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1998, first two-thirds. Two-page paper due. Continue to cite current reading and at least one independently researched source. Continue to make this paper connectable to your previous papers.
  8. Week 8, May 24: Tom’s talk: “Modeling adaptive conflict resolution: replacing the military paradigm.” Discuss Weber,  Edward P., Pluralism by the Rules: Conflict and Cooperation in Environmental Regulation. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1998, entire book. Two-page paper due. Continue to cite current reading and at least one independently researched source. Continue to make this paper connectable to your previous papers.
  9. Week 9, May 31: Tom’s talk: “Synergy of a synthesis: ecology of examination.” Synthesis discussion and paper presentations. An exploration of how all our research stitches together, with masters candidate presentations and discussions.  Two-page paper due. Continue to cite course material and at least one independently researched source. Continue to make this paper connectable to your previous papers.
  10. Week 10, June 7: Paul Shively, Sierra Club, guest presenter, “Human Rights, Environmental Rights.” Synthesis discussion and paper presentations, with a closing check-out. Two-page paper due. Continue to cite course material and at least one independently researched source. Continue to make this paper connectable to your previous papers.
For one of your weekly papers, bring a simulation relating to your final paper topic. Be prepared to help facilitate the simulation and include it as an appendix to your paper. We will work up a schedule together.
Final paper due, June 14: 16-24 pages, including roleplay appendix. This is the aggregate of your previous papers. It will be graded on how it coheres, which is the strength of our field. In a way, our breadth and ability to make connections is our depth.
Have the reading done before the class session. On that or any future date, you are responsible for bringing the reading into discussion and into your writing. We will employ the wisdom of John Muir, realizing that when we pick up anything in the universe we find it hitched to everything else, in our application of the texts to the course as it flows. Or, from an academic: “To create consists of making new combinations of associative elements which are useful...Among chosen combinations the most fertile will often be those formed of elements drawn from domains which are far apart.” —S.A. Mednick, Psychological Review, 69 (Siau: 248) This is how our brains work when they are at our best, making connections, and we need our best-functioning minds to make peace against the odds of a human history of war. The researcher, the best student and the poet all see and describe this linkage and this is what is expected of you. “To whom much has been given, much is expected.” That would be you.
I will be listening to you, reading your thoughts committed to paper and generally sizing you up for effort, ability, dedication to critical thinking and academic seriousness (which can be maintained even when you are making mordant witticisms in class discussion). Your positions are not the issue; your critical analysis, bolstered by citations, is.
A word on plagiarism: don’t do it. Not only is it unimaginable to me from an ethical standpoint, I cannot grasp why it is ever tempting. You learn little from it and you don’t even earn credit for having found a source! You do not need to impress me with your poetic or original theoretical skills; you need to show me that you are out there reading the literature. If you quote a long passage, great. Use common sense; you see quotes of two or three sentences frequently. But if you plagiarize, you will earn a failing grade on that assignment and all your work will be suspect. “Don’t plagiarize; it will haunt you years later.”—Joe Biden

Requirements and grading:
The primary factors in determining your grade:
50 percent: class discussion prep and participation
50 percent: research paper and presentation. This is to be an 18-page effort (minimum), closely reasoned, well-cited, and my suggestion is that you make it relate as much as you can to research that can help you in what areas you are contemplating for your thesis or exit project. You may use APA or MLA citation style or check with me for alternatives. Be consistent. Grade is determined by a combination of two-page papers as you hand them in when they are due plus the final product.
You will offer a 15-20 minute presentation on your paper during one of the final two class sessions, followed by discussion. Along with your research paper is a required 1-2 page critique of this class, which will help me make it a better offering in the future. It is this kind of feedback that has enabled me to improve this and other classes; you are expected to be a part of the academic process in this regard, adding to the betterment of the institution overall, the field of Conflict Resolution in general, and the quality of PSU professors in your program in particular. Thank you. Your critiques will help, not ever hurt, your grade. While I don’t grade easily, I never ever grade punitively based upon honest feedback, which ought to go without saying. Just tell me what worked and what didn’t, what to do more of and what to cut out, and what to add that is missing altogether.
Finally, to reiterate, it is the academic rigor of your efforts—not your projected politics or ethical values—that determines your grade. As a person, I have opinions on the efficacy of conflict management methods. As an instructor, I consider all proffered positions equally and only insist on robust inquiry. I reject “political correctness.” Ad hominem (personal) attacks are not acceptable behavior in class and you need not fear them in this course.

~~end~~
sources:
Siau, Keng, “Knowledge Discovery as an aid to organizational creativity,” The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol.34:4, 2000.