Conflict resolution in activist networks: Reflections on prework, power, and engaging with change in Appalachia

• Published date: 01 June 2021
• Author: Arthur Romano,Emily K. Linnemeier,Susan H. Allen
• Date: 01 June 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21303

PRACTICE NOTE

Conflict resolution in activist networks:

Reflections on prework, power, and engaging

with change in Appalachia

Arthur Romano | Emily K. Linnemeier | Susan H. Allen

The Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School

for Peace and Conflict Resolution, George

Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia

Correspondence

Arthur Romano, 3351 Fairfax Dr. MS

4D3, Arlington, VA 22201.

Email: aromano7@gmu.edu

Abstract

This paper explores key lessons learned during the

design and facilitation phases of a conflict resolution

workshop with environmental activists in rural Appala-

chia. As these practice notes and analysis highlight,

conflict resolution (CR) practitioners can support activ-

ists by engaging in robust preparation work in order to

better understand how activists work together, how

that work evolves over time, their frames for making

sense of conflicts and new possibilities for collabora-

tion. This work raises timely questions about the role

of outside facilitator partiality in CR processes, espe-

cially when differences of power and marginalization

within activist networks reveal fault lines that disrupt

collaboration and trust.

KEYWORDS

activism, workshop, facilitation, network, Appalachia

1|INTRODUCTION

Increasingly, leaders in the field have been calling for conflict resolution (CR) practitioners and

scholars to engage more with social movements and to work directly with activists (Ross, Bur-

nett, Raschupkina, & Kew, 2019; Roy, Burdick, & Kriesberg, 2010; Smith & Verdeja, 2013). Con-

currently, ongoing debates in the literature have highlighted the limits of prevalent CR

practices (e.g., dialogue, negotiation, and third-party problem-solving approaches) when trying

to effectively engage with deeply entrenched differences of power (Davis, 2016; Fisher, 2016;

Habibal, 2019). These concerns are not new; many peacemakers and activists have pointed out

how dialogical processes and negotiations often fail to address conflict dynamics rooted in

Received: 24 November 2020 Revised: 12 March 2021 Accepted: 1 April 2021

DOI: 10.1002/crq.21303

Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 2021;38:283–302. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/crq © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC. 283

unequal structural arrangements and are unable to produce equitable change (King Jr., 1963;

Sharp, 2012). These structural elements of conflict are difficult to shift and frequently require

active and sustained forms of civic participation and civil resistance, which escalate and drama-

tize social conflicts and are often the specialty of activist groups and social movements

(Chenoweth & Cunningham, 2013; Disney & Gbowee, 2012).

This recognition of the vital role that activists and social movements play in influencing

asymmetrical conflicts highlights the need for CR practitioners to engage more effectively with

activist networks. While there is a growing call for “critical”or “structural”CR to better con-

sider what that engagement might look like, analysis of practice in activist spaces remains

scarce. This article offers reflection of key lessons learned during the preparatory work

(prework) and design and facilitation of a CR workshop with environmental activists in rural

Appalachia over a 6-month period of engagement. This initiative focuses specifically on

supporting local activists as they work to end mountain top removal (MTR) coal mining by

exploring conflict dynamics and impediments to collaboration within a local activist network

and possibilities for future work among activists. As urban scholar-practitioners living outside

the area where activists featured in this case lived and fought for change, we (the co-facilitators)

found that preparatory work played a critical role in learning about the context and engaging

more with complexity in the workshop design and facilitation process. Notably, these practice

notes also raise timely questions about the role of outside facilitator partiality in CR processes

in these spaces, as well as the opportunities and tensions of facilitating reflexive

processes alongside activists.

1.1 |CR and social movements: An uncomfortable partnership?

In the United States, the dynamics of structural violence have recently come more into focus as

racial and economic inequality, growing corporate influence, climate change, and gendered vio-

lence have sparked some of the most visible social movement actions in US history (Berry &

Chenoweth, 2018; Davis, 2016; Hadden, 2017; Jaffe, 2018; Moss & Maddrell, 2017;

Thomas, 2019; Westra, 2014). At the same time, in the field of CR there are active debates about

the need for and limitation of efforts to integrate practices that critical frameworks point

toward, including our relationship to constructive forms of conflict escalation such as:

(a) nonviolent direct action, (b) mass mobilization, and (c) popular education (English &

Sweetman, 2017; Jackson, 2015; Rubenstein, 2017). The implications of these critiques for criti-

cal CR practice, however, are far from settled and represent a major potential pathway for

growth in the field.

One possible response to these demands is for CR practitioners to work within social move-

ments that explicitly seek to challenge unjust institutional practices and wider political, cul-

tural, and economic systems through these methods of active nonviolent resistance

(Hansen, 2008). Yet, a significant gap remains in the existing research about the ways that CR

practitioners engage in social movement spaces and strengthen the synergies between them-

selves, activists and the wider social movement networks in which they work (Roy et al., 2010).

The dynamic structure of social movements creates a great deal of complexity and

corresponding conflicts as activists often have competing theories of change, employ diverse

practices, and engage in varied organizational and professional cultures. Furthermore, CR

scholars/practitioners are often outsiders to the activist networks on the ground, creating ten-

sions and opportunities for reflective practice. When engaging across such lines of differences

284 ROMANO ET AL.