- Email: [email protected]
Scientific academies in international conflict resolution
Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460 www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc
Scientific academies in international conflict resolution P.J.D. Drenth
*
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorstsraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract Science and scientists (including scholarship and scholars) have an important contribution to make to the mitigation and prevention of international conflicts. First and foremost, they emphasize the search for the truth, which requires an attitude of openness and collaboration. Second, they can provide evidence and information that can settle differences of opinion or reduce tensions. Third, they can offer independent and unbiased advice on policy matters that involve scientific information or require a scientific foundation. Fourth, they educate a new generation of scientists as well as the wider public, thus increasing the intellectual defensibility and democratic foundation of a society. For many of these contributions, an academy of arts and sciences may be used as a functional vehicle. A further contribution can be made by the organizational sciences through an analysis of the determinants and nature of conflict escalation or de-escalation, thus offering starting points for effective conflict management and prevention. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Science and scholarship have an important and distinctive potential for contributing to a better and peaceful future of mankind. I explore first the role of academies and sciences in this respect. This role is particularly apparent as the academies adhere to two general and central principles, phrased in the 1996 Genoa Declaration on Science and Society [1] as follows:
* Fax: +31-20-444-8702. E-mail address: [email protected] (P.J.D. Drenth). 0160-791X/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 6 0 - 7 9 1 X ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 2 5 - 2
452
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
Respect for the diversity of cultures within societies and promotion of science as a distinctive and important contributor to bridging such diverse cultures and promoting peaceful coexistence in accord with the principles of freedom, autonomy and rationality.
Mutual cooperation, reflecting the recognition that the production and utilization of scientific and technological knowledge are decisive for the future welfare of humanity and that science, with its universality, is uniquely positioned to serve as a laboratory in which mankind can work together to achieve a better future in accord with the principles of responsibility, solidarity and respect for the rights of individuals and nations. In addition to discussing the role of science academies, I call attention to the potential contribution by social science to the prevention or resolution of conflict. Social science can play this role through scientific analysis of the conflict process itself and through application of the principles of escalation and prevention of conflicts, as developed in organizational science.
2. The role of academies of arts and sciences The first academy, founded by Plato in a grove near Athens, was situated outside the center of public life. Rather than a wish for isolation, it was a desire to engage in critical reflection on philosophical theorems and political arguments that made this choice of location appropriate. When Emperor Justinian, almost a millennium later, decided to close this academy because the views developed there were considered damaging to the state, he did not realize that the value and contribution of an academy spring from its search for truth, its independent position, and its freedom to criticize. Later, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it was this same spirit of independence and intellectual freedom that caused the revival of the idea of an academy as a place where scholars meet, exchange ideas, and reflect in an environment of absolute intellectual freedom and independence. Of course, the ideas and recommendations produced by these intellectual activities may be used by governments, funding agencies, and institutes of learning, but the academy’s primary function is that of a meeting place for independent scholarly and scientific reflection. Discussion of the impact of scientific cooperation on relations between nations, in my opinion, should be extended to the whole field of learning and scholarship, including the human and social sciences. I will therefore refer to the wider and original concept of ‘scientia’. And in particular with an eye on the underlying question of how conflicts and hostilities between nations and regions can be solved or prevented, the inclusion of humanities and social sciences is indispensable. I focus on three main functions of an academy of arts and sciences, and consider to what extent all three may help build bridges and reduce conflicts.
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
453
2.1. Forum function In the first place, academies have an important forum, or meeting, function. Gatherings of the general assembly, meetings, conferences, colloquia, and workshops are organized by the academies or under their auspices. International contacts, reciprocal visits of scholars, special lectures, exchange of periodicals and other information, and membership of international scientific organizations further emphasize the international nature of the meeting function. Clearly, in this capacity academies have an important bridging function. As it has been all through history, scientific discourse seldom bothers about national boundaries. Even in the darkest times during the repressive Stalinistic regime, scientists from Russia communicated with scientists from the West. In fact, the contacts between academies were often the only avenue for such communications. This is not to say that differences — sometimes even sharp controversies — between (groups of) scientists do not occur. Two things, however, have to be kept in mind [2]. First, these differences in my opinion seldom coincide with divisions between continents, nations, or political alliances. Second, although the debates are sometimes heated and fierce, the differences are basically amenable to reason and can be worked out — or at least discussed — in rational, logical terms. Scientific differences of opinion and controversies can be solved only through reason and argument, never by power, force, or hostilities. In such a dialogue, the common search for the truth, the attempt to grasp each other’s arguments, and the joint effort to analyze and to comprehend the various issues and arguments unite rather than divide, and will lead to a common understanding. 2.2. Research function A second important responsibility of academies of sciences is the stimulation and promotion of scientific research. Academies do this either directly by sponsoring or executing research programs, or indirectly by evaluating research, providing research overviews in different scientific fields, or appraising the scientific achievements of individuals or institutes in order to award prizes, scholarships, or distinctions. Whether an academy does its own research or restricts its involvement to evaluating, stimulating, and sponsoring the research of others, it always involves an activity that furthers de´ tente. It presupposes collaboration and contact, the exchange of knowledge, expertise, and research results, and requires a genuine attempt to understand and apprehend each other’s work. And these contacts and this collaboration have to cross national borders. The international nature of science and scholarship has always been apparent, but it has become particularly conspicuous and increasingly important with the rapid development of electronic communication. The term ‘national science’ is almost a contradiction in terms. Even for participants in national research programs, it is an unavoidable prerequisite to have international connections and to take part in international collaborative networks. This trend toward globalization and internationalization is clearly illustrated by a recent working paper of the European Commission on internationalization of research
454
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
and technology [3]. Growing internationalization is apparent in an increase in the enrollment of foreign students, in the percentage of internationally co-authored articles among all co-authored articles, and in the rate of external over internal patent applications. An interesting question is why national researchers and research institutes should engage in international collaborative research. Under the guiding principles of subsidiarity (no replacement of the scientific cooperation policy of the member states), consistency with European Community practices, and efficiency, the European Union chose in 1995 the following goals for international research and technological development (R&TD) cooperation: 앫 Strengthen European competitiveness and develop technologies for future markets. 앫 Develop partnership in S&T with EU neighbors. 앫 Share responsibility and conduct research on major problems of the twenty-first century. 앫 Promote R&TD to foster sustainable economic growth for developing countries. 앫 Share scientific and technological information and contribute to large-scale and frontier science and technology [4]. It is of special interest to look at the EU’s collaboration with the most vulnerable and the least profitable global partners: the developing countries. Recently, in presenting the 5th Framework Program, the EU chose the following phrasing with respect to these developing countries: … a policy dialogue on research and technological development needs and priorities with groups of (developing) countries and regions will be developed. Cooperation activities will be envisaged, in particular in the following areas: mechanisms and conditions for sustainable development; sustainable management and use of natural resources, including agricultural production and food security; environmental and energy aspects; health and nutrition [5]. It is clear that the European Union is concerned with and willing to assist the developing countries in their research and technological development. The motives for such assistance are two-fold. First, the EU would give assistance for its own benefit and for what may be seen as selfish reasons, such as need for developing countries to participate in the study of global problems in which they are sometimes heavily involved. Assistance would also promote contact with and access to new and growing markets, expansion of scientific knowledge to include new phenomena or phenomena in new contexts, and certainly expansion of know-how about natural, biological, or medical processes which are important to understand biological or medical problems in the home country. A second motive is the genuine desire to assist developing countries that are facing difficult economic conditions. Assistance in the form of applicable knowledge and technological skills may help these countries to overcome their difficulties caused
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
455
by economic stagnation, by natural impediments and disasters, and social, educational, and medical arrears. Some of this rationale can be found in official EU programs, in accordance with Europe’s desire to see improvements in the well-being of poor populations. Keynan, in his introduction to a recent book on scientific cooperation and state conflicts, lists a number of motives for international cooperation, including the advancement of science itself and the utility of such cooperation [6]. But he also mentions the increased awareness of social responsibilities that transcend personal interests. This scientific cooperation may be effective in initiating dialogues between scientists of countries in conflict, thus helping to build bridges of confidence between countries. Inspired by these and other considerations, I have listed the following arguments and motives for international scientific collaboration: 앫 Worldwide responsibility for the advancement of science. Some of the major international research programs and projects can only be initiated and supported if a sufficient number of international partners are involved. It is a moral obligation for countries that are able to contribute and to participate to do so. 앫 A more self-interested need to “keep in touch”. It is important for researchers in any country to keep in touch with developments elsewhere through both professional and personal contacts. Communication and cross-fertilization are essential for the scientists’ own motivation and for the education and training of younger scientists. Moreover, participation in an international research effort is often a prerequisite for further national research. 앫 The need to study phenomena in a transnational context. Many research issues are supranational in scope, and fewer and fewer problems can be studied fully from a purely national perspective. Research areas such as the environment, health (transferable diseases, AIDS), energy, transport, tourism and trade, banking and finance, and migration, to mention a few, are clear examples of this trend. 앫 National interest. With respect to certain international questions, a particular country may have a specific interest because of specific national needs. A country may give these questions priority on strategic grounds. In The Netherlands (lacking space and natural resources, but well-endowed with an educated population and good geographical position), special emphasis is given to transport and trade, telecommunications and other forms of communication (linguistics), high-tech electronics, health research, and environmental research. 앫 Exploitation and further development of specific expertise. There may be some research areas where a country is able to provide a unique and profitable contribution because of its specific expertise and experience. Again, with respect to The Netherlands this may be relevant for research in the field of civil engineering (water control), agriculture and fisheries, fresh- and saltwater interface, astrophysics, microbiology, and biotechnology. 앫 Support and strengthening of R&D capabilities in less-developed countries. The stronger countries in the world have a responsibility to assist those countries that are less well-endowed and have relatively weak R&D capabilities. Of course this
456
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
assistance often takes the form of aid and support instead of collaboration for mutual benefit, but in the longer run they may become stronger partners. There is no doubt that in the very long run such aid and collaboration are the best precondition for peaceful coexistence and balance in the world, and are therefore beneficial for the currently stronger (Western) partner. Thus, international collaborative research can be set up and carried out for a number of different reasons and motives, some more self-interested or nationalistic, some more altruistic and inspired by global responsibility. I daresay that such collaboration (even inspired by motives of the first type) almost always creates better identification and understanding of common goals and, in the case of differences in objectives or methods, a greater sensitivity for and appreciation of the idiosyncrasies. Again, in a truly scientific or scholarly dispute, these differences seldom run parallel to political disagreements and conflicts. International cooperation in research therefore builds and reinforces bridges across borders. And it is beyond doubt that academies, in fostering such international and collaborative research, are valuable in this process. 2.3. Advisory function The third and, for the purpose of our discussion, probably the most instrumental function of an academy of science pertains to its advisory capacity. This advisory role addresses questions and problems related to science and science policy ranging from specific arguments to fundamental issues, from basic scientific controversies to practical problems of technological, medical, legal, or political applications. It is particularly here that the academies may have a contribution to make. At stake is the question of how an academy can steer science and science policy or the application of scientific findings toward societal benefits such as peace, tolerance, justice, and wellbeing of the people. In other words, how and to what extent can research, be it pure or applied, be deemed relevant? First the important question: What makes science relevant? Is it its usefulness? If so, what kind of usefulness? Links with gross domestic product and economic welfare? or well-being? and for whom? In a further analysis of this conceptualization of relevance, I wish to distinguish three dimensions. First, let us consider intrinsic relevance. Here we are not interested in the question of which practical goal or which economic utility is served. Raising questions about the nature of matter, the meaning of life, the laws of logic, the essence of communication, the development of norms and values, or the sense of religion is a fundamental and unique characteristic of the human species. Civilized societies should take pride in promoting and supporting activities that pose and answer such questions. Augmentation of the body of knowledge is an intrinsically valuable and precious quality of civilization. It will be clear that continuity of this scientific discourse can be fully realized only in dialogue with the next generation. In other words, the intrinsic relevance of science is strongly rooted in its educational responsibility. This educational function can even be widened to the general public. Intolerance, extremism, xenophobia,
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
457
intergroup conflicts, and aggression are all too often a product of ignorance. Knowledge of the determinants of human behavior and social processes, awareness of legal and economic conditions and constraints, and insight into the diversity and power of cultures and traditions are all preconditions for a better understanding, acceptance, and tolerance. It is therefore fair to say that education and furthering of scientific insights also within a broader public are important building blocks for the creation of a democratic and tolerant society. Second, there is instrumental relevance, which depends on the immediate or indirect application of scientific research. Such an application often takes place through the direct transformation of its results and findings into practical tools and instruments (technological development). But it can also take the form of stimulating the development of new diagnostic approaches or therapeutic or intervention practices. In the last section of this paper, we shall see an example of this kind of relevance. The third form of relevance is contributive relevance: the contribution of scientific knowledge and information to the development of policy and to decision making. Sometimes the scientist is (as one of the partners) deeply involved in the decisionmaking process itself. Then the weight and impact of scientific arguments are difficult to trace. Sometimes the scientist is more distant — for example, by applying the mechanism of conceptualization, including redefinition of the agenda, sensitization for problems, (re)definition of issues, or transformation of problems into nonproblems [7]. Often research results are used as ammunition in a policy debate, either to persuade the opposition or to weaken its position. Here the scientist should be particularly alert. Selective use of data, biased interpretation of findings, crude generalizations, or plain inaccuracies are more the rule than the exception in policy debates. Wherever possible the scientist should intervene and correct, amplify, and put the conclusions right, even in the popular media, if necessary. For a proper understanding and appreciation of many societal problems, including tensions and conflicts between nations, a solid, objective, and in-depth scientific analysis of the issues can be very helpful. A deliberate judgment in which scientific knowledge, including its gaps and weaknesses, if carefully weighed and interpreted, can also make a valuable contribution: it can create better and more responsible political attitudes and promote more accountable political decision making. It is my conviction that academies of arts and sciences are suitable candidates for providing such analyses and advice. The academy’s advisory capacity can be defended on three grounds. In the first place, the availability of ample scientific knowledge and experience within the walls of the academy constitute a large reservoir of expertise that can be used for advice and consultancy. Second, the impartiality and ‘disinterestedness’ of academy members help ensure that no political, economic, regional, or professional interest group will be favored in advice given by an academy. Third, the exclusive scientific orientation of the academy and its advisory work follows from its guiding principles — the promotion of science and the primacy of truth. At this point it may be wise to formulate a caveat. The academies of arts and
458
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
sciences should always be aware of their specific position and responsibilities. Scientists should not overstep their bounds. They can offer proper and careful analyses of the problems at hand, including the complexities, multi-causalities, and nonlinear relationships. They can provide alternative options, they can give empirically based estimates of various ‘if-then’ relationships, but they should not move actively into the political field themselves. Their sphere is science, and they should never become another political pressure group or take on the responsibilities of the responsible decision makers. In conclusion, it can be said that by a scientific analysis of conflictual or societal issues, by an active participation in the public debate, and by an advisory responsibility as just described, an academy of arts and science can contribute significantly to rational approaches to finding solutions and to political decision making that is amenable to reason. Through these three functions, academies can build intellectual and spiritual bridges across gulfs, even if sometimes they may seem to be deep abysses. 3. Contribution of organizational sciences In his comprehensive overview of the contribution of science and scientists to mitigating conflicts, Keynan points to scientists’ belief in rationality and rational solutions and to their tradition of solving or coping with conflicts and controversies [8]. They do this by agreeing on rules for collecting additional information or data and postponing definitive conclusions until further evidence has been acquired. More specifically, they can make use of their networks for communication, provide new ideas and conceptual frameworks, exemplify cooperation, develop mechanisms for monitoring and verifying treaty compliance, and offer to be the vehicle for cooperative efforts to reduce tensions. Keynan observes, however, that attempts to aid in conflict resolution are not in themselves part of the scientific enterprise. But here I would like to make an exception for those sciences that have made this kind of problem part of their research domain. I am thinking of organizational sciences (e.g. social psychology, organizational psychology, social engineering, and management sciences) that have dealt with conflict analysis and management for a long period of time. Many of the insights gathered in this field of research, albeit mainly focused on tensions and conflicts within and between organizations, can be applied and used in understanding (and possibly reducing) conflicts among larger systems, such as regions, ethnic groups, and nations. By showing the applicability of these research results to conflicts between nations, we offer at the same time an illustration of the instrumental relevance of science, as defined in the previous section. The lines along which studies in organizational conflicts and tensions have been carried out can be traced in journals like the Journal of Conflict Resolution and the Administrative Science Quarterly and in various comprehensive books [9–11]. Only a few aspects of this rich body of research can be reported here. In describing the model of (de)escalation, I follow more or less a recent review article of van der Vliert [12].
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
459
Picture a sequence of three boxes of variables, each representing an element in the model of conflict (de)escalation. In the first box, ‘Antecedents’, three types of antecedent determinants of conflict are listed: system characteristics (culture, values, traditions, as well as legal or structural aspects, such as age, size, homogeneity), individual characteristics (personality, temperament, and coping style, such as confronting, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and problem-solving), and relational aspects (inequality of resources, power or prestige, interdependencies, and positive or negative attitudes and prejudices). The second box, ‘Conflicts’, indicates four types of conflict: conflicts over (often scarce) resources, conflicts over goals and objectives, conflicts over procedures and agreements, and conflicts that stem from emotional reactions, ingroup/outgroup feelings, identity problems, etc. The final box depicts two clusters of possible ‘Reactions’, one leading to escalation of the conflict, the other to de-escalation. In both clusters we have spontaneous as well as strategic (controlled or managed) behavior. With respect to spontaneous escalatory behavior, one may think of applying simplistic good–bad dichotomies (verbal), fighting and attacking, avoiding contact, irritating behavior and the like. Escalatory strategies include worsening antecedent conditions and intensifying the conflict by emphasizing differences, introducing vetos or non-possumus stances, bringing in allies, and increasing the seriousness of the conflict, for example, by moving it from a conflict over procedures to a conflict over goals. Similarly, we have many examples of spontaneous de-escalating reactions — denying the conflict, changing attitudes with respect to the opponent, de-escalating behavior such as making jokes, emphasizing commonalities rather than differences, and showing a constructive problem-solving attitude. Strategic de-escalating behavior includes changing (improving) the antecedent conditions, lowering the perceived level of importance of the conflict, emphasizing the potential for solving the conflict, entering serious negotiations, or focusing on procedures and rules instead of the nature of the conflict. It will be obvious that de-escalating behaviors and strategies can lead to de-escalation of the conflict, which in itself provides positive reinforcement of the de-escalating process. The situation gradually moves into the desired de-escalation spiral, leading to a peaceful solution or settlement. Similarly, the escalating reactions and strategies may create the escalation spiral, leading eventually to an outburst or social disaster. I mention this scheme to show that organizational sciences have produced a useful model to analyze the various conditions and determinants of interorganizational conflicts. The description outlined here is sketchy and incomplete. Hundreds of studies and experiments are available to allow fairly detailed conclusions on the manageability of conflicts and on the optimal conditions for their escalation or de-escalation. Much of this knowledge is useful or can easily be made useful for understanding (and controlling) interstate or interregion conflicts as well. A nation can be seen as a large system made up of, and led by, individuals with the same characteristics and types of behavior as members and leaders of organizations. In fact, many of the empirical studies on control and prevention of actual national conflicts in recent years apply principles and insights drawn from studies like those mentioned in this section.
460
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
Of course, it has to be admitted that in such cases much more attention has to be paid to specific system (i.e. national) characteristics such as its historical, strategic, political, and economic positioning. However, an elaboration of the ‘Antecedents’ with these elements does not diminish the usefulness of the model.
References [1] Genoa forum of UNESCO on Science and Society — Genoa Declaration on Science and Society, First Reflection Meeting: International Symposium on Science and Power, Genoa, Italy. Kouzminov V, Biggin S, Santesso R, editors. UNESCO, Paris, 1995. p. 183. [2] Drenth PJD. Science and international communication: the role of academies of sciences: building bridges. In: Proudakis C, Katsaros N, editors. The new role of the academies of sciences in the Balkan countries. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997. [3] European Commission. Internationalisation of research and technology: trends, issues and implications for science and technology policies in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1998. [4] European Commission. Perspectives for international cooperation in research and technological development. Brussels: EC, DG XII, 1995. [5] European Commission. Second modified proposal for an European parliament and council decision concerning the 5th framework programme. Brussels: EC, DG XII, 1998. [6] de Cerren˜ o ALC, Keynan A, editors. Scientific cooperation, state conflict: the roles of scientists in mitigating international discord. Ann NY Acad Sci 1998:866. [7] Weiss CH. Using social research in public policy making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1977. [8] Keynan A. The political impact of scientific cooperation on nations in conflict: an overview. In: de Cerren˜ o ALC, Keynan A, editors. Scientific cooperation, state conflict: the roles of scientists in mitigating international discord. Ann NY Acad Sci 1998:866. [9] Deutsch M. The resolution of conflict: constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973. [10] Rahim MA. Managing conflicts in organizations. 2nd ed. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992. [11] van der Vliert E. Complex interpersonal conflict behaviour: theoretical frontiers. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 1997. [12] van der Vliert E. Conflict and conflict management. In: Drenth PJD, Thierry H, de Wolff CJ, editors. Handbook of work and organizational psychology, vol. 3, 2nd ed, Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 1998. p. 351–76. Pieter J.D. Drenth is Professor of Psychology at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. He studied psychology at the Vrije Universiteit and the New York University, and received his PhD in 1960. He holds honorary doctorates from the University of Ghent and Rene Descartes, in Paris. Prof. Drenth served as vice-chancellor of the Vrije Universiteit from 1983 to 1987, and as President of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences from 1990 to 1996. At present he is President of All European Academies (ALLEA).
Scientific academies in international conflict resolution P.J.D. Drenth
*
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorstsraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract Science and scientists (including scholarship and scholars) have an important contribution to make to the mitigation and prevention of international conflicts. First and foremost, they emphasize the search for the truth, which requires an attitude of openness and collaboration. Second, they can provide evidence and information that can settle differences of opinion or reduce tensions. Third, they can offer independent and unbiased advice on policy matters that involve scientific information or require a scientific foundation. Fourth, they educate a new generation of scientists as well as the wider public, thus increasing the intellectual defensibility and democratic foundation of a society. For many of these contributions, an academy of arts and sciences may be used as a functional vehicle. A further contribution can be made by the organizational sciences through an analysis of the determinants and nature of conflict escalation or de-escalation, thus offering starting points for effective conflict management and prevention. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Science and scholarship have an important and distinctive potential for contributing to a better and peaceful future of mankind. I explore first the role of academies and sciences in this respect. This role is particularly apparent as the academies adhere to two general and central principles, phrased in the 1996 Genoa Declaration on Science and Society [1] as follows:
* Fax: +31-20-444-8702. E-mail address: [email protected] (P.J.D. Drenth). 0160-791X/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 6 0 - 7 9 1 X ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 2 5 - 2
452
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
Respect for the diversity of cultures within societies and promotion of science as a distinctive and important contributor to bridging such diverse cultures and promoting peaceful coexistence in accord with the principles of freedom, autonomy and rationality.
Mutual cooperation, reflecting the recognition that the production and utilization of scientific and technological knowledge are decisive for the future welfare of humanity and that science, with its universality, is uniquely positioned to serve as a laboratory in which mankind can work together to achieve a better future in accord with the principles of responsibility, solidarity and respect for the rights of individuals and nations. In addition to discussing the role of science academies, I call attention to the potential contribution by social science to the prevention or resolution of conflict. Social science can play this role through scientific analysis of the conflict process itself and through application of the principles of escalation and prevention of conflicts, as developed in organizational science.
2. The role of academies of arts and sciences The first academy, founded by Plato in a grove near Athens, was situated outside the center of public life. Rather than a wish for isolation, it was a desire to engage in critical reflection on philosophical theorems and political arguments that made this choice of location appropriate. When Emperor Justinian, almost a millennium later, decided to close this academy because the views developed there were considered damaging to the state, he did not realize that the value and contribution of an academy spring from its search for truth, its independent position, and its freedom to criticize. Later, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it was this same spirit of independence and intellectual freedom that caused the revival of the idea of an academy as a place where scholars meet, exchange ideas, and reflect in an environment of absolute intellectual freedom and independence. Of course, the ideas and recommendations produced by these intellectual activities may be used by governments, funding agencies, and institutes of learning, but the academy’s primary function is that of a meeting place for independent scholarly and scientific reflection. Discussion of the impact of scientific cooperation on relations between nations, in my opinion, should be extended to the whole field of learning and scholarship, including the human and social sciences. I will therefore refer to the wider and original concept of ‘scientia’. And in particular with an eye on the underlying question of how conflicts and hostilities between nations and regions can be solved or prevented, the inclusion of humanities and social sciences is indispensable. I focus on three main functions of an academy of arts and sciences, and consider to what extent all three may help build bridges and reduce conflicts.
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
453
2.1. Forum function In the first place, academies have an important forum, or meeting, function. Gatherings of the general assembly, meetings, conferences, colloquia, and workshops are organized by the academies or under their auspices. International contacts, reciprocal visits of scholars, special lectures, exchange of periodicals and other information, and membership of international scientific organizations further emphasize the international nature of the meeting function. Clearly, in this capacity academies have an important bridging function. As it has been all through history, scientific discourse seldom bothers about national boundaries. Even in the darkest times during the repressive Stalinistic regime, scientists from Russia communicated with scientists from the West. In fact, the contacts between academies were often the only avenue for such communications. This is not to say that differences — sometimes even sharp controversies — between (groups of) scientists do not occur. Two things, however, have to be kept in mind [2]. First, these differences in my opinion seldom coincide with divisions between continents, nations, or political alliances. Second, although the debates are sometimes heated and fierce, the differences are basically amenable to reason and can be worked out — or at least discussed — in rational, logical terms. Scientific differences of opinion and controversies can be solved only through reason and argument, never by power, force, or hostilities. In such a dialogue, the common search for the truth, the attempt to grasp each other’s arguments, and the joint effort to analyze and to comprehend the various issues and arguments unite rather than divide, and will lead to a common understanding. 2.2. Research function A second important responsibility of academies of sciences is the stimulation and promotion of scientific research. Academies do this either directly by sponsoring or executing research programs, or indirectly by evaluating research, providing research overviews in different scientific fields, or appraising the scientific achievements of individuals or institutes in order to award prizes, scholarships, or distinctions. Whether an academy does its own research or restricts its involvement to evaluating, stimulating, and sponsoring the research of others, it always involves an activity that furthers de´ tente. It presupposes collaboration and contact, the exchange of knowledge, expertise, and research results, and requires a genuine attempt to understand and apprehend each other’s work. And these contacts and this collaboration have to cross national borders. The international nature of science and scholarship has always been apparent, but it has become particularly conspicuous and increasingly important with the rapid development of electronic communication. The term ‘national science’ is almost a contradiction in terms. Even for participants in national research programs, it is an unavoidable prerequisite to have international connections and to take part in international collaborative networks. This trend toward globalization and internationalization is clearly illustrated by a recent working paper of the European Commission on internationalization of research
454
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
and technology [3]. Growing internationalization is apparent in an increase in the enrollment of foreign students, in the percentage of internationally co-authored articles among all co-authored articles, and in the rate of external over internal patent applications. An interesting question is why national researchers and research institutes should engage in international collaborative research. Under the guiding principles of subsidiarity (no replacement of the scientific cooperation policy of the member states), consistency with European Community practices, and efficiency, the European Union chose in 1995 the following goals for international research and technological development (R&TD) cooperation: 앫 Strengthen European competitiveness and develop technologies for future markets. 앫 Develop partnership in S&T with EU neighbors. 앫 Share responsibility and conduct research on major problems of the twenty-first century. 앫 Promote R&TD to foster sustainable economic growth for developing countries. 앫 Share scientific and technological information and contribute to large-scale and frontier science and technology [4]. It is of special interest to look at the EU’s collaboration with the most vulnerable and the least profitable global partners: the developing countries. Recently, in presenting the 5th Framework Program, the EU chose the following phrasing with respect to these developing countries: … a policy dialogue on research and technological development needs and priorities with groups of (developing) countries and regions will be developed. Cooperation activities will be envisaged, in particular in the following areas: mechanisms and conditions for sustainable development; sustainable management and use of natural resources, including agricultural production and food security; environmental and energy aspects; health and nutrition [5]. It is clear that the European Union is concerned with and willing to assist the developing countries in their research and technological development. The motives for such assistance are two-fold. First, the EU would give assistance for its own benefit and for what may be seen as selfish reasons, such as need for developing countries to participate in the study of global problems in which they are sometimes heavily involved. Assistance would also promote contact with and access to new and growing markets, expansion of scientific knowledge to include new phenomena or phenomena in new contexts, and certainly expansion of know-how about natural, biological, or medical processes which are important to understand biological or medical problems in the home country. A second motive is the genuine desire to assist developing countries that are facing difficult economic conditions. Assistance in the form of applicable knowledge and technological skills may help these countries to overcome their difficulties caused
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
455
by economic stagnation, by natural impediments and disasters, and social, educational, and medical arrears. Some of this rationale can be found in official EU programs, in accordance with Europe’s desire to see improvements in the well-being of poor populations. Keynan, in his introduction to a recent book on scientific cooperation and state conflicts, lists a number of motives for international cooperation, including the advancement of science itself and the utility of such cooperation [6]. But he also mentions the increased awareness of social responsibilities that transcend personal interests. This scientific cooperation may be effective in initiating dialogues between scientists of countries in conflict, thus helping to build bridges of confidence between countries. Inspired by these and other considerations, I have listed the following arguments and motives for international scientific collaboration: 앫 Worldwide responsibility for the advancement of science. Some of the major international research programs and projects can only be initiated and supported if a sufficient number of international partners are involved. It is a moral obligation for countries that are able to contribute and to participate to do so. 앫 A more self-interested need to “keep in touch”. It is important for researchers in any country to keep in touch with developments elsewhere through both professional and personal contacts. Communication and cross-fertilization are essential for the scientists’ own motivation and for the education and training of younger scientists. Moreover, participation in an international research effort is often a prerequisite for further national research. 앫 The need to study phenomena in a transnational context. Many research issues are supranational in scope, and fewer and fewer problems can be studied fully from a purely national perspective. Research areas such as the environment, health (transferable diseases, AIDS), energy, transport, tourism and trade, banking and finance, and migration, to mention a few, are clear examples of this trend. 앫 National interest. With respect to certain international questions, a particular country may have a specific interest because of specific national needs. A country may give these questions priority on strategic grounds. In The Netherlands (lacking space and natural resources, but well-endowed with an educated population and good geographical position), special emphasis is given to transport and trade, telecommunications and other forms of communication (linguistics), high-tech electronics, health research, and environmental research. 앫 Exploitation and further development of specific expertise. There may be some research areas where a country is able to provide a unique and profitable contribution because of its specific expertise and experience. Again, with respect to The Netherlands this may be relevant for research in the field of civil engineering (water control), agriculture and fisheries, fresh- and saltwater interface, astrophysics, microbiology, and biotechnology. 앫 Support and strengthening of R&D capabilities in less-developed countries. The stronger countries in the world have a responsibility to assist those countries that are less well-endowed and have relatively weak R&D capabilities. Of course this
456
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
assistance often takes the form of aid and support instead of collaboration for mutual benefit, but in the longer run they may become stronger partners. There is no doubt that in the very long run such aid and collaboration are the best precondition for peaceful coexistence and balance in the world, and are therefore beneficial for the currently stronger (Western) partner. Thus, international collaborative research can be set up and carried out for a number of different reasons and motives, some more self-interested or nationalistic, some more altruistic and inspired by global responsibility. I daresay that such collaboration (even inspired by motives of the first type) almost always creates better identification and understanding of common goals and, in the case of differences in objectives or methods, a greater sensitivity for and appreciation of the idiosyncrasies. Again, in a truly scientific or scholarly dispute, these differences seldom run parallel to political disagreements and conflicts. International cooperation in research therefore builds and reinforces bridges across borders. And it is beyond doubt that academies, in fostering such international and collaborative research, are valuable in this process. 2.3. Advisory function The third and, for the purpose of our discussion, probably the most instrumental function of an academy of science pertains to its advisory capacity. This advisory role addresses questions and problems related to science and science policy ranging from specific arguments to fundamental issues, from basic scientific controversies to practical problems of technological, medical, legal, or political applications. It is particularly here that the academies may have a contribution to make. At stake is the question of how an academy can steer science and science policy or the application of scientific findings toward societal benefits such as peace, tolerance, justice, and wellbeing of the people. In other words, how and to what extent can research, be it pure or applied, be deemed relevant? First the important question: What makes science relevant? Is it its usefulness? If so, what kind of usefulness? Links with gross domestic product and economic welfare? or well-being? and for whom? In a further analysis of this conceptualization of relevance, I wish to distinguish three dimensions. First, let us consider intrinsic relevance. Here we are not interested in the question of which practical goal or which economic utility is served. Raising questions about the nature of matter, the meaning of life, the laws of logic, the essence of communication, the development of norms and values, or the sense of religion is a fundamental and unique characteristic of the human species. Civilized societies should take pride in promoting and supporting activities that pose and answer such questions. Augmentation of the body of knowledge is an intrinsically valuable and precious quality of civilization. It will be clear that continuity of this scientific discourse can be fully realized only in dialogue with the next generation. In other words, the intrinsic relevance of science is strongly rooted in its educational responsibility. This educational function can even be widened to the general public. Intolerance, extremism, xenophobia,
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
457
intergroup conflicts, and aggression are all too often a product of ignorance. Knowledge of the determinants of human behavior and social processes, awareness of legal and economic conditions and constraints, and insight into the diversity and power of cultures and traditions are all preconditions for a better understanding, acceptance, and tolerance. It is therefore fair to say that education and furthering of scientific insights also within a broader public are important building blocks for the creation of a democratic and tolerant society. Second, there is instrumental relevance, which depends on the immediate or indirect application of scientific research. Such an application often takes place through the direct transformation of its results and findings into practical tools and instruments (technological development). But it can also take the form of stimulating the development of new diagnostic approaches or therapeutic or intervention practices. In the last section of this paper, we shall see an example of this kind of relevance. The third form of relevance is contributive relevance: the contribution of scientific knowledge and information to the development of policy and to decision making. Sometimes the scientist is (as one of the partners) deeply involved in the decisionmaking process itself. Then the weight and impact of scientific arguments are difficult to trace. Sometimes the scientist is more distant — for example, by applying the mechanism of conceptualization, including redefinition of the agenda, sensitization for problems, (re)definition of issues, or transformation of problems into nonproblems [7]. Often research results are used as ammunition in a policy debate, either to persuade the opposition or to weaken its position. Here the scientist should be particularly alert. Selective use of data, biased interpretation of findings, crude generalizations, or plain inaccuracies are more the rule than the exception in policy debates. Wherever possible the scientist should intervene and correct, amplify, and put the conclusions right, even in the popular media, if necessary. For a proper understanding and appreciation of many societal problems, including tensions and conflicts between nations, a solid, objective, and in-depth scientific analysis of the issues can be very helpful. A deliberate judgment in which scientific knowledge, including its gaps and weaknesses, if carefully weighed and interpreted, can also make a valuable contribution: it can create better and more responsible political attitudes and promote more accountable political decision making. It is my conviction that academies of arts and sciences are suitable candidates for providing such analyses and advice. The academy’s advisory capacity can be defended on three grounds. In the first place, the availability of ample scientific knowledge and experience within the walls of the academy constitute a large reservoir of expertise that can be used for advice and consultancy. Second, the impartiality and ‘disinterestedness’ of academy members help ensure that no political, economic, regional, or professional interest group will be favored in advice given by an academy. Third, the exclusive scientific orientation of the academy and its advisory work follows from its guiding principles — the promotion of science and the primacy of truth. At this point it may be wise to formulate a caveat. The academies of arts and
458
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
sciences should always be aware of their specific position and responsibilities. Scientists should not overstep their bounds. They can offer proper and careful analyses of the problems at hand, including the complexities, multi-causalities, and nonlinear relationships. They can provide alternative options, they can give empirically based estimates of various ‘if-then’ relationships, but they should not move actively into the political field themselves. Their sphere is science, and they should never become another political pressure group or take on the responsibilities of the responsible decision makers. In conclusion, it can be said that by a scientific analysis of conflictual or societal issues, by an active participation in the public debate, and by an advisory responsibility as just described, an academy of arts and science can contribute significantly to rational approaches to finding solutions and to political decision making that is amenable to reason. Through these three functions, academies can build intellectual and spiritual bridges across gulfs, even if sometimes they may seem to be deep abysses. 3. Contribution of organizational sciences In his comprehensive overview of the contribution of science and scientists to mitigating conflicts, Keynan points to scientists’ belief in rationality and rational solutions and to their tradition of solving or coping with conflicts and controversies [8]. They do this by agreeing on rules for collecting additional information or data and postponing definitive conclusions until further evidence has been acquired. More specifically, they can make use of their networks for communication, provide new ideas and conceptual frameworks, exemplify cooperation, develop mechanisms for monitoring and verifying treaty compliance, and offer to be the vehicle for cooperative efforts to reduce tensions. Keynan observes, however, that attempts to aid in conflict resolution are not in themselves part of the scientific enterprise. But here I would like to make an exception for those sciences that have made this kind of problem part of their research domain. I am thinking of organizational sciences (e.g. social psychology, organizational psychology, social engineering, and management sciences) that have dealt with conflict analysis and management for a long period of time. Many of the insights gathered in this field of research, albeit mainly focused on tensions and conflicts within and between organizations, can be applied and used in understanding (and possibly reducing) conflicts among larger systems, such as regions, ethnic groups, and nations. By showing the applicability of these research results to conflicts between nations, we offer at the same time an illustration of the instrumental relevance of science, as defined in the previous section. The lines along which studies in organizational conflicts and tensions have been carried out can be traced in journals like the Journal of Conflict Resolution and the Administrative Science Quarterly and in various comprehensive books [9–11]. Only a few aspects of this rich body of research can be reported here. In describing the model of (de)escalation, I follow more or less a recent review article of van der Vliert [12].
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
459
Picture a sequence of three boxes of variables, each representing an element in the model of conflict (de)escalation. In the first box, ‘Antecedents’, three types of antecedent determinants of conflict are listed: system characteristics (culture, values, traditions, as well as legal or structural aspects, such as age, size, homogeneity), individual characteristics (personality, temperament, and coping style, such as confronting, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and problem-solving), and relational aspects (inequality of resources, power or prestige, interdependencies, and positive or negative attitudes and prejudices). The second box, ‘Conflicts’, indicates four types of conflict: conflicts over (often scarce) resources, conflicts over goals and objectives, conflicts over procedures and agreements, and conflicts that stem from emotional reactions, ingroup/outgroup feelings, identity problems, etc. The final box depicts two clusters of possible ‘Reactions’, one leading to escalation of the conflict, the other to de-escalation. In both clusters we have spontaneous as well as strategic (controlled or managed) behavior. With respect to spontaneous escalatory behavior, one may think of applying simplistic good–bad dichotomies (verbal), fighting and attacking, avoiding contact, irritating behavior and the like. Escalatory strategies include worsening antecedent conditions and intensifying the conflict by emphasizing differences, introducing vetos or non-possumus stances, bringing in allies, and increasing the seriousness of the conflict, for example, by moving it from a conflict over procedures to a conflict over goals. Similarly, we have many examples of spontaneous de-escalating reactions — denying the conflict, changing attitudes with respect to the opponent, de-escalating behavior such as making jokes, emphasizing commonalities rather than differences, and showing a constructive problem-solving attitude. Strategic de-escalating behavior includes changing (improving) the antecedent conditions, lowering the perceived level of importance of the conflict, emphasizing the potential for solving the conflict, entering serious negotiations, or focusing on procedures and rules instead of the nature of the conflict. It will be obvious that de-escalating behaviors and strategies can lead to de-escalation of the conflict, which in itself provides positive reinforcement of the de-escalating process. The situation gradually moves into the desired de-escalation spiral, leading to a peaceful solution or settlement. Similarly, the escalating reactions and strategies may create the escalation spiral, leading eventually to an outburst or social disaster. I mention this scheme to show that organizational sciences have produced a useful model to analyze the various conditions and determinants of interorganizational conflicts. The description outlined here is sketchy and incomplete. Hundreds of studies and experiments are available to allow fairly detailed conclusions on the manageability of conflicts and on the optimal conditions for their escalation or de-escalation. Much of this knowledge is useful or can easily be made useful for understanding (and controlling) interstate or interregion conflicts as well. A nation can be seen as a large system made up of, and led by, individuals with the same characteristics and types of behavior as members and leaders of organizations. In fact, many of the empirical studies on control and prevention of actual national conflicts in recent years apply principles and insights drawn from studies like those mentioned in this section.
460
P.J.D. Drenth / Technology in Society 23 (2001) 451–460
Of course, it has to be admitted that in such cases much more attention has to be paid to specific system (i.e. national) characteristics such as its historical, strategic, political, and economic positioning. However, an elaboration of the ‘Antecedents’ with these elements does not diminish the usefulness of the model.
References [1] Genoa forum of UNESCO on Science and Society — Genoa Declaration on Science and Society, First Reflection Meeting: International Symposium on Science and Power, Genoa, Italy. Kouzminov V, Biggin S, Santesso R, editors. UNESCO, Paris, 1995. p. 183. [2] Drenth PJD. Science and international communication: the role of academies of sciences: building bridges. In: Proudakis C, Katsaros N, editors. The new role of the academies of sciences in the Balkan countries. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997. [3] European Commission. Internationalisation of research and technology: trends, issues and implications for science and technology policies in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1998. [4] European Commission. Perspectives for international cooperation in research and technological development. Brussels: EC, DG XII, 1995. [5] European Commission. Second modified proposal for an European parliament and council decision concerning the 5th framework programme. Brussels: EC, DG XII, 1998. [6] de Cerren˜ o ALC, Keynan A, editors. Scientific cooperation, state conflict: the roles of scientists in mitigating international discord. Ann NY Acad Sci 1998:866. [7] Weiss CH. Using social research in public policy making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1977. [8] Keynan A. The political impact of scientific cooperation on nations in conflict: an overview. In: de Cerren˜ o ALC, Keynan A, editors. Scientific cooperation, state conflict: the roles of scientists in mitigating international discord. Ann NY Acad Sci 1998:866. [9] Deutsch M. The resolution of conflict: constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973. [10] Rahim MA. Managing conflicts in organizations. 2nd ed. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992. [11] van der Vliert E. Complex interpersonal conflict behaviour: theoretical frontiers. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 1997. [12] van der Vliert E. Conflict and conflict management. In: Drenth PJD, Thierry H, de Wolff CJ, editors. Handbook of work and organizational psychology, vol. 3, 2nd ed, Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 1998. p. 351–76. Pieter J.D. Drenth is Professor of Psychology at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. He studied psychology at the Vrije Universiteit and the New York University, and received his PhD in 1960. He holds honorary doctorates from the University of Ghent and Rene Descartes, in Paris. Prof. Drenth served as vice-chancellor of the Vrije Universiteit from 1983 to 1987, and as President of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences from 1990 to 1996. At present he is President of All European Academies (ALLEA).