 |
Program on Dispute Resolution - Research Projects
Conflict Resolution Programming in Canadian Degree granting Institutions:
Analysis & Trends
Project Overview
In the summer of 2004, a peer to peer study was undertaken by Michelle Le
Baron (P.I., Dir. Dispute Resolution Program, Faculty of Law, University of British
Columbia) and Colleen Brown (Researcher, University of British Columbia) to
determine what Conflict Resolution, Dispute Resolution and Peace Studies
degree-granting programming was occurring in English speaking, Canadian postsecondary
institutions.
Scope
Only English speaking, Canadian institutions were contacted for the purposes of
this study. While the initial focus of the project was to examine graduate level,
degree-granting programming only, due to the small number of institutions that
were implicated, the study was widened to include consideration of
undergraduate programming and the legal curricula at several law schools.
Ultimately, 16 Universities and 17 schools/programs were included in the study.
They include programming emanating from:
- Carleton University: Department of Law & Norman Patterson School of
International Affairs
- McMaster University: Centre for Peace Studies
- Mount St. Vincent University: Peace & Conflict Studies Program
- Royal Military College of Canada: Defense Management & Policy
(Conflict Management)
- Royal Roads University: Peace & Conflict Studies Program
- Saint Paul University: Conflict Studies
- Trinity College: Joint Specialist Degree with PACs at U of T
- University of British Columbia: Faculty of Law
- University of New Brunswick: Policy Studies (People Property & ADR)
- University of Ottawa: Faculty of Law
- University of Saskatchewan: College of Law
- University of Toronto: Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies
- University of Victoria: Institute for Dispute Resolution
- University of Waterloo: Conrad Grebel University College
- University of Winnipeg: Menno Simons College
- York University:Osgoode Hall Law School
Method
Scheduled peer-to-peer phone conversations occurred with the majority of heads
of programming or representative faculty members in each of the above noted
institutions. A standard set of questions was asked which ranged from general
institutional information through to the individual’s perception of where their
particular kind of programming would be in five years. In each case, publicly
available information from the internet or relevant registrar’s offices
supplemented the data collected. In several cases, institutional contact was not
made (for a variety of reasons) – and publicly available data was used,
exclusively.
Outcome
The data, while largely complete, has areas which deserve further
investigation/follow up. It would be helpful, for example, if further attempts to contact individuals within those institutions which were not directly spoken with.
Quantitative data is, generally, available for each program – but where phone
contact was not made, the qualitative aspects (including individuals’ feelings,
projections and institutional memory) are lacking. The general areas for which
data has been collected are the following:
Further synthesis and analysis can, and should, be made as I believe the
information collected comprises, currently a rather unique data set.
For more information on any of the above, contact Michelle Le Baron
(lebaron@law.ubc.ca) or Colleen Brown (browncf@interchange.ubc.ca).
C. Brown
February 8, 2005
|
