After Hurricane Irma rearranged Class XVII's curriculum, the group reconvened in Destin to learn about the red snapper fishery and practice conflict/ communication methods. The beach-front resort digs and emphases on proximate dining helped fellows unwind after a trying month while providing an environment conducive to post-session socialization. Our field trip gave us first hand experiences on the resource itself- a fishing trip on the Gulf of Mexico. Many of the fellows were not experienced anglers and several were surprised by the trip. Tara mentioned being shocked at the amount of fish that had to be thrown back, but ended up dying anyways. Paloma was initially skeptical about her willingness to hook a fish, but eventually got wrapped up in the excitement. Although, she too felt bad about the fates of several of the fish. At the end of the trip, we'd glimpsed the species we came to learn about and had plenty of table fare for lunch! We also got the chance to hear from our captain about his perspectives on the conflict and that prepared us for the stakeholder panel that was to follow. The session's overall focus was on learning about conflict in natural resources, developing effective listening skills, and being introduced to the triangle of needs to separate positions from interests- skills that are, theoretically, transferable to various conflicts in our professional lives.

Integration of these new skills is not easy for everyone. For example, Ed recently organized a stakeholder meeting to better understand issues surrounding artificial reef deployment (artificial reefs are physical structures such as concrete or rocks that are dumped in the ocean to create better areas for fish and fishers). This provided a chance to practice active listening; both to better understand the stakeholders' positions, and to help the stakeholder think Ed understood their position. The experience provided more questions than answers. How are scientists perceived when they focus on stakeholders' feelings? Do some stakeholders expect the scientists to focus more on the science/task, and then become frustrated or confused if instead more attention is directed towards the user? Is this response rare enough to be negligible, or is it easy to detect and rectify mid-communication? More generally, how ought NRLI fellows to gauge the best approach with which to address specific stakeholders (e.g., more person oriented or more task oriented)? There seems to be a trade-off in a time-limited meeting between gathering information about the task building trust and social capital by listening about personal perspectives/feelings.

  

Another less comfortable example of trying out these skills was afforded by a burgeoning conflict over institutional organization at the University of Florida. In this context, Ed tried to practice separating positions from interests to hopefully reduce adversity among colleagues who ostensibly have compatible interests but conflicting positions (e.g., Ed and Lisa and Destin orange conflict). There seems the very real possibility of stakeholder pushback against approaches that are perceived as "canned"-it seems possible that stakeholder won't like to think formulas are being applied to them, even if the end is for better processes and outcomes. This raises other questions. Without doubt, conflict tactics learned at the Destin sessions are aimed to influence the conversation and environment towards one more conducive for meaningful dialog. How can these approaches be applied without the intended audience feeling manipulated?