About the Repor

This report, requested by the United States Institute of Peace 

(USIP) as part of its response to the focus on education 

and training provided for in the legislation that created it,1

examines the match between graduate academic programs 

in international peace and conflict, and the needs of 

organizations and agencies that hire individuals for conflictfocused work in the field. Nike Carstarphen is an independent 

consultant and a cofounder of the Alliance for Conflict 

Transformation. Craig Zelizer is the associate director of the 

Master of Arts in Conflict Resolution Program at Georgetown 

University and a cofounder of the Alliance for Conflict 

Transformation. Robert Harris is the conflict management 

services manager at the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security’s Transportation Security Administration. David J. 

Smith was previously a senior program officer in the Education 

and Training Center–Domestic and is currently the National 

Educational Outreach officer at USIP.

Since its founding in 1984, the Institute’s education and 

training efforts have been wide-ranging. These efforts include 

sponsoring the National Peace Essay Contest for U.S. high 

school students; developing programs on peacebuilding for 

young people, secondary teachers, and college and university 

faculty in the United States and in zones of conflict; training 

civil society actors in conflict resolution approaches; and 

publishing research on best practices and approaches to 

1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

Special Report 246 August 2

© 2010 by the United States Institute of Peace. 

All rights reserved.

Nike Carstarphen, Craig Zelizer, Robert Harris, and 

David J. Smith

Graduate Education and 

Professional Practice in 

International Peace and 

Conflict 

Summary

•	 Graduate-level academic institutions are not adequately preparing students for careers in 

international peace and conflict management. Curricula need to incorporate more applied 

skills, cross-sectoral coursework, and field-experience opportunities.

•	 Unlike most faculty, students, and alumni, employers see substantial room for improvement 

in preparing students for the field. 

•	 Overseas experience is, for employers, the most valuable asset.

•	 General project management skills—program planning and design, monitoring and evaluation, computer literacy, report writing skills, budgeting, staff management, research skills, 

grant writing, and knowledge of the funding and policy world—and cross-cultural competencies and language skills are critical.

•	 International peace and conflict management practices increasingly overlap with more traditional work, such as human rights, humanitarian issues, and development programming. 

•	 Employers want candidates who have a holistic understanding of international conflict 

work, specialized knowledge and skills, practical know-how, and political savvy, yet often 

fail to grasp what academic programs are in fact teaching students to prepare them for 

the field.

•	 Academic programs need to strengthen their outreach and interaction with employers and 

to market the value of their programs.

United States Institute of Pe

SPECIAL REPO

Conten

Introduction 2

The Study 2 

Academic Programs and Employers 3

Essential KSAs 3

Gaps Between Programs and Needs 6

Gaps Between Programs and Best Practices 8

Explaining the Gaps 9

Recommendations for the Field 11

Continued on page 2
2

•	 To better prepare themselves for the field, recent graduates and alumni are seeking to 

increase their applied education, field experience, project management skills, mentoring, 

and career guidance.

Introduction

Over the past two decades, the number of academic institutions providing education and 

training in international peace and conflict resolution in the United States has grown.2 Much 

of this development has been at the graduate level.3 In the fall of 2005, to assess the current state of the field more accurately, the United States Institute of Peace commissioned 

the Alliance for Conflict Transformation (ACT) to study the level of academic preparation of 

graduate students and professionals seeking careers in the international peace and conflict 

field. The research explored the match between academic program offerings and the needs 

of the organizations and agencies that hire individuals for international conflict work. 

Continued contact since then with faculty, students, and employers has both extended and 

supported the findings. This report offers an overview of those findings, highlights existing 

gaps, and outlines concrete recommendations on how academic programs can better prepare 

students.

The Stud

The goal of this study was to explore the match between academic program offerings and the 

needs of the organizations and agencies that hire individuals for international conflict work. 

Overall, career opportunities related to international peace and conflict work have 

increased substantially in recent years.4 Positions can be grouped into two broad categories: 

those working in international conflicts and those working on international conflicts.5 The 

first refers to efforts that focus on or take place in countries experiencing conflict—such as 

those offering humanitarian relief, providing development, or helping with democracy and 

governance. The second refers to efforts that directly or indirectly seek to manage, mitigate, 

or resolve conflicts—such as negotiating peace agreements, preventing deadly conflict, 

building positive relations among adversaries, and developing secure and stable societies.6

Of late, the line distinguishing these two has blurred. Organizations working in more 

traditional sectors—such as humanitarian assistance, governance, and public health—

increasingly find themselves addressing conflict directly, or at a minimum bringing a 

conflict-sensitive lens to their work.7 Those working to prevent, manage, or resolve conflict 

find that they also need to address the root causes of conflicts, such as poverty and lack 

of political participation through civil society, which have traditionally been the domain of 

development organizations.

Given the growth and increasingly overlapping practices in these two areas of work, the 

number of graduate programs designed to prepare individuals for careers related to international peace and conflict work has also risen significantly. More programs focus specifically 

on training students to effectively address international conflict. In addition, many programs in other sectors—international affairs, security, public health, development—offer 

certificates or courses related to international peace and conflict, or both.

For the study, ACT interviewed twenty-five faculty, program administrators, and career 

development staff from thirteen academic programs at nine postgraduate institutions in the 

United States that focus on international conflict–related fields—humanitarian work, international relations and affairs, public policy, conflict resolution and analysis, foreign service, 

government, public health, and military officer training.8 In addition, sixty-one students 

and alumni from the graduate programs surveyed completed an online survey and, of those, 

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace, 

which does not advocate specific policy positions.

To request permission to photocopy or reprint materials, 

e-mail: permissions@usip.org

About the Institu

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, 

nonpartisan institution established and funded by Congress. 

Its goals are to help prevent and resolve violent conflicts, 

promote post-conflict peacebuilding, and increase conflict 

management tools, capacity, and intellectual capital worldwide. The Institute does this by empowering others with 

knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by its direct 

involvement in conflict zones around the globe.

Board of Di

J. Robinson West (Chair), Chairman, PFC Energy, Washington, 

D.C. • George E. Moose (Vice Chairman), Adjunct Professor 

of Practice, The George Washington University, Washington, 

D.C. • Anne H. Cahn, Former Scholar in Residence, American 

University, Washington, D.C. • Chester A. Crocker, James R. 

Schlesinger Professor of Strategic Studies, School of Foreign 

Service, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. • Ikram U. 

Khan, President, Quality Care Consultants, LLC., Las Vegas, 

Nev. • Kerry Kennedy, Human Rights Activist • Stephen D. 

Krasner, Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations at Stanford University • Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor 

of Law, George Mason University, Arlington, Va. • Judy Van 

Rest, Executive Vice President, International Republican 

Institute, Washington, D.C. • Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice 

President, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 

Members Ex Offi

Michael H. Posner, Assistant Secretary of State for 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor • James N. Miller, 

Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy •

Ann E. Rondeau, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy; President, 

National Defense University • Richard H. Solomon

President, United States Institute of Peace (nonvoting) 

teaching about peace. Recently, because of the need to 

improve peacebuilding practitioner training, the Institute 

engaged in a major effort to develop a comprehensive program 

in conflict management designed for professionals resulting in 

the establishment of the Academy for International Conflict 

Management and Peacebuilding.

Continued from page 1
3

fourteen were interviewed for the research. Finally, twenty-one professionals from twenty 

organizations that conduct work related to international conflict were also interviewed.9

The majority of groups and individuals focused on humanitarian and operational work. The 

study was completed in November 2005.

This summary of the research highlights existing strengths and challenges and outlines 

concrete recommendations both for academic programs to better prepare students and for 

employers.

In reviewing the findings, it is important to emphasize that the study was limited to 

international conflict programs. Many of the identified gaps regarding critical skills and 

knowledge, however, would also be true for most comparable social science degrees. 

Academic Programs and Employers

One common feature of the programs surveyed is their aim to train students how to analyze 

and understand a particular problem (such as war, ethnic violence, and political instability) 

or set of problems within their respective fields, to teach students about the range of possible approaches to and the associated skills in addressing the problems identified (such 

as negotiation, mediation, peacebuilding, and economic development), and to provide 

students with the capacity to intervene effectively to manage, mitigate, and resolve the 

problem. The emphasis on theory and practice varies across programs.

Programs can be distinguished by their curricular emphasis in four general areas and how 

they combine these areas:

•	 sectors—security, political, economic, sociocultural (health and education, for instance);

•	 levels of analysis—intrastate (local, national), national, regional, international, and 

global;

•	 stages of conflict—prevention, escalation, violence, de-escalation, stabilization, transition, 

and transformation to sustainable peace; and

•	 approaches to intervention—military, peacekeeping, peacemaking, peacebuilding, development, diplomacy, and humanitarian operations.

The employers surveyed all carry out work related to international peace and conflict. 

Differences are significant, however, in the language used to describe their work, in how 

they conceptualize its focus, and in the degree to which they emphasize either conflict 

mainstreaming (that is, the integration of peace and conflict strategies within other discrete fields and across sectors and responsibilities) or stand-alone conflict resolution and 

peacebuilding.

Essential KSAs: Academic Programs Versus Employer Needs

Academic programs across the spectrum offer many of the same knowledge, skills, and 

abilities—known as KSAs. The majority of differences relate to the relative emphasis placed 

on particular KSAs. Similarly, most employers valued the same KSAs in their employees, 

though differences in emphasis related to each organization’s area of work were evident. 

Table 1 compares the five KSAs most emphasized in the graduate programs (according to 

faculty and staff) and those most valued among the employers. It is premature to identify 

a consensus on the core competencies given the lack of agreement on the core theories and 

skills in the academic field and the different conceptualizations of the field as practiced by 

employers. This report does demonstrate the KSAs identified most often and most strongly 

among the academic programs and employers, however.
4

Table 1. Top Five K

Rank Academic Programs Employers

1 Theories of conflict analysis: causes, sources, 

and dynamics of conflict and research skills

Field experience: work and internships abroad

2 Theories of conflict resolution: understanding approaches to interventionProgram management: program planning and design, 

monitoring and evaluation, budgeting, and writing skills

3 Country- or region-specific: multicultural 

skills, emerging foci such as evaluation, terrorism, security and conflict, environment, stabilization and reconstruction

Country- or region-specific: multicultural and 

language skills

4 Political issues: human rights, 

democracy and governance

Applied conflict analysis and resolution skills

5 Applied knowledge and skills: internships (U.S. 

and limited international opportunities) that provide students with concrete work skills and practical knowledge of the how the field operates

Sector-specific, practical, technical expertise: 

civil society, democracy and governance, 

gender, civilian-military cooperation

Not surprisingly, academic programs emphasize theory and analytical skills related to 

peace and conflict resolution, while employers stress the importance of field experience and 

program management skills as key areas. In addition, employers strongly emphasized the 

need for graduates to have conflict resolution skills—including facilitation, dialogue, training, and conflict resolution mainstreaming10—and applied research expertise, such as conducting assessments or evaluations that are critical in conducting successful programs. “The 

primary concern,” one senior staff member responsible for a peacebuilding program explained, 

“is that people have tangible skills that provide direct benefits to field programs.”

The majority of academic programs also encourage students to develop cross-sectoral and 

country or regional understanding in addition to conflict expertise. Specialization comes 

with the choice of elective courses, typically one to five across the degree programs. Some 

programs have designed formal specializations with suggested or recommended coursework. 

Other programs allow students to design their own specializations and take whatever elective courses they want (with varying degrees of faculty oversight).

Several programs reported emerging interest in terrorism, civilian-military relations, 

stabilization and reconstruction, disaster preparedness, and conflict (violence) prevention. 

In addition, all programs seek to provide at least some applied, practical skills training and 

field experience opportunities.

Most programs enable students to develop practical skills in at least one of several ways:

•	 regular coursework in a classroom setting;

•	 special skills-based credit and noncredit courses;

•	 hands-on training through practical institutes and simulations, workshops, and other activities; and

•	 field practice through internships, practicums, field projects, working groups, assistantships, and field work fellowships.

All programs provide opportunities for students to develop applied skills in a range of 

basic, advanced, and specialized knowledge and skills (see table 2).11 Basic skills courses 

provide training in analytical thinking and writing, and help provide a foundation in a variety of international conflict careers. Advanced or meta-skills—such as impact assessments, 

management skills, and negotiation—transcend particular professions and teach skills that 

are needed in a variety of international careers. Specialized training gives students practical and technical knowledge about the way particular organizations and industries work, 

specific policies and processes, and particular sectors, regions, or countries.
5

Table 2 outlines the key areas that academic programs should cover. Few programs, however, provide opportunities for students to develop the advanced and specialized skills and 

many do not even adequately address the basic skills set.

Challenges in Gaining Field Experience

All graduate programs recognize the need to ensure that students who want or need additional field experience get that opportunity, whether through internships, practicums, or 

other fieldwork. The greatest constraints are lack of funding (especially for overseas experiences) and either weak or too few relationships with practicioner organizations. Successful 

field experience generally requires that academic programs form partnerships with organizations, which helps students build long-term relationships rather than one-off short-term 

internships. For example, an academic program might develop a relationship with a practitioner organization that include one or more of the following activities: regular placement 

of student interns each year, guest visits and lectures by practitioners, having students 

and faculty address issues related to field practice in classes, and providing fellowships for 

students to conduct in-depth field research on related topics.

Students who want to do direct intervention work—such as facilitation, negotiation, or 

mediation—will find some opportunities in the field, though far more of these are available 

in domestic than in international settings. University, community, or courts-based programs 

are the most typical. Many of the students and alumni surveyed in this research, however, 

said that they had few such opportunities and wanted more. Academic programs can provide students with increased opportunities by starting dialogue and conflict programs to 

address issues both on their campuses and in surrounding communities, and by developing 

Basic Advanced or Meta-Skills Specialized

Basic quantitative and qualitative 

research, analysis, and measurement

Research and analysis skills 

for international conflict 

(such as conflict, political, or economic analysis)

Sectors and industries: U.S. 

foreign policy, international 

development, economics 

and finance, security, peace 

and conflict resolution

Analytical, critical thinking skills Impact assessment (such as peace 

and conflict impact assessment, 

human rights impact assessment)

Specific topics (such as democracy and governance, economics 

and conflict, trade, economic 

development, security, terrorism, health, human rights, 

humanitarian emergencies, 

postconflict stability and reconstruction, protracted conflicts)

Writing skills (such as full reports, onepage briefs, writing for nonspecialists)Policy formulation and advocacy Actors and organizations: U.S. 

agencies (such as the United 

States Agency for International 

Development or the National 

Security Council), intergovernmental agencies (such as the 

United Nations, Organization of 

American States, World Bank, 

and World Trade Organization), 

nongovernmental organizations

Public speaking (such as presentations and formal briefings)Leadership, teamwork, and 

management skills

Country-specific or 

regional knowledge

Budgets and financial statements Cross-cultural competency Foreign language training

Networking Process skills (such as negotiation, mediation, and facilitation)Program planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation

Ethics Technical skills (such as fundraising, grant, and proposal writing)

Table 2. Skills Development Offered by Academic Progra

The greatest constraints are lack 

of funding . . . and either weak 

or too few relationships with 

practitioner organizations.
6

strong partnerships with conflict organizations that can provide additional field or training 

opportunities. 

Even fewer overseas opportunities—especially at the policymaking, political, or international level—are available, and these typically entail observing and assisting rather than 

leading efforts. Among the challenges beyond the constraints already described are the 

sensitive and long-term nature of international interventions. These interventions require 

senior-level professional oversight, because of both the personal risks and the need to 

ensure culturally and politically responsive processes. Although it is challenging to provide 

such opportunities, programs could work to foster opportunities for their students with 

partner NGOs, offer study abroad or conflict resolution field programs (or both), and assist 

students in pursuing fellowships and other opportunities that support these types of experiences. In addition, offering more courses on the concrete knowledge and skills needed to 

pursue international careers is critical.

Conflict Programming: Mainstream or Stand-Alone

Another theme that emerged is whether organizations focus more on mainstreaming conflict sensitivity into their projects or more on directly conducting projects. Much of the 

discussion has been mistakenly framed as either mainstreaming or stand-alone projects and 

divisions, when in fact each approach addresses distinct needs and both can be used within 

intervention initiatives in the field.

Among organizations focused primarily on humanitarian or development relief, almost 

all respondents stressed active efforts to mainstream conflict sensitivity throughout their 

work. This means ensuring that programming, regardless of sector, tries to have a positive 

influence on conflicts, or at a minimum avoids having a negative impact—the do-no-harm 

approach. “We need people who know how to mainstream conflict resolution into all areas 

and programs,” a senior staffer at a development organization said. Organizations that 

define themselves as primarily working in conflict tend to mainstream a conflict perspective 

into their regular programming.

Many of these organizations are also increasingly adding work on conflict to their work in 

conflict by integrating conflict resolution and peacebuilding into traditional programming, 

and developing stand-alone projects that seek to address conflict directly. In addition, 

many primarily development or humanitarian relief-focused organizations are hiring conflict 

resolution specialists and creating units or departments that specialize in conflict to aid the 

process of mainstreaming and adding or integrating conflict resolution and peacebuilding 

projects.12

Organizations that define themselves as primarily working on conflict tend to conduct 

stand-alone conflict resolution and peacebuilding projects. They are, however, increasingly 

involved in more development work, either by rooting their conflict resolution efforts within 

development-focused projects or by collaborating with development organizations, or sometimes both. Furthermore, conflict resolution organizations engage more and more frequently 

in projects that seek to build good governance, contribute to economic growth, and foster 

the rule of law. These developments are in response to the realization that working in conflict and on conflict are both intertwined and necessary for sustainable peace.

Gaps Between Programs and Needs

Faculty, students, alumni, and employers differed significantly on whether students are adequately prepared for careers in international peace and conflict. As indicated in figure 1, the 
7

vast majority of faculty (nearly 90 percent) agreed with the statement whereas the majority 

of employers (more than 50 percent) disagreed.

The gaps between academic training and employer needs can be summarized as follows:

Theory versus practice. Being able to apply academic expertise to practical needs is 

of course imperative. All employers rated overseas work and direct applied experience 

(preferably working on development or conflict-related initiatives) as the most valuable 

qualification for positions related to international peace and conflict activities. Despite its 

efforts, academia has not kept up with the needs and expectations of employers. Students 

and especially alumni have made this clear in almost unanimously calling for academic 

programs to provide more practical, applied KSAs and increased opportunities for hands-on 

experience. Several employers felt that students came out of graduate programs filled with 

theories about the sources and dynamics of conflicts, but not knowing how to translate their 

knowledge to real-world practice. One practitioner remarked that recent graduates often 

don’t realize that in the field in choosing how to respond to conflict situations, that there is 

often no ideal response, only the need to choose “the least worst option.”

A development specialist explained it this way: “While degrees and/or expertise in 

conflict resolution are helpful, the majority of the conflict related positions also require 

additional skills and expertise, such as general program management skills and expertise in 

another sector (economics, development, health, gender, and so on).”

Program management. Employers overwhelmingly rated program management KSAs as 

essential, though these tended to receive little emphasis in academic strategies. Many 

students graduate from programs related to international conflict without a basic understanding of program management, fundraising, budgeting, evaluation, and other related 

tasks so essential to implementing international conflict intervention programs.

Generalists versus specialists. Academic programs tend to produce generalists, but what 

employers say they want are specialists with expertise in particular sectors. Employers seek 

candidates with a holistic, multidimensional, and multisectoral understanding of the field 

who can apply that understanding and theory to specific settings and contexts. Employers 

also emphasized technical skills such as economic development, governance, democratization, or rule of law, more than process skills such as mediation, facilitation, or dialogue. One 

explanation for this finding is that few positions focus exclusively and directly on conflict 

resolution and peacebuilding. “Hard subject skills are more important than process skills,” a 

senior consulting professional remarked, “unless it is a project focused exclusively on conflict resolution. Even then, it’s important to have some technical skills.”

Figure 1. Are Students Adequately Prepared?

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

 0

 Strongly

agree

 Agree Disagree Strongly

disagree

 Students/Alumni

 Faculty

 Employers

percent

Employers overwhelmingly rated 

program management KSAs as 

essential, though these tended to 

receive little emphasis in academic 

strategies. 
8

Whether students actually develop a specialization depends largely on the electives they 

took. Unfortunately, many reported having only general notions of what they wanted to do, 

or more often only a cursory knowledge of what they needed to study and do to qualify for 

the careers and positions they sought. The scant specialized career advice typical of many 

programs may explain this deficiency. Programs also need to do more to help students 

develop competency in sectoral-based conflict programming. 

Conflict resolution mainstreaming and cross-sector development. Many organizations want 

not only specialists in traditional functional areas but also individuals who can mainstream 

conflict sensitivity and conflict resolution into general programming. Employers who highly 

value conflict expertise and conflict resolution skills seek professionals to apply such skills 

in a variety of situations and sectors. Several areas were identified as the most pressing 

gaps: the security sector (among nonmilitary people), rule of law (protection and human 

rights), and democracy and governance. Academic programs need to ensure that students 

understand how to integrate conflict resolution skills and techniques across diverse sectors, 

not see conflict as a stand-alone process. 

Networking and collaboration. Many employers emphasized the need for people to know 

the key players in international conflict, both in the United States and internationally. 

Employers mentioned in particular the United States Agency for International Development 

(USAID), the United Nations, the World Bank, and European Union institutions, as well as 

the key nongovernmental organizations and contractors in the field. Many employers also 

stressed their need for individuals who can develop and manage cooperative relationships 

with different actors at different levels (such as civilian-military relations, local field partners, funders). 

New language and concepts in the field. Most employers interviewed, both for profit 

and nonprofit, receive substantial funding from government agencies, notably USAID, and 

therefore want and need their employees to understand the culture—that is, terminology, 

jargon, concepts, and frameworks—of such agencies. Employers emphasized that the ability 

to translate and fit the organization’s culture and methods into those of donor agencies is 

essential. The same is true of international agencies and U.S. government entities. Many 

graduating students do not have an adequate understanding of how the “business” of peace 

functions in terms of funding, contracting, and related areas.

Political savvy. Academic programs that use case studies, that familiarize students with 

government policies and strategies, and that focus on the role of power and personal, 

organizational, and national interests better prepare students to understand both “what is” 

and strategies for “what can/should be.” An increasing emphasis on conflict advocacy and 

knowledge of the field and key players is essential in this area.

Writing skills. Equally important as field savvy and sophisticated analytical skills is to be 

able to summarize vast amounts of information, materials, and analysis into concise, wellwritten, and comprehensive reports and concise policy briefs.

Gaps Between Programs and Best Practices

One surprise finding has to do with where employers are falling short. Many faculty, staff, 

students, and alumni expressed frustration with employers in several areas, including too 

little employer understanding of what programs actually teach and prepare students to do 

and of emerging best practices related to international conflict. 

Many graduates said their organizations were too traditional in their thinking and 

approaches to international conflict, and did not adequately understand or appreciate the 

knowledge, skills, and abilities the graduates had to offer. According to one mid-level alumnus with conflict resolution expertise working in an intergovernmental agency, “They just 

Employers emphasized that 

the ability to translate and fit 

the organization’s culture and 

methods into those of donor 

agencies is essential.
9

don’t understand the importance of process [referring to facilitation, dialogue, and interestbased negotiation]. They use the new language of conflict resolution, but still practice 

distributive bargaining. They still do things the old way. My organization needs to be more 

strategic and have a conflict resolution perspective of the range of intervention options.”

Some employers acknowledged that their organizations had neither adequately conceptualized their work related to international conflict nor adapted to changing realities and 

needs. An individual in a consulting firm that supports development activities remarked, 

“We don’t know how to define international conflict work and that is one of our problems. 

One of the things we’re trying to do [in my department] is get the rest of the organization to 

look at programs through a conflict lens; to be able to do conflict assessment and respond to 

USAID mission requests and be more aware of what donors are interested in. We are still too 

tied to our traditional sectors of work and too focused on economic development. We need 

to look at conflict and development. We haven’t fully recognized the importance of conflict 

management and mitigation as an organization.”

Although many organizations recognize the need for mainstreaming peace and conflict 

into their general programming, understanding of the potential benefit that academic programs and their students can provide to these organizations, regardless of the specific job 

functions, is still in short supply. One faculty program director in peace operations lamented, 

“A lot of employers don’t know they need what we’re doing. So, we put students out there 

with our understanding to help spread the understanding of why what we do is important. 

Some employers now get it—it’s a bottom up approach.”

The lack of employer knowledge and understanding is compounded by the difficulties 

many alumni experience in adequately articulating their perspectives to their supervisor or 

the organization in general. Graduates need to learn how to translate what they know and 

do into accessible language and understand the particular jargons associated with different agencies and fields. For example, where most academic programs use the terms conflict 

management and conflict resolution, USAID uses conflict management and mitigation, and 

the U.S. military tends to use postconflict stabilization or reconstruction. In addition, as one 

alumnus from a conflict resolution program said, “The conflict resolution lingo is still not 

very widespread in the policy community.”

As relatively junior-level employees, many alumni responded that they had too little credibility and clout to influence thinking and practices within their organization. They hoped 

that as more people with newer degrees specializing in international peace and conflict rise 

up the career ladder, that organizations will be more open to new ideas and practices. One 

alum working in an intergovernmental agency said, for example, “We have conflict resolution specialists working in specific conflicts on the ground, but so much is shaped and 

determined by political things and forces and we don’t have conflict resolution people at 

that level. No one is making the translation to that level. We need people with a conflict 

resolution perspective to get elevated to those high-level positions.”

Explaining the Gaps

We offer four possible reasons for the gaps between academic programs and employer needs. 

We also offer several recommendations on how academic programs can fill the gaps.

First, no consensus has been reached as to the appropriate role of academic programs in 

relation to employers. An implied assumption in most academic programs is that they provide the foundation on which students can enter the work world, after which each employer 

is responsible for training the graduates to meet the particular needs of the positions for 

which they are hired. But a tension remains between academic programs and employers 

regarding the role of academia in preparing graduate students and the role of employers in 

The lack of employer knowledge 

and understanding is 

compounded by the difficulties 

many alumni experience in 

adequately articulating their 

perspectives to their supervisor 

or the organization.
10

training and mentoring these students as they enter the workplace. As explained earlier, 

employers want graduates to have not only theoretical knowledge, but also practical skills 

that fit their organizational needs.

This tension exists between employers and the more traditional social science academic 

programs, such as political science, international relations, and international development. 

Another critical issue is the degree to which graduate education is about developing critical 

thinking and writing skills in tandem with specific sectoral knowledge and the degree to 

which it focuses more on professional training. A specific challenge to the field of international conflict management is that employers are less familiar with it—a relatively new 

field—and its graduates. In this case, part of the gap might be perceptual and that graduates of international conflict management and peacebuilding programs are just as prepared 

(or unprepared) for work as those with more traditional degrees. Nevertheless, the previous 

sections suggest real gaps and much room for improvement and greater coordination and 

communication on both sides.

Second, although the university faculty and staff interviewed acknowledged the need to 

provide students with practical and applied KSAs, academic programs face real constraints 

related to the number of credit hours or coursework they can demand. Masters programs 

generally range from thirty-six to forty-five credit hours, which means that students take 

about twelve to fifteen courses for their degrees. For those who offer only certificate 

programs or concentrations related to international conflict, the credit hours drop to nine 

to fifteen credit hours, or three to five courses. Students can therefore take only a limited 

number of courses. The majority of these courses tend to emphasize theory, knowledge, and 

understanding more than practical skills and application.

Third, opportunities for students to gain hands-on field experience, especially abroad, 

are relatively limited. Students face a perpetual Catch-22. Employers want applicants with 

field experience, but if all employers want this, how are students to get their first experience? Although all programs provide some opportunities for field experience, in general, 

opportunities are few and far between for people to gain experience abroad, especially 

hands-on work in conflict areas, whether focused on development practice or directly on 

conflict resolution practice, and also whether through their academic program, other 

institutions, or on their own. A significant related obstacle for most students is the lack of 

funding to enable their travel abroad, especially for unpaid work.

Fourth is the lack of a coherent, well-defined academic discipline that encompasses all 

the different programs related to international peace and conflict. One academic asked, 

“One of the big questions is how to measure and define conflict. What do we mean by conflict?” Similarly, a senior staff person in a consulting firm observed, “We don’t know how to 

define international conflict work and that is one of our problems.” Given the breadth of programs surveyed for this research, they vary greatly in their program goals and curriculum. No 

agreed-upon comprehensive, unifying framework shows how different foci are interrelated. 

In addition, the need remains for both academic institutions and employers from the West 

to identify how best to “export” Western-based conflict resolution theories and practice and 

make them culturally and contextually appropriate and to develop improved practice and 

models based on local practices. The lack of a coherent, well-defined field makes it difficult 

for both academia and employers to meet each other’s expectations and needs.

Similarly, consensus is also limited on what core competencies might be used to guide 

academic curricular development.13 This, of course, makes it difficult for people within the 

field to clearly articulate what the field is and how their particular program or expertise fits 

into an overall conceptualization of the field. At the same time, academic programs could 

make the field more coherent by better addressing the needs of employers. A two-way conversation would benefit both sides.

The lack of a coherent, welldefined field makes it difficult 

for both academia and 

employers to meet each other’s 

expectations and needs.
11

It is clear that both academic programs and employers need help in conceptualizing the field, 

their place in it, and the core knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for effective practice.

Recommendations for the Fiel

Academic institutions providing international peace and conflict curricula and organizations 

employing graduates from those programs can advance the field by working together to 

close the gap revealed in this study. Obligations fall on both sides to make sincere efforts 

to reform how the field trains its professionals and how it engages those professionals in 

the work of international peace and conflict.

For faculty teaching in the field and for academic international peace and conflict 

programs, the recommendations are broad. Many focus on getting a better handle on field 

experience requirements. International peace and conflict programs need to improve their 

applied offerings such as internships that provide students the opportunity to work on real 

world problems, especially work abroad in conflict areas. Strong partnerships with practitioner organizations to facilitate on-going learning and field placements need to be developed. 

This also will require innovative funding to help support students who undertake field 

work. In addition, students would benefit from more mentoring with faculty and potential 

employers, as well as stronger links with organizations and professionals in the field. Faculty 

also can do a better job of promoting the field with organizations and constituencies that 

hire graduates. In addition, academic advising and in particular career counseling needs to 

be emphasized more. Depending on the size of a program, career and professional development staff with significant knowledge and understanding of the field would help considerably in placing graduates in jobs.

Academics also need to reconsider some of the ‘in class’ curricular direction of programs. International peace and conflict efforts would be improved with more courses that 

emphasize the program management aspects of the field. Consensus needs to be reached 

on conceptual frameworks and core competencies. On a related note, more time needs to 

be devoted to helping students understand the theory-practice link. Employers want to see 

graduates who can translate theory into practice.

Finally, students would benefit by interacting with faculty and students from different countries, cultures, and backgrounds. The learning environment would also be greatly 

enhanced by further exploring conflict in the developing parts of the world with those who 

have experienced conflict first hand.

In addition, employers need to partner with graduate programs in developing more 

applied opportunities for students. In doing so, employers would also benefit by learning 

more about what international peace and conflict programs actually teach and prepare 

students for, which would in turn enable them to better understand the benefit of graduate 

work and degrees in this field.

A related issue is the overall lack of influence and credibility that graduates of international peace and conflict programs have. This might (and should) be counteracted several 

ways: by better publicizing the successes and achievements of the academic programs, 

faculty, and students; by ensuring that research is closely tied to policy and practice; by 

fostering long-term partnerships with practitioner and policy organizations, and by fostering greater understanding of the field through individual meetings and networking organizations. Advocates for using conflict resolution knowledge, skills, and abilities who are well 

placed in senior positions across employment environments especially, within government, 

are definitely needed.

These recommendations support strategies that will help close the gap between academic programs and employers in the international conflict field. To better prepare peace 

International peace and conflict 

efforts would be improved with 

more courses that emphasize 

the program management 

aspects of the field. 
and conflict professionals in the future, graduate education must align itself more closely 

with the expectations of employers in the field. The rapidly evolving and frequently unstable 

global environment demands that international actors devote more financial, human, and 

technical resources to international peace and conflict efforts.

Notes

1. Public Law No. 98-525 (Oct. 19, 1984), 98 Stat. 2492, 22 U.S.C. 4601–11, as amended.

2. Christine L. Hansvick and Ian M. Harris, “Peace and Conflict Programs within Higher Education: Changes Observed 

Since the Year 2000,” Proceedings of the International Education for Peace Conference (Nov. 2007): 276–88.

3. Brian D. Polkinghorn et al., “Constructing a Baseline Understanding of Development Trends in Graduate Conflict 

Resolution Programs in the United States,” Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change 29 (2008): 

233–65.

4. ACT also carried out previous research on careers in international peace and conflict resolution in a 2005 study, in 

which fifty-five employers in the field were surveyed: “Skills, Networks, and Knowledge: Careers in International 

Peace and Conflict” by Craig Zelizer and Linda Johnston. See http://www.internationalpeaceandconflict.org/

profiles/blogs/alliance-for-conflict.

5. Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation. USAIDPVO Dialogue on Working in Conflict (Washington, D.C.: USAID, January 23–24, 2003), www.au.af.mil/au/awc/

awcgate/usaid/working_in_conflict.pdf.

6. Adapted from Jonathan Goodhand, “Working ‘In’ and ‘On’ Conflict,” in Civil Wars, Civil Peace, eds. J. Hanlon and 

H. Yanacopulos (Milton Keynes: Open University, 2006).

7. The notion of conflict sensitivity builds on the notion of “do no harm” developed by Mary Anderson in Do No 

Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace—Or War (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1999). Conflict sensitivity tries that in all 

phases (planning, logistics, and implementation) that organizations examine the potential impact of the project 

on the conflict context and the conflict on the project. Efforts should be made to help ensure that programs do 

not exacerbate the conflict at a minimum and ideally should seek to contribute to a reduction of conflict. See 

www.conflictsensitivity.org.

8. The academic programs ranged from concentrations in broader majors to certificate programs to full graduate 

degrees.

9. The organizations included U.S. government agencies, intergovernmental agencies, and U.S.-based nonprofit and 

for-profit entities in the fields of conflict resolution, humanitarian operations, development, and consulting that 

work worldwide.

10. Conflict mainstreaming is based on the concept of integrating conflict resolution approaches across sectoralbased programming such as agriculture, governance, education, and economic development projects as opposed 

to stand-alone conflict resolution programs. See www.conflictsensitivity.org.

11. Mari Fitzduff, “Core Competencies for Graduate Programs in Coexistence and Conflict Work—Can We Agree?” 

Project on Leadership and Building State Capacity 1 (September 2006), Woodrow Wilson International Center for 

Scholars, www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1411&fuseaction=topics.publications&group_id=205150.

12. For a discussion of organizational peacebuilding, see Maria Lange, “Building Institutional Capacity for ConflictSensitive Practice: The Case for International NGOs,” International Alert (May 2004) www.international-alert.org/

pdf/institutional_capacity_ngos.pdf (accessed July 2, 2010).

13. For a discussion of one graduate program’s assessment of KSAs and the need for further defining the field, see 

John Windmueller et al., “Core Competencies: The Challenge for Graduate Peace and Conflict Studies Education,” 

International Review of Education 55, nos. 2–3 (May 2009): 285–301.

United States 

Institute of Peace

1200 17th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

www.usip.org

An online edition of this and related 

reports can be found on our Web site 

(www.usip.org), together with additional 

information on the subject.