������̳

Last revised: May 5, 2026

Summary:

• Conflict is hard and often requires support to resolve.
• If you have a conflict, first check if it should be resolved by a non-Information School conflict process. Many university resources exist for helping you navigate these options, including Grade Appeals, Academic Misconduct, the Civil Rights Compliance Office, and the Ombud's office.
• If there isn’t an appropriate non-Information School process, you may engage the Information School process. It offers three options for resolution: guided, facilitated, and formal.
• All of these options focus on finding ways to move forward together, including ways of improving the school’s practices and culture for the future. They do not aim to litigate the past, assign blame, or punish.

Conflicts can arise in any of our school’s activities and between any of its individuals and groups: students may have a conflict with an instructor, an instructor with a student, faculty with other faculty, staff with faculty, with external collaborators and partners, etc. While conflict is not always pleasant, resolving conflict is an important and normal part of maintaining a healthy community. The key is resolving it in a way that is respectful, humane, and constructive. 

This document will help you understand what conflict is, help you navigate your options for resolving it, and describe the Information School-specific processes that exist if there is no other appropriate process. The school has shaped this process by consulting with the Ombud’s office, reviewing other academic unit’s processes, engaging in conflict resolution training organized by the Provost, and soliciting feedback from faculty, staff, and students.

Non-Information School conflict resolution

Many conflicts that occur in the school have existing resolution pathways that you should try first, before using the Information School process.

• Is your conflict minor? Try resolving it yourself. Resources on  can be a helpful framework for you to engage the conflict without a third party.
• Is your conflict a crime? Report it to civic institutions (e.g., police, non-emergency advocates), instead of the university conflict processes.
• Is your conflict a violation of civil rights such as discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and sexual misconduct? Report these to the  (CRIO).
• Are you reporting a violation of student conduct code, including academic misconduct? Report to  (CSSC). Academic conduct reports are routed to the Information School’s Associate Dean for Academics; other conduct issues are managed centrally.
• Is there a conflict with accessibility? If it’s related to a class, report it in the Canvas accessibility reporting tool embedded in your class. If it’s not, report  with the ADA Coordinator’s office.
• Is the conflict related to a union contract? Report to your .
• Is the conflict between faculty or between faculty and an administrator? You should follow the Information School process first, but if it does not resolve the issue, you have the option of a  process.
• If you have concerns about a student's well-being, you can report to the .

In addition to processes above, there are many supports for navigating and choosing between all of the above, or the Information School process:

• The  services for faculty, staff, and students to navigate around sexual assault, relationship violence, and stalking.
• The University ’s office (different from the MLIS ombud student role) is available for consultation on any conflict. They serve as thought partners, helping you find clarity in complex and stressful situations.
• For graduate students and postdocs, the  program offers support for conflict with research mentors and lab mates.

Individuals should explore all of these options before pursuing the Information School process, as all of the pathways above are better resourced and trained for conflict resolution than the Information School will be.

What is a conflict?

First, not everything counts as a conflict for the purposes of this process. For example, any feedback someone wants to provide about Information School activities should go through dedicated feedback channels. For example:

• If a student is dissatisfied with the content of a course, they should communicate it to the instructor directly, or to a teaching assistant, or through mid-quarter and end-of-quarter student evaluations of teaching.
• If a student is frustrated by the lack of elective options in a quarter, they can share feedback with advisors, with faculty, with program chairs, or to their student leaders serving on the student leadership council.
• If a faculty member wishes that a central school service would resolve a request faster, they should provide that feedback to the unit leader to investigate and manage.
• If a staff member is noticing collaboration or communication challenges with another staff or faculty member, they should try to work through their supervisory chain to share that feedback, so supervisors can find a remedy.

These are examples where all of us can help make the school work better by sharing our experiences, and leadership can take that feedback into consideration as they prioritize changes to practices, resources, policies, and services. Such feedback is a normal part of improving our school, and isn’t necessarily conflict: in many cases, we are all aligned on what can be improved, and just need the time and resources to improve it.

In contrast, for the purpose of this process, we define conflicts as disagreements between individuals or groups in the school where there are seemingly opposing needs and values between people in our community. This can often involve power imbalances, various kinds of emotional or material harm, and a loss of trust, resulting in intractable situations that individuals cannot resolve amongst themselves. For example:

• There is a perceived or actual abuse of power, where a person in a position of authority or influence takes action that impacts another person because of their feelings toward that person or as part of a quid pro quo.
• There is a decision that has done harm to an individual or group, intentional or not, such as an individual using inappropriate language toward another Information iSchool community member.
• Trust has been lost in a relationship, productive collaboration must continue between the parties.
• Someone perceives discrimination, where they are treated unfairly in comparison to how others are treated in a group or team.
• Someone violates ethical and professional standards in research or teaching.

This list isn’t exhaustive, but illustrative: these are complex situations, they require more than those involved to resolve, and they often happen in the absence or loss of trust. 

Resolving conflict, for the Information School, means:

1. Understanding what each party's underlying needs and values are (which may be different from their expressed requests). These can include things like respect, agency, purpose, support, validation, recognition, security, and resources.
2. Identifying resolutions that strive to meet both parties needs and values in an integrative manner, or compromises if none exist.
3. Communicating those resolutions and ensuring they meet all parties' needs.
4. Ideally, restoring some trust between parties that have lost it, amidst conflict.

Note that resolving a conflict does not necessarily mean that the emotions that sometimes arise in conflict —anger, resentment, fear — are gone. Those take time and support to overcome, and this process can only partially help with these, by helping chart constructive paths forward. The same is true for trust; this process cannot necessarily restore that. That may require time and actions that far exceed any facilitated resolution.

Information School conflict resolution 

If none of the options above are appropriate for the conflict, then choosing one of the Information School resolution processes is the next best step.

The primary goal of the Information School process is to find ways to move forward together, creating foundations to restore trust and relationships over time. Our process does not aim to litigate, determine guilt, or punish. Sometimes, conflict resolution might result in changes in future policy, process, or resources, but it can’t change what happened in the past. We hope everyone that engages in it comes to mend relationships between members of our community, and allow us to continue learning, working, teaching, and researching together.

Because our process is focused on the future, not the past, conflicts that happened long ago are likely not great candidates for resolution with these processes. If you face a conflict, try to resolve it soon, rather than letting it linger. Resolving conflict takes time, so the sooner you start, the sooner we can move forward and make things work better. Conflicts involving former students are not eligible for these processes and conflicts that arose more than 1 year ago are also not eligible.

Finally, all of our resolution processes are collaborative: many people may be involved in helping facilitate conflict resolution. This is necessary partly because resolving conflict can be hard and isolating; it’s also necessary because no one person has all the information necessary. When you engage in resolution, it is a chance for us to come together to make a better school for ourselves.

With that context, the Information School process involves three options for resolution.

Option 1: Guided resolution

Before considering the more involved options below, consider whether you can resolve the conflict with guidance. This approach generally means consulting individuals in the school to get support and guidance on how to approach resolution.

• Students can ask for coaching from academic advisors, teaching assistants, peers, and trusted faculty members. They can offer guidance on how to resolve the conflict.
• Faculty can ask for guidance from any of the Program Chairs, Associate Deans, or the Dean for the most relevant area of concern.
• Staff can ask their supervisors or staff HR for guidance and support.

Anyone can consult the Ombud’s office for guidance.

The goal of this stage is to see if you can find a resolution with guidance, without having to engage higher positions of power in the school. It’s okay to try this first, and move on to facilitation if it doesn’t work. It is also okay to skip this step, if one party does not believe it can be resolved without facilitation.

Option 2: Facilitated resolution

If guided resolution is not successful, or you do not feel equipped to resolve the conflict without more formal facilitation, the next option is facilitated resolution. The key idea behind this process is to identify a trusted third party — ideally one with no interests in the matter — and have them act as an information gatherer and interpreter of the situation, to find a way forward. Their role is not to litigate the past or even to fully comprehend the past — this process is not about deciding who to blame or making a judgement. Rather, the goal is to help construct a shared understanding of the conflict so that all parties can jointly problem solve for the future. The facilitator also has the role of communicating throughout the process to ensure everyone involved is informed and has shared understanding.

When appropriate, the facilitator may brainstorm possible remedies, share those remedies with both sides to the conflict, and help implement ones of mutual preference, while also reinforcing that remedies are not necessarily going to “fix” everything going forward. They may also help identify ways of preventing conflict in the future, or ways to minimize future harm if conflict is difficult to prevent. The goal of the facilitator isn’t to represent either party, but rather to build a shared understanding amongst all parties, as a foundation for identifying ways forward that meet all parties' needs and values.

By default, the following roles in the school will act as facilitators:

• If the conflict is between faculty, the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs facilitates.
• If the conflict is between students in an academic role…
  • … in a class, the instructor facilitates
  • … outside of class, the Program Chair facilitates
• If the conflict is between faculty and students in an academic role, the Program Chair or Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs facilitates with Faculty HR support
• If the conflict is between staff and students in an academic role, the Program Chair or relevant HR team facilitates
• If the conflict is between students in an employment role and any group, Academic HR facilitates
• If the conflict is between staff, staff HR facilitates.
• If the conflict is between faculty and staff, an Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs, Staff HR, or Faculty HR facilitates
• If the conflict involves a Program Chair, the Associate Dean for Academics facilitates
• If the conflict involves an Associate Dean, another Associate Dean or the Dean facilitates
• If the conflict involves the Dean, then one of the non-Information School processes facilitates.

The above are just defaults. The goal is to find a facilitator that both parties trust enough to facilitate. If that’s not the default person, then the default person can help identify a different facilitator, communicating with the parties, until there is a mutually agreed upon facilitator. This hopefully improves the baseline degree of trust in the process and its outcomes.

It is important to note that all of the default facilitators above will have some formal training in conflict resolution, but they will not be experts. Mediating conflict is a rich, full professional practice: the Ombud’s office, for example, has trained mediators, and responsible parties in the Information School will not be able to operate at that level of skill (and should not, as doing so without skill can do more harm). Secondly, trained mediators are by definition impartial. Information School faculty and staff are categorically not impartial, as we all have relationships within the school, and different interests that result in complex and often conflicting motivations. Facilitators will be able to bring individuals together, gather information, and identify ways forward, but they will often have to do so while accounting for the many tensions between the motivations or needs of faculty, staff, and students. That is not true of supports with more distance from the Information School, such as the ’s office or ; if that is a concern for a conflict, those more impartial processes may be a better option.

Here is how a facilitated resolution should proceed:

1. Any party can contact the appropriate default facilitator above, communicating the conflict at a high level, and asking for facilitation. If the conflict should be resolved through one of the existing university processes, the facilitator provides support in contacting the appropriate channels to that process.
2. The default facilitator reaches out to the other parties, pointing to this process, and notifying them that there was a request for conflict facilitation from the first party, explaining that they are the default facilitator and the nature of the request for resolution. They should ask if they would like to participate in facilitation, and if so, if they are comfortable with the default facilitator, and if not, if there are alternative facilitators they would prefer. The default facilitator should work iteratively to find a lead facilitator who all parties are comfortable with. (If the other party does not wish to participate, then the conflict is left unresolved).
3. After a facilitator is found, they communicate to both parties about the remaining steps, who they will be consulting and informing about the status of the conflict, and ask either party if they would like others to attend in support. These could be:

• Friends and coworkers present to provide emotional support.
• Caregivers, if a party needs help with communication or participation
• For parties that include unionized employees where they believe facilitation might result in disciplinary action, they have a right to bring  to any conversations.
• Legal support, however, is not appropriate, as these are not legal hearings, nor are they adjudicating anything.

4. Once the final group is identified, the facilitator makes a copy of  in a private space, to keep sensitive notes about the conflict and ensure they are following best practices. Only the facilitator and their supporting roles have access to the notes.
5. The facilitator meets separately with all parties involved to understand the nature of the conflict. The facilitator's agenda includes:
   • Reinforcing that there should be no retaliation and that all parties involved may be impacted in unique ways (by other incidents, or the same incident).
   • Listen to the story to understand the series of events, acknowledge emotions, and understand the needs and values that underlie each party’s concerns. Throughout, they should restate to verify understanding and take notes in the private document to capture that verified understanding.
   • Each meeting should end with the facilitator describing the next steps in the process.
6. After meeting with all parties, the facilitator communicates to both parties that they have gathered information from both parties, and requests a meeting with both parties to discuss it. Participation in a joint meeting is voluntary, and all individuals are encouraged to set personal boundaries for their comfort and well-being.
   • If both parties agree, the facilitator arranges a meeting between the facilitator and the parties.
   • If one party does not want to meet jointly, the facilitator meets with each party individually and conveys the information they gathered, and offers suggestions for remedies and reconciliation.
7. If there is agreement at the joint meeting, or independent agreement in separate meetings, the facilitator communicates the agreement about how to proceed in the future. All parties convey their commitment with the agreement. If no agreement is reached on how to proceed, the conflict is left unresolved.

Throughout this process, information about the conflict remains private to the facilitators and the parties.

To support this facilitation, the Information School will engage its default facilitators in an annual training to help equip them to facilitate conflict more effectively. While Information School facilitators are not full-time conflict resolution professionals, the training will help in preventing basic oversights in facilitating conflict resolution.

3. Formal Hearing

If facilitated resolution does not resolve the conflict, the third Information School procedure is a formal hearing, as mandated by . This is only available to parties if 1) they have attempted a facilitated resolution, 2) it is less than 12 months since the facilitated resolution completed, 3) if students are involved, they were students at the time of the conflict. Conflicts can be formally heard over summer, but the set of facilitators during summer term are limited to leadership on summer administrative appointments This process has the same goal as facilitated resolutions — identifying an integrative solution that both parties agree to, allowing the parties to move forward together — and follows the same procedure as the above. But it has the following differences:

• The lead facilitator identifies an ad hoc committee of 5 members of the communities involved in the conflict (2 students, 2 faculty, 1 committee lead who is faculty or staff), ensuring representation of relevant communities so that there is adequate context. All parties must agree on the composition and impartiality of these members.
• The same procedures for facilitated resolution are followed, but with all committee members present for each step of the process.
• At the end of the fact finding process, the committee makes a formal written recommendation to the facilitator and the Information School Dean about the proposed path.
• The Information School Dean selects the remedy, documenting and communicating it to everyone involved.
• If a party includes Graduate Students, and the Graduate Students believe there was a non-uniform implementation of the processes above, then they may appeal to the Dean of the Graduate School, per Graduate School policy 3.8.3, after this Information School-level formal hearing.