ABSTRACT
The conflict resolution field has been lively and productive in articulating key theoretical concepts that help explain the success or failure of initiatives to end violence and resolve underlying disputes. Among these are such well-known notions as power imbalances and rebalancing, third party partiality, hurting stalemates, issue transformation, and actionreaction sequences. Although these present a rich basis for theory building, such theory is not very useful for the practitioner if these theoretical approaches and concepts have not survived rigorous, empirical analysis. No matter how compelling a theory may seem, if we, as a field of conflict resolution researchers, have not provided evidence to support theory, we run the risk of misleading practitioners, students, and scholars alike.
