This paper examines the intersection between the two professions – law and medicine – with reference to systematic transformations that have characterized their development in the past century. In particular, the paper examines the co-emergence of the new public health and health promotion scholarship along with the development of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) movement in the second half of the 20th century. The two movements, with their later developments, have aspired to change the focus of professionals in the field, and both have been tremendously successful on the one hand, and on the other have remained marginal to mainstream training and identity building of contemporary lawyers and doctors.

The paper discusses success as a managerial notion, on the basis of efficiency measures and consequential thinking, and contrasts it with success as a more procedural internal notion within the second generation of conflict resolution. The appeal to success in the conflict resolution field is considered as based originally on efficiency and effectiveness, while implicitly inspired by philosophical principles and moral values. Later, when new models based on identity and relationship emerged, more explicit emphasis on process and internal validity became part of the definition of success. The paper describes the particular anxiety of aspiring for consequential success in the realm of law. It also offers a model to evaluate success while assuming its open-ended and complex nature. Defining success from within a context many times helps to capture more deeply the phenomenon of conflict resolution intervention.

The field of conflict resolution has developed enough to become diverse and rich with perspectives, yet the common ground between those perspectives – a permanent core essence – has not yet been defined. The use of identity theory, specifically intergroup identity theory, may be the most effective method to understand the field’s foundations. In this article, six possible group identity claims – or grand narratives – are offered. Together, they may form a foundational code for the field, which may be examined and proved in context. Defining the profession of conflict resolution also requires engagement and dialogue with other related professions. In addition to mapping the six grand narratives, this article will suggest how these narratives can at times generate differences with other academic disciplines that deal with conflicts.