Conflict Resolution: Theoretical and Practical Issues
By Ann Sanson and Di Bretherton
Summary by Robin
Sanson and Bretherton look at the definitions of conflict resolution and how conflict resolution is used within the study of peace psychology. They claim that conflict resolution fits into their definition of peace psychology because it “aims to utilize knowledge of psychological processes to maximize the positive potential inherent in a conflict and to prevent its destructive consequences.” The chapter is broken down into 5 sections which I will summarize below.
1. The definition of conflict:
They use multiple definitions of conflict including perceived differences in interests, views, or goals (Deutsh, 1973); opposing preferences (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992); a belief that the parties’ current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously (Rubin, Pruitt & Kim, 1994); and the process which begins when one party perceives that another has frustrated, or is about to frustrate, some concern of theirs.
$ They believe that conflict is “value-neutral” meaning that positive or negative outcomes depend on how the conflict is handled.
$ They believe that the aim of conflict resolution is not to avoid conflict but to deal with it in a way that maximizes the positive potential inherent in conflict within the framework of the values of peace.
$ The course of the conflict will be shaped by the social context in which it takes place.
2. The principles of conflict resolution
Sanson and Bretherton state 4 basic principles that underlie most approaches to conflict resolution:
1. Conflict resolution is a cooperative endeavor–
$ focuses on cooperation over competition
$ parties view conflict in terms of collaboration in order to solve problem
2. The solutions sought are integrative ones
$ solutions meet needs and interests of all parties by offering a personal anecdote
$ integrative bargaining: most commonly occurs as a direct negotiation between parties
$ mediation: neutral third party is brought in to facilitate process
$ contrasted with power-based and rights-based approaches
$ power based: party attempts to resolve conflict in its own favor through assertion of power over the other party
$ rights-based:
decisions are made by reference to legal rules and solution is in the hands of
the arbitrator.
$ In cooperative integrative solutions, outcome is in the hands of the parties
$ Conflict resolution argues against the use of power-based approaches
??Question: How does this relate
to our discussions in class regarding “peace keeping” or “peace enforcement”? Also, doesn’t the
3. The foundation is an understanding of all parties’ interests (interest-based approach)
class=Section2>
$ conflict resolution approaches focus on the deeper issues or interests underlying conflict
$ pursue a new and creative solution that is better than either parties’ original position
$ interest-based approach is better than rights or power based approaches because the cost is less and the probability of achieving a lasting settlement in greater because both parties have input in solution
$ Sanson and Bretherton state that in selected cases (from an individual and/or societal perspective, or on matters of principle) rights-based approaches are preferable.
4. Both the process and its outcome are nonviolent
$ when talking about “conflict resolution” there is usually an implicit knowledge that what is really being discussed is “nonviolent conflict resolution”. (who are you talking to?)
$ processes which settle immediate problems but serve, in the longer term, to erode human rights, may appear efficient but would not be considered conflict resolution
3. From principles to practice
Building a cooperative orientation: cooperation (concern for both outcomes) needs to be established prior to negotiation. Initial cooperative moves by one party usually induce cooperative moves by other.
Active listening for interests: “positions” are first acknowledged but then the interests underlying those positions are explored through active listening.
Analysis and communication on one’s own needs: In order to communicate one’s own interests, one must carefully think and analyze them (usually done prior to negotiation).
Brainstorming: An optimal solution is created from a consideration of both sets of interests. Outcome is more successful because both parties feel ownership of solution. The three principles of brainstorming are: deferment of judgment, quantity, and variety.
Role of emotions: the expression of emotion may provide information about a person’s inner state.
Creating Solutions: Forming multiple solutions increases the likelihood that one acceptable to everyone will be found.
Role of BATA(Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement): BATNA should be used as a last resort.
Mediation: The role of the third parties: mediation involves identifying issues, uncovering underlying interests and concerns, setting an agenda, packaging, sequencing and prioritizing issues, interpreting and shaping proposals, and making suggestions for possible settlement. In cultural mediations, mediator can act as interpreter. (Similar to Pedersen article).
Dealing with difficulties: methods to deal with difficulties that arise during negotiations are needs (but not discussed)
Other models and perspectives: Sanson and Bretherton note that the emphasis within the field of conflict resolution has been on creating model rather than evaluating them.
1. Fisher and Ury’s (1996) model of principled negotiation: separate problem from people, focus on interests, invent options for mutual gain, and insist on objective criteria to judge solutions.
2. Pruitt and Rubin’s (1986) model of creative problem-solving: set high aspirations in the resolution of a conflict, and pursue these with firmness and commitment.
Models applicable to large-scale conflicts
1.
2. Kelman’s (1997) problem-solving workshops: workshops provide a setting where processes central to conflict resolution such as empathy, insight, creative problem-solving, and learning can take place.
3. Fisher (1994) transformation model: transformation of a mutually destructive situation to one that is “self-supporting”, self-correcting, and sustainable for the foreseeable future. (Peace building)
There are other models that focus on solution creativity in conflict resolution. Some focus on creative visualization, movement and role-playing, addressing conflict in environmental, peace and feminist contexts.
The main theme amongst these models is that conflict resolution should be non-adversarial, follow a cooperative framework, be analytical, have a problem-solving approach that is directed towards an integrative solution, have direct participation by both parties in shaping solution and be facilitated by a trained third party.
4. Culture: An issue in applying conflict resolution models
Sanson and Bretherton discuss the same issues that were in the Pedersen article; those involving the cultural assumptions that Western conflict resolution models imply. There is a discussion about formal cultural activities (behaviors based in tradition), informal cultural learning (behaviors through imitation), and technical learning (transmitted through explicit terms by teacher). Mediator must be aware of cultural differences in order to be successful.
5. Views of knowledge
To teach and learn conflict resolution may demand a fundamental shift in thinking. Good conflict resolution practitioners recognize that knowledge is partial, so different perceptions may be equally valid.
Future of conflict resolution
Sanson and Bretherton suggest that we may see a move towards more rights-based and interest-based methods at all levels of society, from the personal to the global.