Institutionalized Conflict Resolution: Have We Come to Expect Too Little?

Two very different contexts of the conflict resolution field — hostage negotiation and court-connected mediation—do share many similarities, particularly with regard to roles, responsibilities, and techniques. In both contexts, the emphasis is on the short-term "fix," or solution, rather than attention to the underlying reasons for a conflict and long-term societal change. This emphasis, though perhaps changing in the international relations area, permeates much of the institutionalized conflict resolution field and bears further examination by practitioners and researchers.     

Psychological Barriers to Resolving Intergroup Conflict: An Extensive Review and Consolidation of the Literature

This article reviews over sixty years of research on psychological barriers to intergroup conflict resolution and finds that scholars have identified eighty nominally different barriers that create or exacerbate intergroup conflict. In order to create a tractable list that would be more helpful to future scholars and practitioners, we consolidate this vast literature (e.g., by eliminating substantive and conceptual redundancies) to produce a list of twenty‐six “unique” psychological barriers. We further organize this inventory of barriers with a framework that distinguishes between “cognitive,” “affective,” and “motivated” psychological barriers. To better understand the literature ecosystem of research on psychological barriers, we employ a data visualization tool to illustrate the extent to which each of the twenty‐six unique barriers has been studied conjointly with every other barrier in the articles we reviewed. We then shift our attention to the work of scholars who have attempted, experimentally, to attenuate psychological barriers in negotiation and conflict settings, and identify five primary methods for doing so. Finally, we discuss the implications of our review for future work in this field.     

The Culture of Interest: A Proposed Addition and Revision of the Three‐Culture Model

Negotiation and conflict resolution theorists have classified world cultures according to three types for the purpose of describing and predicting some of the ways in which individuals and groups within broad, geographically based cultural groups behave in conflict and negotiation‐related situations. These three broad categories, called “cultural syndromes,” have described these cultures according to the relative value they place on these three concerns: honor, face, and dignity. Based on our examination of the literature on the cultural dimensions of negotiation and conflict management, our own practice, and an analysis of literature and practice pertaining to the place and utility of the honor, face, interest, and dignity attributes within and between cultural groups , we propose a reformulation of this typology. Our reformulation would replace the broad “dignity” category with a new category that we call “interest,” which we believe better characterizes Northern European and North American cultures. We also argue that a cultural orientation toward dignity is universal and not geographically unique and is thus shared by all three cultures. This new formulation, we believe, more accurately characterizes the global range of orientations toward negotiation and conflict resolution and would, if adopted, help scholars and practitioners better understand culturally divergent conflict orientations and behaviors as well as the ramifications of such differences for negotiation and conflict resolution practice.     

Chronicling the Complexification of Negotiation Theory and Practice

The essay reviews the content of twenty-five years of Negotiation Journal , identifying themes and issues explored on its pages in the past, the current issues challenging the field's scholars and practitioners, and the issues likely to confront us in the future. It argues that while we in the field hoped for simple, elegant, and universal theories of negotiation and conflict resolution, the last twenty-five years have demonstrated the increasing complexification of negotiation theory and practice, from increased numbers of parties and issues, and dilemmas of intertemporal commitments, ethics, accountability, and relationships of private action to public responsibility.     

Reconnecting Systems Maintenance with Social Justice: A Critical Role for Conflict Resolution

With roots in both the field of labor-management negotiation and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, practitioners and theorists of conflict resolution have been guided by two main theories concerning the objectives of alternative dispute resolution. On the one hand is the objective of systems maintenance, with an emphasis on stability and rational decision making. On the other hand is the objective of social justice, which emphasizes changing social institutions and organizations to support the protection of basic human rights and needs. This article analyzes the assumptions of both objectives and concludes with recommendations for how to make the goals of systems maintenance and social justice mutually supporting.     

Transplanting Active Learning Abroad: Creating a Stimulating Negotiation Pedagogy Across Cultural Divides

For all of the ongoing attention paid by international relations scholars to reevaluating and improving their pedagogy, the effort to engage classes in new and productive ways can be exceptionally challenging when a western professor travels to a non-western society to teach advanced students. Professor Michael Fowler here explores the use of active-learning techniques in teaching international negotiation and conflict resolution abroad. Drawing especially on the author's experiences in working with officials in Laos and Vietnam, the article provides guidance for fashioning an effective active-learning course abroad, while referencing useful literature on negotiation teaching and scholarship. It assumes that certain readers will not be familiar with active-learning methods, but might want to incorporate them into future courses, and that others will be well-versed in this pedagogy, but will be looking to apply their customary techniques to the new circumstances of teaching advanced students abroad. This article includes material of interest to both groups.     

What Makes Conflict Resolution Possible?

Much of the negotiation literature emphasizes dispute resolution process, seemingly based on the assumption that resolution is indeed possible in a rational environment. The author outlines the history of transformations in social and political thought that have led to this shared assumption. However, the rationality assumption is seriously challenged in the contemporary era by terrorists and others who predicate their actions on a moral certitude that justifies their actions, no matter what the costs. Interveners perhaps should place more emphasis on changing the environment in which disputes occur, so that resolution is at least a possibility.     

The Intersection of Religion,Race, Class,and Ethnicity in Community Conflict

This brief essay explores some ways of defining what we need to know — but don't — about conflict within and between communities where there are strong identity differences based on religion, culture, gender, and race. Its particular focus is on the role that religion and religious leaders play in attempting to resolve identity-based conflict.     

The Role of Play and Humor in Creative Conflict Management

In this article, I draw on the theories of three scholars whose works have not typically been part of the negotiation and conflict resolution canon (Arthur Koestler, Edward T. Hall, and Gregory Bateson) to develop the beginnings of a new model for creative and constructive conflict transformation that features playfulness and humor as its key components. I explore the connections between Koestler's theory of bisociation in the act of creation, Hall's ideas about the cultural construction of emotional responses, and Bateson's theories about the role of play and humor in human communication. All three authors focused particularly on body language and on the cognitive impact of emotions. Drawing on their theories and the connections between them, I suggest the theoretical underpinnings of a model for approaching conflict in which displacements and surprises, playfulness, humor, and "punch lines" can serve to reframe issues and open up new avenues for consensus building and resolution.     

Broadening the Evaluation of Dispute Resolution: Context and Relationships Over Time

Evaluation of negotiation outcomes tends to focus on measurable, dyadic,short-term resolutions of conflict. We review current challenges to this traditionalmodel of the evaluation of dispute resolution outcomes, and we offerfour perspectives that can help address them. First, we advocate the needfor longitudinal studies of negotiations that incorporate disputant relationshipsbefore and after a particular negotiation. Second, we highlight theincreasing importance of third parties in resolving conflict. Third, we suggesta more comprehensive conception of parties, relationships andoutcomes in negotiations research. Finally, we advance an explicit incorporationof context and culture into dispute resolution research models.     

Too Bad for the Women or Does It Have to Be? Gender and Negotiation Research over the Past Twenty‐Five Years

One overriding question that scholars have addressed over the past twenty‐five years is: are women the same or different from men when it comes to negotiating and what might explain these differences? The inquiry has shifted and has become more nuanced over time, but in its essence the issue of individual difference still dominates much of our thinking and research on the topic. The purpose of this article is to provide a structured overview of this considerable literature on gender and negotiation as it has evolved over the past twenty‐five years. In doing this, the article highlights how the social construction of gender has generally changed the discourse from essentialist concepts of differences between men and women to seeing gender as a more complex and shifting dimension of individual identity that is shaped by the contexts in which negotiation occurs. The second purpose of this article is to consider how recent feminist perspectives on gender, which have shifted from viewing gender as a property of individuals to considering the role of institutionalized social practices that sustain gender differences and inequities, can be incorporated into our understanding of gender relations in negotiation theory, practice, and research.     

Some Minor Reflections on Conflict Resolution: The State of the Field as a Moving Target

Based on several recent meetings between the scholarly and practice communities of the conflict resolution field, the author observes that our understanding of what we consider to be conflict resolution is changing rapidly, and that the context of a particular dispute is often determining. To continue to build knowledge in the field, scholars and reflective practitioners should examine such topic areas as the nature of practice; differences between in-house and external mediation; expectations of all parties about change and outcomes; and the ethics of intervention.     

The roles of conflict resolution scholars in Georgian–Abkhaz and Georgian–South-Ossetian conflict and conflict resolution

The evolving close relationship between the scholarly study of conflict resolution and the practice of waging and resolving conflicts can be seen in Georgian–Abkhaz and Georgian–South-Ossetian relations from 1992 to 2008. This article focuses on two related case studies of the many roles played by international conflict resolution scholars in Georgian–Abkhaz and in Georgian–South-Ossetian relations from 1992 to 2008. Drawing on interviews with insider-partial conflict resolution scholars, relevant international scholar-practitioners of conflict resolution, and the leadership of all parties of the conflicts, conducted between 1996 and 2008, the article presents a comprehensive analysis of the variety of roles conflict resolution scholar-practitioners have played in these conflicts during the wars and the recovery from war. The analysis suggests the need for clear ethical guidelines that cover traditional scholarly roles as well as scholar-practitioner roles including advising conflict parties, facilitating conflict resolution processes and analysing the conflicts. In particular, dilemmas emerge as scholar-practitioners move back and forth between these modes of engaged scholarship.     

Getting Down to Basics: A Situated Model of Conflict in Social Relations

The field of conflict resolution is fractured. Despite many decades of fine research, we still lack a basic unifying framework that integrates the many theories of conflict dynamics. Thus, the findings from research on conflict are often piecemeal, decontextualized, contradictory, or focused on negative outcomes, which contributes to a persistent research‐practice gap. In this article, we describe a situated model for the study of conflict that combines separate strands of scholarship into a coherent framework for conceptualizing conflict in dyadic social relations. The model considers conflict interactions in the context of social relations and employs prior research on the fundamental dimensions of social relations to create a basic framework for investigating conflict dynamics. The resulting model is heuristic and generative. We discuss the theoretical context and main propositions of this model as well as its implications for conflict resolution practitioners.     

Transformations and Critical Moments in Negotiations

Transformation is not a new concept in the conflict literature. It forms the foundation for a particular school of thought in mediation and plays a major role in the analysis of international conflicts. More-over, it shapes the goals and processes for managing public conflicts through dialogue and democracy. Although transformation surfaces in a variety of conflict management arenas, this concept has received only a modicum of attention in the negotiation literature. This article centers on the definition and features of critical moments in negotiation that might foster conflict transformation. It draws from the literature on conflict transformation and applies this work to negotiations. First, the author explores the definitions, characteristics, and types of shifts that set up transformations. Then she examines internal and external factors that contribute to transformative moments. Finally, the essay concludes with a discussion of distinctions between transformation and related constructs, suggestions for conducting research, and implications of this work for negotiation research.     

Identity-Based Conflicts: A Systemic Approach Evaluation Project

Some of the most difficult conflicts of all are those grounded in identity, which can be analyzed in both personal and societal contexts. The author's goal is to conceptualize identity-based conflict from a systems perspective. He uses ideas from psychology, social psychology, and organization theory, connecting them to concepts of cybernetic control. As is the case with Social Identity Theory, a major challenge for the negotiation field is to provide a better understanding of destructive forms of intergroup behavior and how belief systems allow group members to justify bad treatment of outgroup members.     

A social theory of war: Clausewitz and war reconsidered

This article presents a new theory of war that is grounded in the insights of Clausewitz on the social nature of conflict. Clausewitz had argued that war is a political process; he therefore distinguished between ‘war’—understood in political terms—and warfare—understood as fighting. He then created a typology covering a spectrum of war ranging from total to limited, the political stakes of a conflict determining where it would fall on the spectrum. I develop and modify this basic framework by arguing that the social organization of the actors has a determining role in predicting the stakes of war. I then show how this framework helps us understand some key problems in the political science literature on war and conflict. I attempt to show two main things: (1) that there are different types of wars (and that these differences are not necessarily related to the standing of the actors, i.e. the presence or absence of sovereignty); and (2) that how war and warfare are related is more complicated than previously understood and that this has implications for the political science literature on order, conflict and violence.     

Amnesty: a ‘conversation’ within the medium of culture. A dialogue approach to the strategy of amnesty in protracted social conflict situations

In contemporary conflict resolution there are various strategies in place to assist the liberal peace-building project. This article investigates the controversial strategy of amnesty within protracted social conflict situations. It challenges the juridical approach towards the strategy by exploring amnesty as a ‘dialogue’ or ‘conversation’ within the medium of cultures. The author will utilise Feller and Ryan's eight multidisciplinary characteristics of ‘dialogue’ to explore amnesty as a conversation among its participants and wider society. This is supplemented by a case study examining the amnesty process under the Amnesty Act 2000 in the East-Central African nation of Uganda. It concludes with theoretical and policy implications for both scholars and practitioners of conflict resolution.     

Toward a Theory of Negotiation Precedent

It is remarkable that precedents and their use have not been well explored within the negotiation literature. In this article, I examine the sparse knowledge of precedents and offer a preliminary framework for understanding the role of precedents in negotiation, including how negotiators establish and apply them. Precedents can either evolve randomly or be created with strategic intent. Understanding precedents generally involves examining how negotiators build, adopt, avoid, and reject them. In this review of the existing literature, I identify twelve concepts and paradigms that are particularly relevant to our understanding of negotiation precedents. I also establish a research agenda and identify three methods for further developing our knowledge of precedents: applying path dependence theory from the field of international relations to a negotiation context; conducting experimental research in a laboratory setting involving subjects engaged in negotiation exercises that contain opportunities to apply precedents; and conducting field research with a focus on case methodology grounded in negotiation linkage theory and theories of negotiation dynamics. Finally, in this article, I formulate a two‐part framework on building and applying precedents, and offer managerial guidance for the negotiation practitioner. Precedents serve as a strategic technique and provide a source of power at that point in a negotiation when decisions are made.     

Conflict Analysis and Conflict Resolution: Divorce or Friendly Mediation?

The interests, needs, and academic practices of conflict analysis scholars are often fundamentally at odds with those of conflict resolution scholar practitioners. In this essay, I make suggestions for new academic arrangements that could allow both groups to be productive and empowered in their theory building and teaching and also have positive impacts on the development of students and on global institutions and conflict environments.