-
CHAPTER 2. CONFLICT RESOLUTION PRINCIPLES IN INTERGROUP CONFLICTS: AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO CONTACT HYPOTHESIS
- State University of New York Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
2 zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQ Conflict Resolution Principles in Intergroup Conflicts zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcb An Alternative Approach to Contact Hypothesis In classifying the substantial amount of research on intergroup contact, Amir (1976:92) argued that "The theoretical understanding of intergroup contact processes and contact as a potential for change is very limited." The same case can be drawn in classifying conflict resolution theories, or more accurately, the theoretical propositions made by scholars in this emerging field. In addition, there are uncertain and different answers to the question: What does conflict resolution include? Therefore, it is essential to describe the emergence of this field prior to discussing its intervention models. THE EMERGENCE OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION Relative to other social science disciplines conflict resolution has a short history. Kriesberg (1991) and Scimecca (1991) trace the modern development of conflict resolution to the creation of problem-solving techniques and cooperation that were introduced into industrial organizational theory and practice by Blake, Sheperd, and Mouton (1964) (i.e., which emerged from the human relations and intergroup relations) .These techniques substituted for the power and coercive negotiation techniques. The development of the field of conflict resolution occurred in several parallel disciplines, but they all originated from the industrial organizational arena, which was motivated by the human relation movement in the 1940s and 1950s. Thus, conflict resolution practice expanded to the international relations arena, particularly when Burton (1969) developed his controlled communication approach to problem solving and conducted 11 Conflict Resolution Principles in Intergroup Conflicts zyxwvutsrqponmlkjih 12 the first international workshop in Cyprus. Following Burton's initiative, Kelman (1972), De Reuck (1974), Bank (1984), Mitchell (1981), and Ronald Fisher (1981) initiated other types of problem-solving workshops in the international arena as alternatives to the game theories' intervention models, which produced the coercive negotiation models.1 Doob and Fotz (1973) from psychology, and Kelman (1972) from social psychology, also began developing their approaches to conflict resolution . From foreign service officers and diplomats, the second track diplomacy was adopted and taught by practitioners such as McDonald and Bendahmane (1987) and Montville (1987). This informal negotiation, when paralleled with the formal negotiation, provided support and alternative options without political pressure on the formal representatives. CONFLICT RESOLUTION: DEFINITIONS AND THEORY Since there is no one single definition of what conflict resolution is, this section focuses on distinguishing conflict resolution from alternative dispute resolution (ADR), peace studies, and the contact hypothesis or human relations approach. In describing the theory in conflict resolution Scimecca states: Furthermore, the field of conflict resolution lacks a theoretical base that can undergird its practice. And although there are many comprehensive theories of conflict, theories of conflict resolution are few and far between. Indeed it can be argued that conflict resolution theories can be divided into two categories: game theoretical frameworks and human needs theory. (1991:33) As the result of the lack of a defined conflict resolution theory, the parallel developments of the field have been motivated by different movements and disciplines. In fact, scholars and practitioners are still attempting to agree on the terminology and jargon used in this field. For example, the following two columns (Burton, 1986; Scimecca, 1987; Rubinstein, 1990; Fisher, 1989) illustrate the difficulties in defining this new field and its theoretical assumptions. yxwvutsrponmlkihgfedcbaYXWVUTSRPONMLKJIHGFEDCB Conflict Resolution Conflict Management and ADR Conflict Disputes Needs and values Interests Resolution Settlement and management Problem solving Negotiation and mediation Burton's distinction amont resolution, settlement, and management is the clearest attempt to draw certain lines to mark the field's boundaries: [54.166.234.171] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 07:44 GMT) 13zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Conflict Resolution Principles in Intergroup Conflicts Conflict resolution: entails the use of collaborative problem solving in a situation where a neutral (i.e., impartial according to Laue and Cormick, 1978) third party helps the disputants engage in conciliation, facilitation, and/or mediation. The resolution contributes to the elimination of the sources of the conflict. Conflict management implies that conflict is an organizational problem, one that can be managed by changing conditions within social institutions. No real structural changes occur in the conditions that produced the conflict. Conflict settlement fosters an outcome which does not necessarily meet the needs of all concerned, but is accepted for the time being because of coercion by a stronger party. (1990a:3) Based on these distinctions, conflict resolution is an interdisciplinary process of analysis and intervention that is concerned with solving problems that result in destructive conflict (Burton, 1990a). Support for this definition is also provided by Bercovitch (1994), who defines...