The Full Wiki

Conflict resolution: Wikis

  
  
  

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conflict resolution is a range of methods for alleviating or eliminating sources of conflict. The term "conflict resolution" is sometimes used interchangeably with the term dispute resolution or alternative dispute resolution. Processes of conflict resolution generally include negotiation, mediation, and diplomacy. The processes of arbitration, litigation, and formal complaint processes such as ombudsman processes, are usually described with the term dispute resolution, although some refer to them as "conflict resolution." Processes of mediation and arbitration are often referred to as alternative dispute resolution.

Contents

Culture-based

Conflict resolution as both a professional practice and academic field is highly sensitive to culture. In Western cultural contexts, such as Canada and the United States, successful conflict resolution usually involves fostering communication among disputants, problem solving, and drafting agreements that meet their underlying needs. In these situations, conflict resolvers often talk about finding the win-win solution, or mutually satisfying scenario, for everyone involved (see Fisher and Ury (1981), Getting to Yes). In many non-Western cultural contexts, such as Afghanistan, Vietnam, and China, it is also important to find "win-win" solutions; however, getting there can be very different. In these contexts, direct communication between disputants that explicitly addresses the issues at stake in the conflict can be perceived as very rude, making the conflict worse and delaying resolution. Rather, it can make sense to involve religious, tribal or community leaders, communicate difficult truths indirectly through a third party, and make suggestions through stories (see David Augsberger (1992), Conflict Mediation Across Cultures). Intercultural conflicts are often the most difficult to resolve because the expectations of the disputants can be very different, and there is much occasion for misunderstanding. A firm position in diplomacy must be happy .

In animals

Conflict resolution has also been studied in non-humans, like dogs, cats, monkeys,snakes, elephants, and primates (see Frans de Waal, 2000). Aggression is more common among relatives and within a group, than between groups. Instead of creating a distance between the individuals, however, the primates were more intimate in the period after the aggressive incident. These intimacies consisted of grooming and various forms of body contact. Stress responses, like an increased heart rate, usually decrease after these reconciliatory signals. Different types of primates, as well as many other species who are living in groups, show different types of conciliatory behaviour. Resolving conflicts that threaten the interaction between individuals in a group is necessary for survival, hence has a strong evolutionary value. These findings contradicted previous existing theories about the general function of aggression, i.e. creating space between individuals (first proposed by Konrad Lorenz), which seems to be more the case in conflicts between groups than it is within groups.

In addition to research in primates, biologists are beginning to explore reconciliation in other animals. Up until recently, the literature dealing with reconciliation in non-primates have consisted of anecdotal observations and very little quantitative data. Although peaceful post-conflict behavior had been documented going back to the 1960s, it wasn’t until 1993 that Rowell made the first explicit mention of reconciliation in feral sheep. Reconciliation has since been documented in spotted hyenas,[1] lions, dolphins,[2] dwarf mongooses, domestic goats,[3] and domestic dogs.[4]

Careers and education

Cornell University's ILR School houses the Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution is an expanding field of professional practice, both in the U.S. and around the world. The escalating costs of conflict for both organizations and individuals has led to the increased use of arbitrators, mediators, and other neutrals, including fact-finders, facilitators, and ombudsmen to resolve such conflicts. The expansion of the field has also resulted in the need for managers, union representatives, attorneys and advocates, administrators, and consultants to acquire the skills and expertise necessary to handle disputes effectively.

Several universities offer programs of study pertaining to conflict management. The Cornell University ILR School houses the Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution, which offers undergraduate, graduate, and professional training on conflict resolution.[5]

Furthermore, the Pax Ludens Foundation based in the Netherlands is an organization that puts together conflict resolution simulations set in an International Relations scenario to help students learn about the intricacies of where conflict emerges in the world of international politics.

Conflict resolution is a growing area of interest in UK pedagogy, with teachers and students both encouraged to learn about the mechanisms which lead people towards aggressive actions, and those which lead them towards peaceful resolution.

In many schools in the UK, conflict resolution has now become an integral part of the SEAL (Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning) programme, chiming,as it does, with the SEAL principles of developing social skills and an understanding of ones own feelings.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Wahaj, S. A., Guse, K. & Holekamp, K. E. 2001: Reconciliation in the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta). Ethology 107, 1057—1074
  2. ^ Weaver, A. 2003: Conflict and reconciliation in captive bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus. Marine Mammal Science 19, 836—846.
  3. ^ Schino, G. 1998: Reconciliation in domestic goats. Behaviour 135, 343—356.
  4. ^ Cools, A. K. A., Van Hout, A. J.-M., Nelissen M. H. J. 2008: Canine Reconciliation and Third-Party-Initiated Postconflict Affiliation: Do Peacemaking Social Mechanisms in Dogs Rival Those of Higher Primates? Ethology 114, 53—63.
  5. ^ "About Cornell ILR Scheinman Institute". Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/conflictRes/careers/. Retrieved 23 August 2009. 

References

  • Augsburger, D. (1992). Conflict mediation across cultures. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster / John Knox Press.
  • Bannon, I. & Paul Collier (Eds.). (2003). Natural resources and violent conflict: Options and actions. Washington, D.C: The World Bank.
  • Ury, F. & Rodger Fisher. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
  • Wilmot,W. & Jouyce Hocker. (2007). Interpersonal conflict. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.
  • Bercovitch, Jacob and Jackson, Richard. 2009. Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-first Century: Principles, Methods, and Approaches. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
  • de Waal, Frans B. M. and Angeline van Roosmalen. 1979. Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 5: 55–66.
  • de Waal, Frans B. M. 1989. Peacemaking Among Primates. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Judge, Peter G. and Frans B. M. de Waal. 1993. Conflict avoidance among rhesus monkeys: coping with short-term crowding. Animal Behaviour 46: 221–232.
  • Veenema, Hans et al. 1994. Methodological improvements for the study of reconciliation. Behavioural Processes 31:29–38.
  • de Waal, Frans B. M. and Filippo Aureli. 1996. Consolation, reconciliation, and a possible cognitive difference between macaques and chimpanzees. Reaching into thought: The minds of the great apes (Eds. Anne E. Russon, Kim A. Bard, Sue Taylor Parker), Cambridge University Press, New York, NY: 80–110.
  • Aureli, Filippo. 1997. Post-conflict anxiety in non-human primates: the mediating role of emotion in conflict resolution. Aggressive Behavior 23: 315–328.
  • Castles, Duncan L. and Andrew Whiten. 1998. Post-conflict behaviour of wild olive baboons, I. Reconciliation, redirection, and consolation. Ethology 104: 126–147.
  • Aureli, Filippo and Frans B. M. de Waal, eds. 2000. Natural Conflict Resolution. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
  • de Waal, Frans B. M. 2000. Primates––A natural heritage of conflict resolution. Science 289: 586–590.
  • Silk, Joan B. 2002. The form and function of reconciliation in primates. Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 21–44.
  • Weaver, Ann and Frans B. M. de Waal. 2003. The mother-offspring relationship as a template in social development: reconciliation in captive brown capuchins (Cebus apella). Journal of Comparative Psychology 117: 101–110.
  • Palagi, Elisabetta et al. 2004. Reconciliation and consolation in captive bonobos (Pan paniscus). American Journal of Primatology 62: 15–30.
  • Palagi, Elisabetta et al. 2005. Aggression and reconciliation in two captive groups of Lemur catta. International Journal of Primatology 26: 279–294.
  • Lorenzen, Michael. 2006. Conflict Resolution and Academic Library Instruction. LOEX Quarterly 33, no. ½,: 6–9, 11.
  • Winslade, John & Monk, Gerald. 2000. Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
  • Bar-Siman-Tov, Yaacov (Ed.) (2004). From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation. Oxford University Press

External links


Study guide

Up to date as of January 14, 2010

Wikibooks

Up to date as of January 23, 2010
(Redirected to Conflict Resolution article)

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

The following are the steps to one way of dealing with negativity:

1) Avoidance, Precaution, Distancing

2) Compliance, Cooperation, Compromise

3) Fight or Flight, Negativity Mirroring, Ejecting

Avoidance

Avoidance is a small amount of distancing or moving away from the subject. When a person has done something that is negative towards you, the first order of business is to try and alleviate any kind of hostility in the easiest form possible. That easiest way would be to move away a little bit. Moving away means sending a message to the person "I mean no harm, but I will leave if I have wronged you in some way". It also sends a message that you do not appreciate the behavior. Moving away, angular distance, closed body language, angular cut off, turning away attention, disengaging conversation, etc. are all forms of distancing either physically or verbally in some level.

It is important to move away just a little bit. Excessive avoidance will consume excess resources as well as send conflicting messages. If you're at a party and some guy hit you on the shoulder a little to hard as his way of making a joke, you don't want to leave the room or start running to the other corner of the room. If you're engaged in conversations with other people, that will interrupt your conversations and it will take time and energy resources to reestablish those connections in another scene. They guy might also have been joking, so it's important to let him know that it's not funny in a subtle way. He might have just had awkward social skills. In this case excessive avoidance will generate opportunity cost forgoing a wing man. In this case subtle distancing should send the appropriate message, that is at the same time not too much.

Compliance

The next order of business is an attempt at compliance. The hostility might have been a result of your own mistake, in which case you should correct it. Took somebody else's seat, took somebody else's drink, mispronounced somebody's name, sorgot to give somebody a hug etc. It is weird that hostility might be the result of forgetting to give the girl a hug, or compliment her on her dress at the appropriate time. However think about it, if a girl went through all the time of looking great for a special night, and you didn't compliment her. You're lucky she's not just leaving but still sending you a message of some sort. Without the avoidance step, this might come off as supplication or nice guy behavior. These steps work in squence with eachother. The avoidance step first, has ensured that you are not supplicating. If the person is still pursuing you with hostility, the aspect of pursuance, has not bestowed you the upper hand. Now is you realized that you're forgot to give her a good night kiss or use foreplay, you can now go ahead and do so without coming off as a nice guy.

In a casual setting, compliance with members of the opposite sex in a personal relationship will often if not primerely, take a sexual form of some kind. When dealing with members of the opposite sex, you can be sure that a conflict will often result because of a sexual inconsistency. Not holing her hand as often as you used to, not hugging her as much as you used to, looking at other girls, neglecting her etc. Those are all signs which will often get a girl hostile, that is if she doesn't leave ahead of time. It is actually a good thing that she is hostile, rather than just leaving you and not giving you a second chance. There is a common misconception that hostility is a sign of rejection. It could be, but it's not always. Having used the avoidance step, and having had the girl pursue you further, allows you to proceed to cooperation without risking over-approaching or violating your territory.

Once you've implemented avoidance, and had the person still pursue you, an advantage in social status and image is achieved. Being on the receiving end allows you to pursue the person in return to sovle the problem and move on to a higher level of intimacy in return. The types of behaviors would usually be flirting, teasing, complimenting, hugging, touching, hand holding etc. If she is continuing to hit you, you now have permission to hold her hand because she has initiated physical contact. Defense is important and is covered in the third and last step. However, it is important to first pursue an attempt at intimacy, just in case that was the problem. If lack of intimacy was the problem, intimacy instead of defense, will not only solve the problem, but also get both people exactly what they want.

In a casual setting with members of the opposite sex, conflicts will often be resolved with sexuality or intimacy. Women skipping this step are often perceived as bitchy. Men skipping this step are often perceived as jerks when they put too much emphasis on the first avoidance step or the third step of retaliation. The first step of avoidance, allows you an attempt at conflict resolution which is your main goal in any conflict. The process of slight avoidance or distancing allows you to switch to engage or approach the person in return without overstepping your boundaries.


Fight or Flight

The last step of fight or flight is the process of making sure that your compliance is not taken advantage off. You should always remember that resolution is your ultimate goal in any conflict. However, situations will occur where you will not be able to resolve a conflict, or your date will be irrate because of other external reasons. In such a case it is important to have a process of making sure that you are not taken advantage of while it indeed is not your fault. Having practiced avoidance first and cooperation second, has now ensured that you are first not attacking the person and second innocent. The assumptions are that you cave conducted compliance properly, and second that if they are still attacking you, they are consenting to the counter attack. At the same time, there is a level of hostility which is allowed when implementing the counter attack.

The negativity from you should be in accordance to the type and level of negativity from the person. Verbal negativity should be responded to with verbal negativity, not emotional. Emotional negativity should be imitated with emotion accordingly also. If the person doesn't see the connection between their negativity and yours, you will be perceived as hostile rather than sympathetic. Identify what type of negativity the person is expressing: insults, derogatory, criticism, swearing, frowning etc.

Mirror the negativity, but not the attack. You want to come across as being similar, not hostile yourself. For example, if the girls is swearing at you, you might try swearing also, but not at her, instead at an inanimate object. This will not lead to a fight, but it will make you feel like you both are in a similar state of mind.

Once you've me the person on their level, the next step is to turn the interaction hospitable by gradually decreasing the intensity. You would start of with a level that is a little bit lower than her own. This is called pacing. Gradually, as you feel her coming more and more on your side, start decreasing the level of intensity. Don't decrease too suddenly that she will explode back up again, but use a pace so that she's still in sync and mirroring your body language. If she does explode, follow up back with step one.

Circus Animal Training Example

A similar process is seen with animal trainers and the lion in the circus. As the trainer approaches the lion, the first order of response is backing off. This is avoidance. As the lion runs out of room, it will sit and bow down. This is a form of submission or obedience. If the trainer pursues, the lion will get up and start approaching the trainer up to the poin where the trainer backs off. This is all a process of the lion using it's instincts in responding to hostility used by animal trainers to make it look like the trainer is telling the lion what to do.

See also

External links

Social Interaction Dynamics


Simple English

Conflict resolution is a set of ideas and ways to reduce sources of conflict. The term "conflict resolution" is sometimes used interchangeably with the term "dispute resolution". The terms conflict and dispute overlap. As a term, conflict is broader than dispute, more concerned with physical action, and less concerned with verbal arguments.

Processes of conflict resolution generally include negotiation, mediation, and diplomacy. The processes of arbitration, litigation, and formal complaint processes such as ombudsman processes, are usually described with the term dispute resolution, although some refer to them as "conflict resolution".

Contents

Culture-based

Conflict resolution as both a professional practice and academic field is highly sensitive to cultural background. In Western cultural contexts, such as Canada and the United States, successful conflict resolution usually involves fostering communication among disputants, problem solving, and drafting agreements that meet their underlying needs. In these situations, conflict resolvers often talk about finding the win-win solution, or mutually satisfying scenario, for everyone involved (see Fisher and Ury (1981), Getting to Yes). In many non-Western cultural contexts, such as Afghanistan, Vietnam, and China, it is also important to find "win-win" solutions; however, getting there can be very different. In these contexts, direct communication between disputants that explicitly addresses the issues at stake in the conflict can be perceived as very rude, making the conflict worse and delaying resolution. Rather, it can make sense to involve religious, tribal or community leaders, communicate difficult truths indirectly through a third party, and make suggestions through stories (see David Augsberger (1992), Conflict Mediation Across Cultures). Intercultural conflicts are often the most difficult to resolve because the expectations of the disputants can be very different, and there is much occasion for misunderstanding.

In animals

Conflict resolution has also been studied in non-humans, like dogs, cats, monkeys, snakes, elephants, and primates (see Frans de Waal, 2000). Aggression is more common among animal relatives and within a group, than between groups. Instead of creating a distance between the individuals, however, the primates were more intimate in the period after the aggressive incident. These intimacies consisted of grooming and various forms of body contact. Stress responses, like an increased heart rate, usually decrease after these reconciliatory signals. Different types of primates, as well as many other species who are living in groups, show different types of conciliatory behaviour. Resolving conflicts that threaten the interaction between individuals in a group is necessary for survival, hence has a strong evolutionary value. These findings contradicted previous existing theories about the general function of aggression, i.e. creating space between individuals (first proposed by Konrad Lorenz), which seems to be more the case in conflicts between groups than it is within groups.

In addition to research in primates, biologists are beginning to explore reconciliation in other animals. Up until recently, the literature dealing with reconciliation in non-primates have consisted of anecdotal observations and very little quantitative data. Although peaceful, post-conflict behavior had been documented going back to the 1960s, it was not until 1993 that Rowell made the first explicit mention of reconciliation in feral sheep. Reconciliation has since been documented in spotted hyenas,[1] lions, dolphins,[2] dwarf mongooses, domestic goats,[3] and domestic dogs.[4]

Careers

Conflict resolution is an expanding field of professional practice, both in the U.S. and around the world. The escalating costs of conflict have increased use of third parties who may serve as arbitrators, mediators, facilitators, and ombudsmen or conflict specialists to resolve conflicts. In fact, relief and development organizations have added peace-building specialists to their teams. Also, many of the major international NGOs have seen a growing need to hire practitioners trained in conflict analysis and resolution. Furthermore, this expansion of the field has resulted in the need for conflict resolution practitioners to work in a variety of settings such as in businesses, court systems, government agencies nonprofit organizations, government agencies and educational institutions serving throughout the world.

Education

Universities worldwide offer programs of study pertaining to conflict research, analysis, and practice. The Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations (ILR) houses the Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution, which offers undergraduate, graduate, and professional training on conflict resolution.[5] Additional graduate programs are offered at Georgetown University, Eastern Mennonite University and Trinity College Dublin [6]. George Mason University’s Institute of Conflict Analysis and Resolution offers undergraduate, certificate and masters programs in Conflict Analysis and Resolution and a Ph.D. program in The Philosophy in Conflict and Conflict Resolution [7]. Many students completing a doctoral program enter the field as researchers, theorists, analysts, policy makers and professors in higher education.

Furthermore, the Pax Ludens Foundation based in the Netherlands is an organization that puts together conflict resolution simulations set in an International Relations scenario to help students learn about the intricacies of where conflict emerges in the world of international politics.

Conflict resolution is a growing area of interest in UK pedagogy, with teachers and students both encouraged to learn about mechanisms that lead to aggressive action, and those that lead to peaceful resolution.

In many schools in the UK, conflict resolution has now become an integral part of the SEAL (Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning) programme, chiming,as it does, with the SEAL principles of developing social skills and an understanding of ones own feelings.

In India, masters in conflict analysis and peace building is offered by Nelson Mandela Centre for Peace, in Jamia Millia Islamia university in New Delhi.http://www.jmi.nic.in/cpcr/cpcr.htm

See also

Notes

  1. Wahaj, S. A., Guse, K. & Holekamp, K. E. 2001: Reconciliation in the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta). Ethology 107, 1057—1074
  2. Weaver, A. 2003: Conflict and reconciliation in captive bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus. Marine Mammal Science 19, 836—846.
  3. Schino, G. 1998: Reconciliation in domestic goats. Behaviour 135, 343—356.
  4. Cools, A. K. A., Van Hout, A. J.-M., Nelissen M. H. J. 2008: Canine Reconciliation and Third-Party-Initiated Postconflict Affiliation: Do Peacemaking Social Mechanisms in Dogs Rival Those of Higher Primates? Ethology 114, 53—63.
  5. "About Cornell ILR Scheinman Institute". Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/conflictRes/careers/. Retrieved 23 August 2009. 
  6. "Peace and Collaborative Development Network".http://www.internationalpeaceandconflict.org/profiles/blogs/guide-to-ma-program-in-peace"
  7. THE DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN CONFLICT ANALYSIS AND RESOLUTION - Ph.D.".http://icar.gmu.edu/ICAR_phd.html"

References

  • Augsburger, D. (1992). Conflict mediation across cultures. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster / John Knox Press.
  • Bannon, I. & Paul Collier (Eds.). (2003). Natural resources and violent conflict: Options and actions. Washington, D.C: The World Bank.
  • Ury, F. & Rodger Fisher. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
  • Wilmot,W. & Jouyce Hocker. (2007). Interpersonal conflict. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.
  • Bercovitch, Jacob and Jackson, Richard. 2009. Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-first Century: Principles, Methods, and Approaches. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
  • de Waal, Frans B. M. and Angeline van Roosmalen. 1979. Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 5: 55–66.
  • de Waal, Frans B. M. 1989. Peacemaking Among Primates. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Judge, Peter G. and Frans B. M. de Waal. 1993. Conflict avoidance among rhesus monkeys: coping with short-term crowding. Animal Behaviour 46: 221–232.
  • Veenema, Hans et al. 1994. Methodological improvements for the study of reconciliation. Behavioural Processes 31:29–38.
  • de Waal, Frans B. M. and Filippo Aureli. 1996. Consolation, reconciliation, and a possible cognitive difference between macaques and chimpanzees. Reaching into thought: The minds of the great apes (Eds. Anne E. Russon, Kim A. Bard, Sue Taylor Parker), Cambridge University Press, New York, NY: 80–110.
  • Aureli, Filippo. 1997. Post-conflict anxiety in non-human primates: the mediating role of emotion in conflict resolution. Aggressive Behavior 23: 315–328.
  • Castles, Duncan L. and Andrew Whiten. 1998. Post-conflict behaviour of wild olive baboons, I. Reconciliation, redirection, and consolation. Ethology 104: 126–147.
  • Aureli, Filippo and Frans B. M. de Waal, eds. 2000. Natural Conflict Resolution. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
  • de Waal, Frans B. M. 2000. Primates––A natural heritage of conflict resolution. Science 289: 586–590.
  • Silk, Joan B. 2002. The form and function of reconciliation in primates. Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 21–44.
  • Weaver, Ann and Frans B. M. de Waal. 2003. The mother-offspring relationship as a template in social development: reconciliation in captive brown capuchins (Cebus apella). Journal of Comparative Psychology 117: 101–110.
  • Palagi, Elisabetta et al. 2004. Reconciliation and consolation in captive bonobos (Pan paniscus). American Journal of Primatology 62: 15–30.
  • Palagi, Elisabetta et al. 2005. Aggression and reconciliation in two captive groups of Lemur catta. International Journal of Primatology 26: 279–294.
  • Lorenzen, Michael. 2006. Conflict Resolution and Academic Library Instruction. LOEX Quarterly 33, no. ½,: 6–9, 11.
  • Winslade, John & Monk, Gerald. 2000. Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
  • Bar-Siman-Tov, Yaacov (Ed.) (2004). From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation. Oxford University Press

Other webpages








Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message