Conflict resolution:

There is considerable controversy about definitions and terminology in the field of conflict resolution.^{[citation needed]} This may be partly because the field is multidisciplinary. Academics and practitioners are found within diverse disciplines including political science, international relations, law, psychology, public administration, anthropology, business, education, sociology, philosophy, health care and other fields of study or practice. Internationally, a growing number of undergraduate and graduate programs are emerging in "conflict resolution," "conflict management," "dispute resolution," "alternative dispute resolution," "conflict transformation," and "peace and conflict studies". In addition, many disciplines now incorporate courses in negotiation, mediation or conflict management. In most jurisdictions, no specific credentials are legally required by conflict resolution practitioners, many of whom have no specific academic qualifications.

Many of the definitional concerns spring from diverse definitions of the terms "conflict" and "dispute" and "resolution". The term "conflict" has been defined as "intense interpersonal and/or intrapersonal dissonance (tension or antagonism) between two or more parties based on incompatible goals, needs, desires, values, beliefs, and/or attitudes." ^[1] "Disputes" have been defined as conflicts that have become particularized around a specific issue or issues. ^[2]. Some conflicts may not become manifest as articulated disputes. Thus, "conflict resolution" tends to refer to processes that address the sources of conflict so as to prevent them from escalating or eliminate the conflict altogether. The term "dispute resolution" refers to settlement of disputes and complaints, which may or may not address or eliminate the sources of the conflict.

Similar definition controversies have emerged over the term "resolution." Some scholars and practitioners have pointed out that many disputes (and conflicts) cannot be resolved in that the sources of the conflicts cannot be eliminated. Thus, the term "conflict management" has emerged to convey the idea that even if resolution is impossible, conflicts and disputes can be managed constructively.

Methods

There are many tools available to persons in conflict. How and when they are used depends on several factors (such as the specific issues at stake in the conflict and the cultural context of the disputants). The list of tools available to practitioners include negotiation, mediation, community building, advocacy, diplomacy, activism, nonviolence, critical pedagogy, prayer and counseling. In real world conflict situations, which range in scale from kindergarten bullying to genocide, practitioners will creatively combine several of these approaches as needed. Additionally, practitioners will often specialize in a particular scale (e.g. interpersonal, community or international), or a particular variety of conflict (such as environmental, religious or organizational), and repertoires of tools they find most useful.

Culture-based

Conflict resolution as both a professional practice and academic field is highly sensitive to culture. In Western cultural contexts, such as the 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 maintain.

Counseling

When personal conflict leads to frustration and loss of efficiency, counseling may prove to be a helpful antidote. Although few organizations can afford the luxury of having professional counselors on the staff, given some training, managers may be able to perform this function. Nondirective counseling, or "listening with understanding", is little more than being a good listener — something every manager should be. ^[3]

Sometimes the simple process of being able to vent one's feelings — that is, to express them to a concerned and understanding listener, is enough to relieve frustration and make it possible for the frustrated individual to advance to a problem-solving frame of mind, better able to cope with a personal difficulty that is affecting his work adversely. The nondirective approach is one effective way for managers to deal with frustrated subordinates and co-workers.

There are other more direct and more diagnostic ways that might be used in appropriate circumstances. The great strength of the nondirective approach (nondirective counseling is based on the client-centered therapy of Carl Rogers), however, lies in its simplicity, its effectiveness, and the fact that it deliberately avoids the manager-counselor's diagnosing and interpreting emotional problems, which would call for special psychological training. No one has ever been harmed by being listened to sympathetically and understandingly. On the contrary, this approach has helped many people to cope with problems that were interfering with their effectiveness on the job.^[4]

In animals

Conflict resolution has also been studied in non-human like dogs, cats, monkeys, or elephants.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 between groups conflicts.

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,^[5] lions, dolphins,^[6] dwarf mongooses, domestic goats^[7] and domestic dogs.^[8]

Conflict resolution

Contents

In humans

Definitional controversy

Methods

Culture-based

Counseling

In animals

See also

Bibliography

References

External links