ArticlePDF Available

Reflexive dialogue as transformation

Authors:
  • The ARIA Group Inc.
Reflexive Dialogue
~
as Transformation
Jay
Rothman
When
I
read Bush and Folgerk (1994)
The
Promise
of
Mediation,
I
recognized
my
own
work and in some ways heard my
own
voice. Trained in international
relations and conflict resolution,
I
work as an analyst of and intervenor in con-
flicts of nations and organizations that are deeply rooted in disputants’ sense
of self in short, identity conflicts (Northrup, 1989; Rothman, 1992, forth-
coming). In such conflicts, while “solving” problems is indeed an ultimate goal,
it
is one that can fruitfully be postponed, and the path for
it
prepared, as dis-
putants learn to express their
own
voices (empowerment) and hear one
another’s (recognition).
In this article, written for fellow third-party intervenors in complex and
identity-driven conflicts,
I
want to briefly share the key methodology of my
work, which is the facilitation of
reflexive
dialogue
as
a
form of transformational
conflict resolution. Reflexive dialogue
is
the process
I
use to harness the
resources contained within deep conflict to transform itself from a destructive
to a constructive feature of human and, in particular, group relationships.
I
believe this process resonates loudly, albeit with many different emphases and
procedures, with the hnd of transformational process prescribed by Bush and
Folger (1994) and Folger and Bush (this volume).
When people’s essential identity needs are threatened or frustrated, con-
flict almost inevitably follows. Parties regularly flee such conflicts due to their
negative experience with them. However, this kind
of
avoidance often back-
fires and leads to
its
opposite as the conflict protracts.
At
the other extreme,
disputants also regularly seek to do battle over such conflicts, to win, to con-
quer, due to what are often high stakes. The goal of reflexive dialogue
is
to help
disputants and third parties identify identity conflicts and engage proactively
in a creative conflict management process at the midpoint between these
extremes.
Conflict of all kinds has the potential to promote dynamism and creative
change in institutions and human relationships; all too often, however, that
potential
is
lost as conflict poorly handled leads to violence and inertia. This
is especially the case when conflict is perceived to be existentially threatening.
A
fundamental precondition for ending deep and persistent identity-driven
MEDIATION
QUARTERLY.
vol.
13,
no.
4,
Summer
1996
%,
Jossey-Bass Publishen
345
Rot
hman
conflict rests in helping disputants give voice
to
their essential concerns and
to hear and recognize the essential concerns of the other side as well. What are
the underlyng concerns in identity conflicts? Can they be articulated and com-
prehended? What is the benefit of doing
so?
Beyond Subjectivity in Identity Conflict
One of the attributes of identity conflict is that it is intangible. Another way of
putting
it
is to say that such conflict is deeply subjective; disputants locked in
identity conflict often have a very hard time explaining the nature of their con-
flict to others who have not experienced
it
in the way that they have. When
the parties involved in an identity conflict describe its significance in histori-
cal terms, observers may believe that different histories are being told. In many
ways they are. The subjective experience of disputants in conflict is shaped by
and shapes their particular cultural realities and historical narratives. Moreover
disputants’ experience of self and others in conflict is subjective. One side’s
freedom fighter is very often another side’s terrorist.
Seeking the objective truth about such a conflict,
its
history, and the mer-
its
of
one side’s interpretations and experiences against another’s is futile; this
approach regularly leads to a fruitless debate in which each side asserts its real-
ity,
the other side counterasserts, and no listening or learning occurs. However,
it is possible and potentially transforming
to
discover the meeting points
between the subjective experiences and interpretations-the intersubjective
intersections between adversaries. In pursuing the work of articulating con-
flict’s deep meaning to one’s identity through this process of reflexive dialogue,
wherein disputants strive
to
articulate to each other the impact of conflict on
their self-definition and experience, respectively and interactively, what be-
comes profoundly clear is that subjective renderings of conflict can have an
intersubjective resonance between disputants.
“1
was afraid,” says one side.
“So
was
1,”
says the other. While reframing starts with frame introspection-shift-
ing frames, from external to internal-such a start
is
a necessary but insuffi-
cient first step. The more profound first step is when disputants incorporate
their different subjective frames of the conflict into a shared intersubjective def-
inition
of
the core narratives, meaning and motives: “We were afraid.”
I
call
this process reflexive dialogue, or interactive introspection.
In identity conflicts, such meeting points can regularly be discovered in
the respective articulation of disputants’ hopes, fears, needs, and motivations.
One
of
the reasons identity disputes are
so
protracted and intransigent is that
the stakes are very high: They have to do with disputants’ needs for safety, dig-
nity, control over destiny, and
so
forth (Maslow,
1943;
Burton,
1990).
Such
needs regularly resonate negatively between disputants locked in identity con-
flicts, who share in common an experience of threat or frustration around such
needs.
At
the core of such conflicts is the destructive relationship with the
other side, viewed as the cause of threatened or frustrated needs.
Reflexive Dialogue
as
Transformation
347
The transformational potential that can be forged out of such negative con-
flict cycles is that one side may become an ally in fostering or fulfilling the
other side’s needs, instead of damaging them. This cannot occur, however, until
both sides become explicit and articulate their motivations in the conflict (such
as, the fulfillment of their needs).
Reflexive
Dialogue
Disputants may be able to explain the external attributes of their conflict and
the suffering
it
has caused them, but they are often hard-pressed to verbalize
the conflict’s inner meaning. Moreover, it is uncommon for disputants to try
to do
so
since other forms of explanation are simpler, and blame is apparently
rhetorically appealing and psychologically comforting. While identity conflict
is subjectively perceived and intangible, it also has an objective
or
external
component that is more tangible and describable. Thus, disputants rarely
articulate the deeper significance of conflict to themselves and instead describe
its attributes and effects, and the underlying significance of conflict often
remains at the tacit level (Polyani,
1966).
If disputants operate out of apparently incommensurate subjective reali-
ties, which may not be fully comprehended even by themselves, how then can
constructive communication, intersubjective agreement, and conflict resolu-
tion be initiated? First and foremost, we can help disputants articulate and
frame their own concerns
so
that they themselves are clear about the deep
structures of their conflict and can educate the other side about them.
The approach that
I
use to harness the potential of deep conflict for trans-
formation and enduring creative change is reflexive dialogue. Such dialogue is
a form of guided and interactive introspection by which disputants speak
about themselves in the presence of their adversaries, and about their needs
and values as viewed interactively through the prism of the conflict situation.
Reflexive dialogue can be transforming, for not only does it nurture an expres-
sion of disputants’ underlyng motivations for conflict, but
it
may also help
them articulate to themselves, while they communicate to the other side, what
they care about and why.
It
can be, in its richest form, a kind of consciousness
raising by which disputants come to know and express themselves in ways
that
may not have occurred had the conflict not provided an opportunity, or neces-
sity, for such articulation.
Reflexive dialogue can lead to a fresh start toward reconciling identity-
driven conflicts that may have become protracted in part due to methods
(like negotiation or problem solving) used previously to discuss and manage
them. Whereas in conventional adversarial conflict framing, parties typically
identify the locus and source of the conflict in their opponents, in reflexive
reframing, parties begin, or start over, with themselves. They inquire fore-
most into what the conflict “out there” means to them “inside,” and how their
own internal processes and priorities have negatively shaped and can be
348
Rothman
channeled to positively reshape the course of that exogenous conflict. This
is a reflexive process.
There are, however, two forms of reflexivity, and distinguishing between
them clarifies the meaning intended here. The common form of reflexivity is
reactive and thus akin to blaming.
It
is
a kind of single feedback loop between
actions and reactions. This
is
knee-jerk reflexivity of the kind stimulated by
the rubber mallet in a doctor’s hand. Such single-loop reflexivity, in which we
react instinctively to a stimulus, making sense
of
data and operating out of a
predetermined cognitive map, is a conditioned response. The second type of
reflexivity has the opposite meaning, though it builds on the first.
It
is a
slowed-down and self-conscious analysis of the interactive nature
of
reactions
(for example, “Hey, what is going on here that
I
care about
so
much? Why is
it getting such a rise out of me?”), which potentially provides needed space for
deciding how one wants to react, instead of simply acting in accord with how
one
is
conditioned to react. We can be active agents, making decisions about
our responses, learning to encounter stimulus contemplatively, questioning our
own
assumptions, anticipating our
own
reactions prior to enacting them, and,
finally, choosing how to proceed (Steier,
1991).
We can build on single-loop cognitive or emotional reactions to develop
double-loop decisions about our actions (Argyris and Schon,
1978;
Argyris,
Putnam, and Smith,
1985).
We can move from somewhat blind or tacit as-
sumptions to profound self-awareness and volition. Single-loop reactions, like
adversarial conflict framing, are those based on a given frame that may be
refined and improved (“How might we better gain what we want from them?”).
Double-loop reactions are based on inquiry into the nature of the frame itself,
assumptions underlying
it,
and whether an alternative frame might be prefer-
able (“How might we reconceptualize our conflict
so
that we view ourselves as
in it together and therefore getting out of it together?”).
Reflexive dialogue is a valuable tool for helping disputants who are locked
in identity conflicts-where who they and other such existential issues are at
stake, whether in national or organizational settings-to honestly express what
they care about and why, who they are, and, given their identity definitions,
why the conflicts matter
so
much to them. Having expressed themselves in this
way, disputants may begin to inquire of each other about their concerns, needs,
values, motivations, and identities, providing a foundation for agenda setting
and coordinated next steps-further meetings, functional cooperation, joint
problem solving, program development, and
so
forth.
Case
Study:
Reflexive Dialogue over Jerusalem
My
own
work in reflexive dialogue began in Jerusalem, working with Israelis
and Palestinians around their protracted conflict over this city It continued in
other deeply protracted ethnic conflicts and then took an interesting turn into
Reflexive Dialogue
us
Transformation
349
the organizational arena. While describing my work in international conflict
resolution at a university workshop,
I
was invited to apply this approach to the
task of transforming a decades-old labor-management conflict that had left the
parties deeply divided and recycling the conflict annually. Here
I
summarize
the reflexive approach in a discussion of dialogues
I
have facilitated in Jeru-
salem; elsewhere,
I
have discussed my work in organizational settings (Roth-
man, forthcoming; Rothman and Klein,
1993).
What follows
is
a somewhat stylized summary of dozens of reflexive dia-
logues on the future of Jerusalem that
I
facilitated between Israelis and Pales-
tinians since
1987.
After disputants articulate the “what”
of
the conflict, which
is
regularly adversarially framed, they begin to re frame reflexively their
own
concerns from an outward focus on what the other side did and how bad they
are, to what they themselves care about and why.
FACILITATOR: In what way
is
Jerusalem core to your
own
people, their hopes
and fears, and core in this conflict?
PALESTINLANS:
A1
Quds
is
our center. It
is
from whence our national, cultural,
and religious lives emanate. Walking to the golden dome of the
A1
Aksa
Mosque, we gain a sense of elevation and calm simultaneously. While the
whole Arab and indeed Moslem world claims this spot as its religious
birthright, and with complete justification, to us our link with Jerusalem
is
equal to our
own
sense
of
national Palestinian selfhood. Moreover, Jerusalem
has always been the main nerve of our intellectual and economic life
as
well.
Without Jerusalem, we
will
remain what we have become, a fragmented, poor-
ly
led, somewhat unfocused collection of tribes. With Jerusalem, our national
unity
is
assured.
ISRAELIS:
Jerusalem
is
the key to our continuity For the past three thousand
years, without break or exception, our ancestors either lived here or prayed
daily, in fact three times
a
day,
to
live here. We must pass
it
on to our next gen-
erations, as a birthright, for only thus will we as a people, a culture, a religon,
and a nation be ensured of a future. In other words, without Jerusalem, we are
as
if
we were not and thus will not be. Jerusalem and the Jewish people are
really synonymous, past, present, and future. Moreover, politically, if we lose
hold of Jerusalem,
it
is only
a
matter of time before we lose hold
of
the rest of
the land
of
Israel,
bit
by bit.
FACILITATOR: The fears you each have expressed about Jerusalem are very pow-
erful. Palestinians, you said that without Jerusalem you will remain fragmented
and dispersed. Israelis, you said that without Jerusalem your past and future
are wiped out. Say more about your hopes, values, and needs that are at stake
in this conflict.
350
Rot
hman
ISRAELIS: We need Jerusalem to be who we are and will become. Jerusalem is
equivalent to our identity. We need it to be safe and recognized. This may
sound a little grandiose, but we need Jerusalem to continue to be bigger than
our size. We are small, but Jerusalem helps to make
us
larger. In short,
it
gives
us cultural, religious, national, and political meaning and purpose. Simply,
without Jerusalem we shrivel.
PALESTINlANS:
Our history has been marked by occupations by foreigners. The
Turks, the French, the British, the Jews. We aspire to control our
own
destiny;
this is only really or fully possible with Jerusalem as our religious and politi-
cal core. With Jerusalem we will gain the internal cohesion, politically and
nationally, and the external recognition that we require.
FACILITATOR:
Having heard such deep-felt articulations of self, please ask each
other questions for clarification.
Do
not engage in the typical positional debate,
as we already experienced
at
the beginning of this workshop, in which you
tried to prove the other side wrong. Instead, even
if
you doubt the efficacy of
their perceptions, or that they really have the needs they assert they do, try to
take them at their word that these are their perceptions and that they do
believe they have these needs. Ask questions
so
that you may attempt to un-
derstand them and their values and needs as they perceive them, even if you
still do not necessarily agree with them. Only through deeply understanding
what motivates the other side will you gain the tools needed to work with
them, and not against them, to solve the conflict.
ISRAELIS:
You say Jerusalem
is
your unity, but this
is
only-
FACILITATOR:
Wait a minute, it sounds as if you are about to score a point.
That’s positional debate; here we want questions for clarification, for under-
standing, for analytical empathy. In a minute
I
will ask you to role-play the
other side and express their values and core concerns as
you
have heard them
do.
So
you should now gather information and insight to help you do this.
ISRAELIS:
Okay, then as a question, Why has Jerusalem become
so
important
to you in terms of Palestinian peoplehood? This is a relatively new concern for
you, less than a hundred years ago you cared only about it religiously, now you
say
it
is your national core. Why?
PALESTINIANS:
It
is true that our national consciousness, at least in the West-
ern sense of the word, is a relatively modern phenomenon; but it does exist
and it is undeniable that it motivates everything we think and do. Jerusalem,
for religious, historical, cultural, political, and
so
many other reasons, is the
repository
of
us. While
I
cannot really explain
it,
I
should think that you, of
all people, should be able to understand this quintessentially spiritual con-
Reflexive Dialogue as Transformation
351
nection we have with Jerusalemdven those of us who are secular! You speak
of Jerusalem as your core. But why do you need to rule over us?
FACILITATOR:
Can you make this question a little less provocative? We are
engaged in listening for understanding, which requires both willingness to
lis-
ten to what the other side has to say about themselves and also willingness to
ask questions such that the other wants to answer honestly and nondefensively.
PALESTINIANS:
Okay, I’ll try.
If
your safety and access to your holy sites and the
Jewish areas were assured, wouldn’t
it
be a relief not to rule over Palestinians
in East Jerusalem who are hostile to you?
ISRAELIS:
Your question is just too hypothetical. Our security has never been
assured and will only be secured by our
own
efforts.
We
can never again entrust
our destiny
to
others-and certainly not to others who have at one time vowed
to destroy us. When Jerusalem was divided, we were not allowed access; now
it
is
whole and everyone has access. Sure, it would be fine
if
you could gain
greater self-rule and control, but not at our expense, which our experience
sug-
gests
is
what would happen were Jerusalem ever again to be divided.
This type of reflexive dialogue may continue in this way for hours or for
days, with many questions posed
by
me and increasingly by the parties them-
selves. It might eventually lead to a great deal
of
clarification and understand-
ing about what is at stake and why it matters
so
much.
Finally, the parties may reach the point at which we would test whether
they have developed the kind of analytical empathy sought (that is, the goal
of
such a dialogue is not persuasion but rather deep insight). Each side in turn
might, for example, reverse roles temporarily and describe their motivations,
needs, and values as if they were the other side. It is always a powerful moment
when, often for the first time, each side feels that their adversaries have truly
heard them and at least recognized their deep concerns. When parties can
indeed achieve this role reversal to their mutual satisfaction, a new foundation
can be built, one on which the definition
of
the problem as
“us
against them”
can begin to be replaced by “we share.”
Conclusion
In reflexive dialogue disputants reframe their perceptions and analyses
of
each
other and their own identities: In short, they learn to articulate their own
voices clearly and to recognize each other’s voices as valid. Where blame was,
mutual responsibility enters. Where us versus them dynamics prevailed, the
way in which the disputants were locked into a relationship and in part
defined by
it
becomes both clear and potentially constructive with a new use
of
we.
Where negative attributions clouded all differentiation of the other, a
352
Rothman
new analytical empathy may emerge in which the other is viewed as “like self”
with respect
to
motivations, needs, and values. Finally, where pernicious pro-
jections were entrenched, a new awareness of disputants’ own imperfections
are acknowledged and accepted, promoting a less self-righteous or judgmen-
tal battle and more tolerance for failings of the other side as well.
Kurt
Lewin
(1948),
in his classic book
Resolving Social Conflicts,
suggested
that when disputants are locked in bitter battles, they must somehow
“unfreeze” cognitions about each other and their situation that perpetuate the
fight in order to view them afresh and enable a new beginning. Bush and Fol-
ger give practitioners valuable new concepts for such unfreezing. Reflexive dia-
logue is one tool that can produce the kind
of
transformational process they
promote, whereby parties learn a great deal about their
own
needs and values
by articulating them in guided dialogue, and they come to reflexively recog-
nize the needs and values of the other side as well.
References
Argyris,
C.,
Putnam,
R.,
and Smith, D. M.
Action Science: Concepts, Methods, and Skillsfor Research
Argyns, C., and Schon,
D.
Organizational Learning:
A
Theory of Action Perspective.
Reading, Mass.:
Bush, R.A.B., and Folger,
J.
P.
The Promise
of
Mediation: Responding to Conflict Through Empower-
Burton, J.
W.
Conflict: Resolution
and
Prevention.
New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990.
Lewin,
K.
Resolving Social Conflicts.
New York: HarperCollins, 1948.
Maslow,
A.
“A
Theory of Motivation.”
Psychological Review,
1943,50, 370-396.
Northrup,
T.
“Dynamic of Identity in Personal and Social Conflict.”
In
1.
Kriesberg,
T.
Nonhrup.
and
S.
Thorson (eds.),
Intractable Conflicts and
Their
Transformation.
Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse
University Press, 1989.
and Intervention.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.
Addison-Wesley, 1978.
ment and Recognition.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
Polyani,
M.
The Tacit Dimension.
London: Routledge
&
Kegan Paul. 1966.
Rothman, J.
From Confrontation
to
Cooperation: Resolving Ethnic and Regional Conflict.
Thousand
Rothman,
J.
Resolving Identity Conflicts Within and Between Nations, Organizations, and Communi-
Rothman,
J.,
and Klein,
G.
“The Role of Pre-Negotiation in Addressing ‘Intransigent’ Conflicts.”
Steier, F. (ed.).
Reflexivity and Research.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1991.
Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1992.
ties.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, forthcoming.
1nternationalJoumal of Croup Tensions,
1993,23 (3). 225-244.
Jay Rothman, Ph.D., is coordinator and assistant professor ofpeace and
conflict
studies at
Bryn
Mawr and Haverford Colleges,
in
Pennsylvania, and director
of
the Program on Dia-
logue
and
Reconciliation.
... Besides that, literature suggests a real dialogue is responsive, reflective, and emergent (Rothman, 1995;Stewart & Koenig Kellas, 2020). Responsiveness refers to the ability to actively choose, rather than just passively react. ...
Article
To give more weight to plural understanding of the future, which is often accompanied with varying degrees of disagreement or conflict, new forms of public engagement is key. Among various deliberative methods, art-based and embodied practices are particularly important in connecting mind and body of participants and their disparate ways of knowing and meaning making. They can be used to facilitate dialogue and create spaces in which people with different perspectives and experiences can engage in transformative practices. This paper draws on the experience from a sustainability challenge in the central Iran, introduces a collaborative scenario-making approach called Pathways Theatre. It discusses how using speculative improvisations and embodied experimentation, that is embedded in this approach, can open up new spaces for dialogue and transformative engagement. The research suggests Pathway Theatre can be a useful tool to support researchers and communities in bringing about real dialogue that is needed around controversial topics that may polarize community interests and divide people. This includes conversations on emerging debates around climate change, artificial intelligence (AI), and biotechnology. The findings from the case study revealed that the theatre represents an opportunity for transformative change at various levels: personal, network (relationships); and institutional.
... The dialogue tool provides an environment in which students can exchange ideas and personal feelings without the pressure of emotional stress. The goal of dialogue is to understand the perspectives of others (Rothman, 1996), which requires each person to identify and abandon any assumptions they may have on the subject matter or about other students. The process of dialogue helps to reveal these assumptions so that the students can eventually move toward being free of them. ...
... The article seeks to identify the outcomes of the work of NDC Sarajevo and the strengths and limitations of their dialogue approach as applied in the specific context of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The analysis will particularly focus on the ability of the dialogue model applied by NDC Sarajevo to produce changes beyond the personal level, given that a considerable number of studies have already shown that dialogue is capable of influencing personal change in its direct participants (see e.g., Abu-Nimer, 1999;Dessel, Rogge, & Garlington, 2006;DeTurk, 2006;Fischer, 2006;Nagda, 2006;Nagda, Gurin, Sorensen, & Zuniga, 2009;Rothman, 1996;Svensson & Brouneus, 2013;Wayne, 2008). Hence, the personal dimension will not be the main focus of our analysis of NDC Sarajevo's work. ...
Article
Full-text available
Dialogue has proved to be an effective tool in changing people's perceptions and attitudes. The article adds to the discussion about the potential of dialogue to contribute to more than only personal change. It analyzes the dialogue approach implemented by the Nansen Dialogue Centre Sarajevo, a nongovernmental organization working in ethnically divided communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the aim of rebuilding a functional society. The analysis focuses on the effectiveness of dialogue in influencing broader sociopolitical changes. The article concludes that the Centre has created a viable model that contributes to the de‐ethnicizing of everyday problems local communities face.
... Engaging in respectful dialogue is a learned skill that requires a genuine commitment to learning about others' perspectives and involves active listening, clarification of the values at stake, and mutual respect. Rothman describes dialogue as a reflexive process, a ''slowed-down and selfconscious analysis'' that requires interactive reflection, expression of underlying internal motivations, and articulation to self and other what we care about and why [16]. ...
Article
Public health cannot function without public trust, and public trust is largely dependent on the public health work force's ability to demonstrate ethical competence. Public health ethics is defined as both our moral governance – the values that motivate our work – and a decision-making framework to help guide complex ethical decisions we face in our practice. While there is no master list of values or recipe for public health ethics, there is agreement that public health ethics comprises both liberal concepts and collective concepts. At times, these liberal and collective values conflict. There are four skill domains that all public health professionals need to make ethical decisions in their practice. These domains comprise an iterative cycle, starting with the ability to identify the ethical dimensions of our work, articulate ethical dimensions and dilemmas we face in our efforts to protect the public's health, determine a path forward, especially when values and motivations conflict, and implement and evaluate the solution to allow for course corrections. Ensuring all public health professionals have minimal competence in these four skill domains will facilitate our work, build public trust, and contribute to the health of our communities.
... Identity-based conflicts require complex, systems oriented interventions such as narrative-based and transformative processes that emphasize dialogue and discovery more than solution seeking and early agreement. Such methods designed to address these types of conflicts include the interactive problem solving workshop approach of Burton (1990), Kelman (1997) and Azar (1990) (Fisher, 1997), the difficult conversations approach (Stone, Patton, & Heen, 2000), radical disagreements (Ramsbotham, 2013), the relational identity theory approach (Shapiro, 2010) and the ARIA approach (Rothman, 1996(Rothman, , 2012. ...
Article
Full-text available
The systematic study and applied practice of conflict resolution is now a few decades old and is evolving into its own field and perhaps towards its own discipline (Avruch, 2013). I believe an essential way forward towards a more robust field and discipline is to build a parsimonious contingency approach. That is, an approach for applying our best theoretical and analytical tools to diagnosing the nature and status of a given conflict and then systematically and adaptively matching up the best methods for constructively engaging the conflict as it evolves. Fisher and Keashly (1991) pioneered contingency theory in international conflict resolution, while Sander and Goldberg suggested "fitting the forum to the fuss" in domestic ADR a few years later (1994). Since then the notion has caught on and is now somewhat in "vogue" (Fisher, 2012). However, surprisingly little development has occurred in this arena given the promise it holds. The contingency model described in this article builds on this early theorizing and suggests different conflict intervention methods according to conflict type and stage of development. Conflicts are divided into three different types: resource-based, objectives-based and identity-based. Each type is conducive to a different mode of engagement.
Article
Full-text available
Aim/Purpose: Much has been written in academia about the meaningful relationship between doctoral students and their respective dissertation chairs. However, an often-overlooked benefit of the dissertation research process as a whole is its potential to professionally and personally transform the capacities of all concerned – the doctoral candidate, mentor/major professor, and committee. Background: From the exclusive perspective of the doctoral Chair/mentor, this qualitative study explores the potentially transformative power of the dissertation process as it relates to scholarly leadership. Methodology: In order to most accurately address the study’s research questions and to best capture the lived experiences of 4 purposefully selected doctoral chairs, each with varying degrees of dissertation guidance experience, the study was inten-tionally designed to leverage the phenomenological method. Data was collected through a series of in-person and phone interviews (each co-researcher was interviewed 3 times) and subsequently coded to determine emerging themes and categories relative to the co-researchers’ lived experiences as doctoral mentors. Contribution: Specific findings about what scholarly leadership means relative to doctoral student/mentor interactions, including how this pivotal relationship can be enhanced, support and contribute to current global higher education literature calling for increased understanding of and accountability within doctoral education as a whole. Such will further inform and enhance current mentoring best practices of graduate and undergraduate students alike. Findings: As a rich experiential education and learning opportunity, the essence of scholarly leadership features four essential elements: acting with authenticity, facilitating growth or change, holding vision, and acknowledging deficiency. Recommendations for Practitioners: It is recommended that practitioners of doctoral education, particularly at the dissertation Chair/mentor level, as well as institutionally, first genuinely value the results of this study, and, in turn, authentically and consistently implement such best practices in order to meaningfully enhance the quality of the overall doctoral experience. Recommendation for Researchers: Implicit below Impact on Society: Implementation of the study’s findings likewise has the potential to positively actualize the lives of doctoral mentors/major professors in their roles as educators, scholars, and life-long learners. Future Research: Further research is necessary to determine the relationship between scholarly research and each of its attendant essential elements: authenticity, facilitative behavior, vision, and deficiency.
Article
Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore possible factors leading to a successful mediation in Chinese mediation shows. In China, media always play an indispensable role in information dissemination, morality advocacy and policy explanation. Design/methodology/approach This paper employed content analysis of 166 episodes of one representative mediation show, Gold Medal Mediation, and regression technique in data analysis. Findings Results of ordinal regression suggested that “secret talking”, rather than transparency, between disputants had significant influence on successful mediation. Function of mediators is limited in reaching full mediation. The effective factors leading to full mediation include compromise of rights, secret talking, attitude of the observer cohort. It suggests that the role of mediator is limited, rather than being over-exaggerated, in successful mediation. The successful mediation is largely dependent on disputants’ motivations. Additionally, “compromise of rights” by disputants is a key factor in solving disputes. Research limitations/implications Findings of this study revealed the role of Chinese mediation shows in propagating mediation in contemporary Chinese society and supporting upheld morality values. Due to the nature of the chosen mediation show, some disputes take more than one episode to solve. However, this study looks at each episode without considering the integrity of the dispute. That is, if the disputes take two episodes, the coder codes the two episodes as two separate disputes instead of looking at it as one dispute. Originality/value By exploring various aspects of mediations shows, including the role of mediators, disputants and a cohort of observers, this study can both explicitly show predicted factors to successful mediations on the shows, and can implicitly examine the power and perceived justification of mediation in contemporary China via media.
Chapter
Building upon the critique of facilitative mediation above, this chapter will examine the two styles of mediation known as ‘narrative’ and ‘transformative’ and dubbed by Kressel (2006) as ‘relational mediation’. These two schools of practice, as indicated by the name, focus on the recovery of relations that are non-conflictual and thereby give emphasis to an overtly moral dimension in addition to any instrumental and practical objectives of facilitative workplace mediation. By assessing the potential of relational styles to privilege an aspiration for dialogue, this examination will then afford a basis for the delineation (in Chap. 7) of an explorative style that places an aspiration for dialogical behaviour at the centre of mediation practice.
Article
Following the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday Agreement many community-based organizations became involved in localized peace-building activities in Northern Ireland and the Border Counties. Drawing financial support from the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation and the International Fund for Ireland, these organizations adopted various strategic mechanisms to implement their projects -synchronizing bottom-up development initiatives with top-level government policies. Their effectiveness has already been felt in Northern Ireland as reduced political violence and improved socioeconomic conditions. However, the long-term sustainability of this work is questionable, affected as it is by continued intercommunity segregation, low macro-level political support, and global economic instability. This article explores the perceptions of 120 civil society leaders regarding the peace-building practices employed by community-based organizations in Northern Ireland and the Border Counties. Key elements of an effective peace-building model are suggested that may contribute to the improvement of peace-building and reconciliation efforts in other contexts affected by ethno-political conflict.
Article
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
Action Science: Concepts, Methods, and Skillsfor Research Argyns, C., and Schon, D. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
  • C Argyris
  • R Putnam
  • D M Smith
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., and Smith, D. M. Action Science: Concepts, Methods, and Skillsfor Research Argyns, C., and Schon, D. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, Mass.: Bush, R.A.B., and Folger, J. P. The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict Through Empower-Burton, J. W. Conflict: Resolution and Prevention. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990.
Dynamic of Identity in Personal and Social Conflict
  • T Northrup
Northrup, T. "Dynamic of Identity in Personal and Social Conflict." In 1. Kriesberg, T. Nonhrup. and S. Thorson (eds.), Intractable Conflicts and Their Transformation. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1989. and Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.
ment and Recognition
  • Addison-Wesley
Addison-Wesley, 1978. ment and Recognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
The Role of Pre-Negotiation in Addressing 'Intransigent' Conflicts Reflexivity and Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1991. Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1992. ties
  • J Rothman
  • Organizations
  • J Communi-Rothman
  • G Klein
Rothman, J. From Confrontation to Cooperation: Resolving Ethnic and Regional Conflict. Thousand Rothman, J. Resolving Identity Conflicts Within and Between Nations, Organizations, and Communi-Rothman, J., and Klein, G. " The Role of Pre-Negotiation in Addressing 'Intransigent' Conflicts. " Steier, F. (ed.). Reflexivity and Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1991. Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1992. ties. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, forthcoming. 1nternationalJoumal of Croup Tensions, 1993,23 (3). 225-244.
is coordinator and assistant professor ofpeace and conflict studies at Bryn Mawr and Haverford Colleges
  • Ph D Jay Rothman
Jay Rothman, Ph.D., is coordinator and assistant professor ofpeace and conflict studies at Bryn Mawr and Haverford Colleges, in Pennsylvania, and director of the Program on Dialogue and Reconciliation.