ChapterPDF Available

Engagement in Conflict

Authors:

Abstract

The limited literature on engagement in conflict is both a problem and an opportunity. Contrary to work in conflict engagement, this chapter outlines engagement in conflict as a proactive means of resolution. It defines conflict and identifies different conflict management strategies as they relate to engagement. The chapter also identifies key approaches to conflict management, such as negotiation and third‐party intervention, and explores engagement within these contexts. It explores different goals of engagement, including dispute management and the use of conflict to spur engagement. The chapter focuses on two areas for advancing conflict engagement research and practice: communication design and experiential (game‐based) approaches. While engagement and joint processes of mutual conflict management are typically seen as the most productive and desirable, nonconfrontational approaches such as avoidance and toleration are probably the most prevalent, and can be functional in their own right.
Engagement in Conflict
1
Running head: ENGAGEMENT IN CONFLICT
Engagement in Conflict: Research and Practice
Tyler R. Harrison
University of Miami
Jessica Wendorf Muhamad
Florida State University
Pre-publication version.
Harrison, T. R, & Wendorf Muhamad, J. Engagement in conflict: Research and practice.
(2018). In K. A. Johnston and M. Taylor (Eds.) The handbook of communication
engagement (pp. 187 – 204). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell
Abstract
Engagement is ever-present but implicit in research on conflict. This chapter seeks to
make engagement explicit. We draw on dialogic and argumentation models to define
engagement in conflict as a process of equal, voluntary, constructive, and deliberative
dialogue and argumentation designed to elicit full understanding and shared meaning
between two or more parties with the goal of resolving conflicts through shared
decision-making and problem solving. Conflict management strategies vary on levels of
engagement with avoidance and toleration at the low end of engagement and negotiation
and mediation at the high end of engagement. Issues of power, relational distance, and
interpretive frameworks facilitate or create barriers to conflict engagement. Conflict can
also be used to create engagement in organizations and communities. Finally,
communication design and game based mechanisms are advanced as approaches to
increase engagement in conflict.
Keywords: Conflict, Engagement, Mediation, Negotiation, Communication Design,
Serious Games, Community
Engagement in Conflict
2
Engagement in Conflict: Research and Practice
Engagement is ever-present but largely implicit in research on conflict. A quick
search for “conflict engagement” on Google Scholar reveals two primary areas where
engagement is explicitly considered in relation to conflict: family and marital conflict
(e.g., Cichy, Lefkowitz, & Fingerman, 2013), and community or civil engagement as it
relates to international conflict and peace/society building (e.g., Friedman & Desivilya,
2010). Engagement in these studies is rarely articulated or clearly defined as anything
more than one-dimensional action. Studies in family and marital conflict often consider
how level of engagement (i.e., presenting of issues, voicing complaints) influences
marital or family dynamics compared to avoiders (e.g., Gottman, 1993). While these
studies view engagement as both productive and destructive; the act of responding in
some way (including an eye roll) is all that is necessary to be considered engagement.
Studies of engagement related to larger scale conflict may consider how engagement in
conflict may influence other areas of civic engagement, such as social entrepreneurship
(Friedman & Desivilya, 2010) and peace building (Rocha Menocal, 2011). !
While there are other studies that address engagement and conflict explicitly, such
as organizational conflict (Hardy & Phillips, 1998) and conflict in health organizations
(Gerardi, 2007), the concept of engagement is implicit rather than explicit in most
conflict scholarship and there is little systematic review of what is meant by engagement.
The chapter presents engagement in conflict as an alternate to conflict engagement. The
premise for conflict engagement is any sort of reaction post conflictive event(s) whereas
engagement in conflict represents meaningful action toward resolution.
The limited literature on engagement in conflict is both a problem and an
opportunity. It is a problem because conflict management is inherently about
engagement, and theorizing engagement would be useful in advancing the study and
practice of conflict. It is an opportunity as the lack of clarity allows for integration of the
best of conflict research and related concepts from other areas of study. This chapter has
four primary aims. First, we explicate the concept of engagement as it relates to conflict.
Second, we define conflict and identify different conflict management strategies as they
relate to engagement. Third, we identify key approaches to conflict management, such as
negotiation and third party intervention, and explore engagement within these contexts.
Additionally, we explore different goals of engagement, including dispute management
and the use of conflict to spur engagement. Fourth, we advance two areas where we see
potential for further advancing conflict engagement research and practice:
communication design and experiential (game-based) approaches.
Defining Conflict Engagement: Constructive Engagement through Dialogue and
Argumentation
To better understand engagement in conflict, we draw upon key elements of
theorizing about dialogue and participation as foundational to our definition of
engagement. Specifically, we draw from literature on dialogue and dialogics (e.g., Barge
& Andreas, 2013; Broome, 2013; Taylor & Kent, 2014), and normative pragmatics (e.g.,
van Eemeren, Grootendorst, Jackson, & Jacobs, 1993) to define ideal notions of
engagement. In a later section we draw from the organizational communication literature
on engaged scholarship (e.g., Barge, & Shockley-Zalabak, 2008) as a foundation to
Engagement in Conflict
3
explore the role of conflict scholar/practitioners and practitioner/scholars as they
contribute to both theorizing and practice of engagement and conflict.
Dialogue and dialogic models of engagement have been well developed and
conceptualized in the public relations literature. Taylor and Kent (2014) define
engagement “both an orientation that influence interactions and the approach that guides
the process of interactions” (p. 384). The authors argue that dialogue theory provides an
appropriate framework by which to explicate engagement as it delineates the steps
necessary for organizations and publics to enact engagement and it “assumes
accessibility, presentness, and a willingness to interact” (Taylor & Kent, 2014, p. 387).
Similarly, Johnston (2016) defines dialogic engagement as “a dialogic, reflexive, and
interactive process generating interest, knowledge, involvement, or action” (p. 274).
Dialogic communicators care about the beliefs and values of others and are open minded,
patient, and empathic. Drawing on similar Buberian traditions in discussing dialogue and
peacebuilding, Broome and Hatay (2006) view dialogue as transformative discourse that
“acknowledges the complexity of other people’s experience and seeks understanding” (p.
630).
Normative pragmatics (van Eemeren, Gorrtendorst, Jackson, & Jacobs, 1993) is a
line of argumentation theory that seeks to identify and bridge the gap between real and
ideal forms of argument. Argumentation is seen as different than other forms of dispute
resolution in that it seeks resolution, not acquiescence or settlement. Ideal conditions of
argumentation include the ability for unlimited discussion, expansion of ideas, ability to
comprehend and understand arguments advanced, and consensus rather than force in
decision-making. Often, these ideal conditions are not met, but systems can be designed
to aid in ideal argumentation (Jackson, 1998). Kent and Taylor (2014) share a similar
sentiment and argue dialogic communicators design interactions to aid in mutual
understanding. Importantly, trust, risk, and interaction lead to engagement and dialogue,
and discourse rules are necessary but not sufficient for this to occur. The logic of
dialogue in public relations shares philosophical roots and is isomorphic with the logic of
many conflict, negotiation, and mediation models, including those in argumentation (e.g.,
van Eemeren et al., 1993) and design (e.g., Harrison, 2014), sociology (e.g., Merry, &
Milner, 1993), and law and business (e.g., Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011), among others.
Ultimately, then, our definition of engagement comes from both dialogic and
normative pragmatics approaches. We define engagement in conflict as a process of
equal, voluntary, constructive, and deliberative dialogue and argumentation designed to
elicit full understanding and shared meaning between two or more parties with the goal
of resolving conflicts through shared decision-making and problem solving. Approaches
to conflict vary, with some approaches more fully embodying these principles of
engagement while others such as avoidance or self-help have no, or minimal, levels of
engagement.
Defining Conflict and Conflict Management
A definition of conflict is necessary to explore the concept of engagement as it
relates to conflict in more depth. While there are numerous definitions of conflict (see
Putnam, 2006), most share agreement on key components, including perceived or real
incompatible goals, values (and morals), norms, or interests (e.g., Putnam & Poole, 1987;
Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001) between at least two interdependent parties (e.g., Hocker
Engagement in Conflict
4
& Wilmot, 1978; Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 2005) who see the other party as “potentially
interfering with the realization of these goals” (Putnam & Poole, 1987, p. 522).
At a broad level, conflict management typically refers to processes where
individuals, organizations, groups, or nation states take steps to manage or resolve a
dispute. Black (1990) identifies five elementary forms of conflict management that
encompass a wide range of strategies disputants use, including negotiation, settlement,
self-help, avoidance, and toleration. These strategies vary on levels of confrontation
(actively approaching the other disputant and airing the grievance, either vocally or
physically; Morrill, 1991), and engagement. Figure 1 below illustrates the progression of
engagement by conflict management style. As individuals move away from non engaged
strategies, engagement, dialogue, and equitable representation and voice become more
prevalent.
Figure 1. Conflict Management and Degree of Engagement
Confrontational styles include negotiation (handling of grievance by joint
decision), or settlement (handling of the grievance by non-partisan third party), as well as
Engagement in Conflict
5
some forms of self-help. Within negotiation, individuals also vary in their degree of ideal
engagement, with collaborative problems solving for mutual gain, win-win in Fisher,
Ury, and Patton’s (2011) terms, representing the ideal process of dialogic engagement.
Compromise is often present in negotiation and may represent fully informed decisions,
or may be a result of less ideal processes of dialogue where key information about needs,
resources, and alternatives are missing. Forcing (i.e., threats) or accommodating (i.e.,
giving in to avoid further conflict) strategies are used in place of ideal dialogic
approaches, and represent less engaged processes of collaborative conflict resolution.
Similar variation in engagement occurs in settlement or third-party processes. Mediation
is the most fully engaged, where disputants are present voluntarily, presumed to be equal
in power and resources, and search for mutually desirable solutions to problems. Key to
most models of mediation is that the mediator facilitates dialogue and engagement, but
that disputants create and test solutions and outcomes themselves (e.g., Moore, 2014).
Ombuds processes have engagement between the ombud and at least one disputant, but
may or may not bring disputants together in a search for resolution. Rather, the person
who brought forward the grievance may wish to remain anonymous, and the ombud may
act unilaterally or with each disputant individually (e.g., Harrison & Morrill, 2004; Rowe,
1995). This presents serious constraints on dialogic approaches. Representing even less
engagement would be arbitration or adjudication processes. While disputants are engaged
in presenting their cases, they are limited by rules and laws of evidence, and seldom talk
directly to each other. While to goal of these processes is resolution, they are not win-lose
outcomes and are not by mutual agreement.
Additionally, confrontational approaches may be constructive or destructive, with
constructive approaches using dialogue to help understand the source of the problem and
find mutually agreeable solutions, as in the case of negotiation and some third-party
settlements. Constructive approaches all involve levels of interaction, dialogue, and
discussion between individuals, groups, or organizations, and typically have the goal of
improving processes, solving problems, or addressing individual or community concerns
– meaning that they have some level of engagement.
Self-help (unilateral action) may (i.e., acts of rebellion) or may not (i.e., covert
retaliation or noncooperation) be confrontational (Baumgartner, 1984), but is seldom
constructive. Non-confrontational forms of self-help include acts such as sabotage of
work products or workplace theft (e.g., Morrill, Zlad, & Rao, 2003) and anonymous calls
to the police against noisy neighbors. Confrontational forms of self-help may include
public and ritualized acts of vengeance, such as honor killings (e.g., Pely, 2011; Reider,
1984) or state sanctioned public punishment (e.g., Foucault, 1977). Acts of rebellion may
also take the form of protests, strikes, or other public forms that give unilateral voice to a
dispute. These may be productive in fostering engagement by increasing understanding of
the issue or creating opportunities to bring other parties to the table for dialogue (e.g.
Barnes, 2006; Elam, 2001). Often, these more confrontational and destructive approaches
typically move past dialogue to some sort of active confrontation, such as armed conflict,
hostility, or abuse (e.g., Putnam, Burgess, & Royer, 2003. In destructive conflict, voice
may be literal (e.g., verbal abuse) or symbolic (unilateral aggression), and disputants
generally are not concerned with mutual wellbeing.
Avoidance (curtailment of interaction) and toleration (inaction) are the last two
elementary forms of conflict management, and these approaches constitute non-engaged
Engagement in Conflict
6
and non-confrontational forms of conflict management (Black, 1990). Avoidance is an
active form of conflict management as it involves deliberate action to avoid the person,
circumstance, or discussion of the source of the conflict (Felstiner, 1974). This is often
seen in conflicts between neighbors in suburban neighborhoods where there are few
social ties (Baumgartner, 1984), or in cases of fleeting relationships (Harrison, 2007).
Toleration is an inactive approach and is more focused on learning to live with the
conflict or grievance. Morrill (1991) describes instances of poor decision making,
alcoholism on the job, and billing issues as conflicts that executives tolerate, and that they
often resume friendly relations with the offender.
While engagement and joint processes of mutual conflict management are
typically seen as the most productive and desirable, non-confrontational approaches such
as avoidance and toleration are probably the most prevalent, and can be functional in
their own right. Dialogic engagement requires parties who are willing to discuss difficult
issues, and requires knowledge, skill, openness, and a desire for mutual solutions. Many
conflicts occur between actors of unequal power, who have little desire for change, and
where attempts at confrontation and engagement may actually make matters worse. In
such instances, avoidance and toleration are logical approaches to conflict management.
Facilitators and Barriers to Conflict Engagement
The selection of type of conflict management process presupposes certain
conditions, some of which facilitate engagement and others that raise barriers. Morrill
(1995; see also Baumgartner, 1984 and Black & Baumgartner, 1983) identifies durable
patterns of pragmatic social interaction, consisting of social structural and interpretive
features, commonly found with different types of dispute resolution processes. Social
structure consists of vertical dimensions (power, distribution of resources), horizontal
dimensions (distribution of social intimacy, division of labor), and corporate dimensions
(capacity for collective action). Symbolic (symbols people use) and evaluative
(normative status, history of social control) structures constitute interpretive features and
help enable scripts, schemas, and frames to interpret and act upon conflict.
Engagement in Conflict
7
Figure 2. Generic Field Model of Conflict Management
These dimensions of social and interpretive structures vary across relationships
and influence how conflict management is likely to occur. For example, the vertical
dimension of power and resources influences can be characterized as equal or unequal.
Equal power and resources is likely to facilitate discussion and joint decision making as
there are fewer options for force or coercion. The horizontal dimension of intimacy refers
to the strength of social ties within a relationship or community. Strong social ties
embedded within relationship networks provide support for constructive approaches to
resolve conflicts and restore harmony (e.g., Nader, 1991). Similarly, relative equality in
the capacity for collective action precludes one side from gaining advantage in more
destructive forms of conflict management and facilitates engaged and collaborative
approaches to resolution. Interpretive dimensions refer to shared knowledge and history
with the other disputant, and provide a foundation for understanding their actions. Shared
interpretations and positive normative histories help create conditions for dialogue and
engagement, where different meanings and negative normative histories make those
processes more difficult.
Negotiation, for example, is more likely to occur when the social structure
consists of relative social equality, standing organizational symmetry, and
interdependence and multiplex ties. Interpretive structures consisting of symmetry in
normative information and symbols and rituals that support shared understandings of
Engagement in Conflict
8
social roles around concepts such as trading and harmony further support the likelihood
of negotiation occurring (e.g., Morrill 1995; Nader, 1991). Each of these dimensions
supports conditions necessary for dialogue and engagement. There is a sense of equality
and connection which supports joint decisions rather than forced ones, collective
understandings help facilitate trust, and multiplex ties provide incentive for mutually
beneficial solutions. Negotiation is a voluntary process, and without equality, trust, and
connection other forms of conflict management, may be more likely to yield the results
the more powerful party desires.
Figure 3. Social Field Model of Negotiation
Third-party settlement approaches are both similar to and different from
negotiation. Disputants may share similar social and interpretive structures as in
negotiation, but often lack that shared symmetry and understanding with the third party.
Disputants typically have unequal social status to third parties, organizational asymmetry,
relational distance, and asymmetry in normative information. Additionally, social roles
may be more similar to that of superior/subordinate with deference to authority. This
allows a third party to be seen as high in social status and with an ability to wield some
degree of authority over proceedings. Depending on the nature of the process, the third
party may help facilitate engagement (as in the case of mediation and ombuds processes;
e.g., Harrison & Morrill, 2004), or create barriers to constructive engagement by limiting
Engagement in Conflict
9
open interaction and dialogue between parties (as in the overly structured rules for
discourse found in courts of law (e.g., Conley & O’Barr, 1990, 2005).
Avoidance and toleration both have social and interpretive structures that
discourage engagement. Avoidance is likely to occur when disputants have functional
independence and uniplex ties, share little normative information, and have relative social
equality. Social roles consist of a sense of atomistic individuality, and there is shared
understanding of the importance of autonomy. These ultimately lead to frames of
indifference and can be seen in interactions between such disputants as one-shot
consumers and suburbanites (Baumgartner, 1989). These characteristics can also be
found in certain types of organizations, such as law offices, where partners act with a
great deal of autonomy (e.g., Morrill, 1995) and interference by other partners is seen as
highly inappropriate, or universities where relationships between students and faculty
members are fluid, and avoidance may be the preferred conflict management process. For
example, students can simply choose to take classes from other professors in the future
rather than deal with the stresses associated with pursuing a grievance against a faculty
member (e.g., Harrison, 2007). Toleration involves more interdependence and less social
mobility, but shares other characteristics with avoidance. Employees, for example, may
have a much more difficult time avoiding their coworkers or boss in the future than
students do with professors – changing jobs and organizations is much more difficult than
registering for classes with a different professor.
While negotiation and third-party settlement processes are the most likely to lead
to engagement, they need certain conditions to occur. Attempting to force negotiation on
disputants of unequal power may lead to discourse and an outcome, but it is unlikely to
reflect key dimensions of engagement such as voluntary and open dialogue, and mutually
beneficial solutions. Additionally, in conditions of moral conflict, such as many
intractable environmental disputes (e.g., Brummans et al., 2008), the lack of normative
information and shared interpretations make constructive conflict engagement unlikely –
and ironically, true engagement is what is needed to create those shared understandings.
Ultimately, these field models suggest the importance of working toward changing social
structures to enhance the likelihood of true conflict engagement occurring.
Engagement in Confrontational Approaches: Negotiation and Mediation
Processes such as negotiation or mediation are inherently communication based
and work on the assumption that parties in dispute are willing to engage others in finding
resolutions to problems and disagreements. Prominent paradigms in negotiation vary on
their degree of openness and collaboration, with interest based approaches focusing on
dialogue and collaboration while position based approaches typically involve less sharing
of information and a focus on self-interest (e.g., Fisher, et al., 2011). Constructive
engagement ideally strives for full and open discussion of the interests and needs of the
parties involved in the negotiation, but this type of openness is reliant on trust and
established relationships. In the absence of complete trust, Fisher et al. (2011) provide
key strategies to help insure a focus on the issues and avoid making the conflict affective.
By focusing on issues, using objective criteria, and separating the people from the
problem they hope to enable constructive engagement and problem solving. Lax and
Sebenius (2006) follow their lead and discuss the importance of preparation and creating
optimal conditions prior to negotiation. By making sure negotiators understand the needs
and interests of the other party (as well as their own) negotiators are more prepared to
Engagement in Conflict
10
engage in sequences of negotiation and bartering to reach mutually beneficial solutions.
While much of the negotiation literature strives to avoid emotion and focus on rational
problem solving, Fisher and Shapiro (2005) actually argue that emotion can help create
opportunities for engagement and trust. Emotions signal concerns which can be addressed
during negotiation processes, and positive affect, affiliation, and respect for autonomy
can all facilitate trust. These characteristics are more likely to be found in ongoing
relationships or negotiations with long-term prospects rather than one-shot negotiations.
Mediation processes also vary on their degree of engagement, based on the level
of formality and adherence to rules in a specific mediation approach (Moore, 2014).
Mediators often view their roles very differently. Kolb (1983) discusses mediators who
fall into categories of either orchestrators or dealmakers, where orchestrators help the
parties come together and make their own deal, and dealmakers see themselves as the
force that pushes them to make the deal that the mediator sees as best. Still other
mediators, such a Friedman (Friedman & Himmelstien, 2008), see themselves as simply
helping parties come to an understanding of the problem, and the onus is on the parties to
be willing to engage in dialogue. Donohue (2006) describes this as a relational
development model where participants also transform their relationships through
empowerment and recognition. Similar differences in engagement processes can also be
seen in other third party dispute resolution processes, such as ombuds processes, where
disputants typically decide on their own levels of engagement in consultation with the
ombud (Harrison, 2003; Rowe, 1995), or arbitration or adjudication where engagement is
codified and limited, with little concern for getting parties to engage in constructive
problem solving (e.g., Conley & O’Barr, 2005).
Mediators encourage conflict de-escalation through establishing strategic
mechanisms such as: affirming a shared understanding among parties, maintaining
neutral dialogic spaces, and working towards agreement (Kriesberg, 1998). Within this
framework, mediators employ an understanding-based approach to conflict resolution
that aims active participation of all parties through support autonomy, issue framing, and
looping (Friedman & Himmelstein, 2008). Given that mediation is a synergistic activity,
intermediaries play a critical role in ensuring all voices are heard. Through neutral
contextual framing, mediators are able to highlight substantive issues that validate
differing viewpoints. Due to the centrality of a shared understanding in mediation,
looping serves to vocalize and confirm potential conflict traps. It is important to note that
understanding in this context does not imply agreement. As noted by Harrison and
Doerfel (2006), critical to resolution is the perception of fairness and not the regulatory
guidelines by which resolution is reached. Dispute resolution processes have steps and
protocols designed to accomplish certain goals, but the enactment of these processes
often leads to unintended consequences. Disputant perceptions of the motivations and
consequences of those protocols and actors are likely to influence their acceptance and
evaluation of both the process and outcome. For example, while most disputants view
ombuds as neutral, fair, and engaged, others view them as organizational actors whose
first concern is to protect the institution. Perceptions of fairness in the design of these
systems are important for both utilization of the system and evaluation of the system
(Harrison et al., 2013).
Using Conflict to Create Engagement
Engagement in Conflict
11
Our definition of conflict engagement focuses on dialogue as a way to resolve
conflict, however, the role of conflict as a means to engagement is an important paradox
to engagement. Two primary areas of have focused on using conflict to enhance
engagement: organizational conflict and community/peace building engagement.
The late ‘90s saw an upswing in viewing conflict as constructive and a way to
increase engagement and productivity, especially in organizations (e.g., De Dreu & Van
de Vliert, 1997). Researchers advocated for increasing or stimulating conflict as a way to
reduce groupthink (Turner & Pratkanis, 1997) and increase performance (De Dreu,
1997). Researchers found that a combination of problem solving with contending (De
Dreu, 1997), forcing (Van de Vliert, Nauta, Euwema, & Janssen, 1997), or minority
dissent (De Dreu & De Vries, 1997) are important for spurring productive engagement,
productivity, and problem solving. In line with our definition of engagement, Jehn (1997)
concludes that teams and groups with higher levels of trust and respect are better able to
cope with higher levels of cognitive conflict. Donnellon and Kolb (1997) are not quite so
optimistic, however, and argue that even formal mechanisms designed to resolve
grievances might be problematic in cases of diversity or bias, and those in power benefit
more than the individual faced with discrimination. Orbe (1998) and Collier (2005)
described the process by which members of non-dominant and/or marginalized groups
(e.g., non-Whites) must continuously negotiate identity within asymmetrical social
structures.
Collaboration often serves to diminish conflict through the maintenance of
functional workflow; however, this strategy negates the influence of power distribution
(e.g., Warren et al., 1974). In such instances, collaboration (engagement without conflict)
serves to maintain the status quo (organization interest) and reinforces hierarchical
structures instead of fostering true allegiance (Hall, 1989). According to Fine (1991),
within organizations, managers have the responsibility to counteract power dynamics
through the creation of balanced and open expression that is free of privileged discourse,
divisive language, and encourages harmonic discourse, language that integrates multiple
viewpoints. Nagda, Yeakley, Gurin, and Sorensen (2012) present a model of sustained
intergroup critical dialogue which encourages ongoing interaction between groups of
different power as one potential way to increase engagement and address these types of
conflict.
There has also been long interest in conflict as a key to community engagement.
Johnson (2016) discusses community engagement as “the philosophy or activities an
organization undertakes to connect with, encourage participation by, or involve
community members, beyond stakeholders” (p. 273). One key early example of this is the
San Francisco Community Boards (SFCB; Merry & Milner, 1993). According to DuBow
and McEwen (1993) the SFCB was incorporated in 1976 with the goal of mediation and
conciliation of conflicts and violence that occur between people who know each other.
The SFCB subscribe to the philosophy that community based conflict resolution is a
“long term investment in the health and stability of individuals and communities” (p.
126). The SFCB exemplifies the use of conflict resolution programs to spur community
engagement by relying largely on volunteers. They operate on the premise that by
training community residents in dispute resolution skills (i.e., active listening, facilitation,
issue development, conciliation), they can encourage residents to address local problems.
However, while the SFCB had many successes, community governance and resident
Engagement in Conflict
12
empowerment were largely localized to the running of the SFCB (Thompson & DuBow,
1993).
The SFCB are just one example of the importance of conflict for community
engagement. We also see the importance of constructive engagement for protracted social
conflicts (Coleman, Hacking, Stover, Fisher-Yoshida, & Nowak, 2008). Protracted
conflict (Azar, 1990), also known as intractable conflict (Kriesberg, 1998), refers to a
unique subset of social conflict categorized by enduring systemic inequalities and
remnants of discriminatory practices (i.e., segregation; human right violations).
Generally, protracted conflict is more resistant to resolution (Coleman, 2003) and thus
requires the unpacking of historical events and presumed separateness through
nonpolarized dialogue (Broome, 2013). Purposeful discourse serves not only to mitigate
violent responses, and overtime redefines norms and institutional climate to evolve to a
culture of peace (Broome, 2013; de Rivera, 2009). Conflict or tension embedded within
intentional dialogue is a vehicle to understanding other (Buber, 1958) as well as working
through differences (Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997).
Conflict and Engagement Scholarship
According to Avruch (2013) one way in which the emergence of conflict studies
engagement can be observed is through the evolution how the field of conflict has
defined itself over the past 40 years – from conflict regulation (e.g., Wehr, 1979), to
conflict management (e.g., Sandole & Sandole-Staroste, 1987), to resolution (e.g.,
Burton, 1990), to conflict transformation (e.g., Lederach, 1995). Avruch (2013) argues
that the nuances in language offer insight to operational differences that more directly
reflect the “desire to get deeper into the root causes of the conflict and to induce more
profound and sustained changes in the conflict system and the relationship among the
conflictant parties” (p. 10). This is not an issue of semantics, but instead an
acknowledgment of a shift in the way research on conflict and engagement is approached
and how multiple voices are engaged. Fundamentally, conflict engagement scholarship
shifts to a neorealist position in which conflict – and the root of conflict (nature) – are
catalysts inducing change. Through balance and stability (vis-à-vis engagement of
multiple voices; see Barge & Shockley-Zalabak, 2008) optimization can be reached;
however, conflict is assumed to be an inherent qualities of the human experience and ever
present. This shift to transformation and change puts engagement at the center of conflict
studies.
Key to this process of transformation is research that captures conflict processes
in action, and that specifically examine how different conflict management strategies can
enhance processes of constructive conflict engagement. This requires a shift away from
some a variable analytic approach toward a more process oriented approach to research.
This does not mean experimental research is not useful, but that outcomes of such studies
need to capture different kinds of data, including the interactions of disputants. While
journals such as Negotiation Journal often publish practitioner accounts of various
mediations, negotiations, or ombuds processes (e.g., Bauer, 2000; Gadlin, 2000) that
describe specific cases and explain key approaches used, much of this literature focuses
specifically on the perspectives of the practitioner and the voice of the disputant is
seldom heard. Hearing disputant voices, motivations, and interactions is key to
understanding their choices and levels of engagement.
Engagement in Conflict
13
We do see more of disputant voices in field studies or in studies that capture
actual dispute resolution in practice, such as the work by Jacobs and Aakhus (2002; see
also Aakhus, 2003) on mediator practices. Field research and research that captures the
process of dispute resolution in situ has much stronger potential to contribute to engaged
theory because of the interaction between researchers and disputants or conflict
resolution specialists, and the opportunity to understand what elements of the dispute and
disputant are facilitating or disrupting constructive dialogue. Focused on knowledge
production as opposed to knowledge transference, engaged scholarship acknowledges
diverse viewpoints and expertise (Barge & Shockley-Zalabak, 2008). The richness of
field research to explore engagement can be seen in work by Harrison and colleagues on
ombuds processes (Harrison, 2003; 2004, Harrison & Morrill, 2004; Harrison & Doerfel,
2006) where they explore processes of transformation, and how disputant motivations
and ombuds strategies intersect to reshape the conflict. Putnam and colleagues work on
intractable conflict demonstrates similar processes of transformation (e.g., Brummans et
al., 2008). In addition to these more processual approaches, we see communication
design and interactive approaches as key areas for future research to advance engagement
and productive conflict engagement.
Communication Design to Increase Conflict Engagement
Engagement is critical to resolving disputes in productive ways. One avenue that
has potential to improve both engaged dispute resolution processes and engaged conflict
research is a communication (as) design approach (e.g., Aakhus, 2007; Aakhus &
Harrison, 2015; Harrison & Morrill, 2004). Communication design is a theoretical
approach in its own right that focuses on creating or engineering communication
practices and protocols to achieve desired processes and outcomes (see Figure 4:
Communication Design Process). Communication design stems from early work in
normative pragmatics (van Eemeren et al., 1993) on the design of argumentation and
dispute resolution systems. Jackson (1998) expands on this sense of ideal argumentation
and lays out key elements of a design approach for disputation. Many of the elements of
communication design highlight key principals of engagement, including critical
discussion and ideal models of discourse. Normative pragmatics is also value oriented
toward “critical examination of discourse as a form of social engagement” (p. 188).
Ultimately, Jackson (1998) defines discourse design as a “deliberate effort at
management of talk” (p. 184). Aakhus (2007) elaborates on this and frames
communication as design as attempts to make the impossible possible. This management
of communication to achieve desired goals can be achieved through features that can be
designed into or out of a communication process or interaction (Jackson, 1998), including
mechanisms to encourage or evaluate expert opinion in decision-making (Jackson, 2015).
These design features can take the role of either protocols, such as the typical steps found
in a mediation process, or the design of specific discourse acts to guide conversation and
dialogue to a preferred goal (Harrison & Morrill, 2004), such a s when mediators select a
certain thread of argument they feel is productive while ignoring other stories disputants
tell. For example, a mediator may focus on the timing of handoffs in child visitation
rather than narratives about irresponsibility – timing is concrete and much easier to solve
than responsibility (e.g., Jacobs & Aakhus, 2002).
Engagement in Conflict
14
Figure 4. Communication Design Process
Harrison and Morrill (2004; also Harrison, 2014) elaborate on these design
features (i.e., creation of dialogue, critique of process, etc.) in relation to mediation and
ombuds processes. For example, most mediation processes are designed with interactions
and protocols to gain early understanding of the dispute, but to quickly move toward
resolution processes rather than blame. However, as Harrison and Morrill (2004) point
out, designed features can have unintended consequences as well; therefore, attention to
unintended consequences is a key element of the design process (Harrison, 2014;
Jackson, 1998) as it allows for the refinement of design and improvement of the process.
An example of this can be seen in the use of time to “cool out” disputants by an ombuds.
While this strategy has the intended goal of calming disputant emotions to facilitate
engaged dialogue, in some cases it had the unintended outcome of disputants seeing the
ombud as powerless and unwilling to move forward in resolving their case (Harrison &
Doerfel, 2007). By necessity, design brings key stakeholders to the process to share in
understanding, explore existing practices, and situate solutions to specific sites of action
(Aakhus & Harrison, 2015; Barbour, Gill, & Dean, 2015; Harrison, 2014).
It is important to remember that design alone is not enough to create engagement
(see O’Brien – Chapter xx) – as Taylor and Kent (2014) remind us, rules are necessary,
but not sufficient. Equally important is trust and a willingness to engage. Interaction and
dialogue can help facilitate this, but appropriate care and time must dedicated to these
issues. For example, Harrison and Doerfel (2006) show how an ombud was able to create
conditions of trust through the use of active listening strategies and the use of unrestricted
time for disputants to give voice to their concerns. Procedural strategies do not guarantee
the perception of procedural fairness, which as the authors note is essential to
deescalating conflict and transforming problematic situations into opportunities for
rebuilding organizational trust (Harrison & Doerfel, 2006).
Ultimately, a communication design focus encourages critical reflection of
desired outcomes and the ways in which communication can be designed to help achieve
the ideal form or system. Specific conflict protocols are designed to focus on guilt,
blame, or reconciliation, for example. However, systems designed to focus on guilt are
Engagement in Conflict
15
likely to preclude reconciliation because the exclusive focus in on placing blame for
historical acts rather than discourse designed to find common ground for a shared future.
Design encourages an evaluation of a specific context or site of action (Nelson &
Stolterman, 2003), and the application of principles unique to that context as a way to
improve communication and interaction processes (Harrison, 2014). Examination of key
disputation systems, such as mediation (e.g., Jacobs & Aakhus, 2002), the San Francisco
Community boards (Merry & Milner, 1993), or ombuds processes (Harrison, 2014) can
help us understand key elements of design that influence engagement. Critical
examination of the circumstances under which they work to encourage engagement (e.g.,
Harrison, Hopeck, Desrayaud, & Imboden, 2013) can help us refine disputing processes
to encourage constructive engagement.
Games as Mechanisms for Engagement in Conflict
Contrary to work in conflict engagement, this chapter outlines engagement in
conflict as a proactive means of resolution. In order to best accomplish this, strategies in
which individuals are less reactive to one another and to the event, are essential. There
has been recent growing interest in the role of experiential learning opportunities (ELOs),
such as game-based experiences, in the creation of bilateral spaces of purposeful conflict,
or conflictive engagement (Wendorf Muhamad, 2016; see also Carcioppolo, Wendorf, &
Tran, 2015). Games provide a clear example of how engagement can be presented in a
way that reduces resistance can lead to resolution in conflict situations. Perhaps more
importantly individuals are often unable to rehearse proactive/constructive (or any really)
reactions to conflict. Games are a safe space in which individuals are not subjected to
negative consequences and can practice and rehearse proactive and constructive scripts
and schemas (and ways of managing destructive approaches) to enhance engagement and
productive conflict resolution. Games use mechanisms such as elaborative narrative and
character absorption, role identification or parasocial relationships, enactive learning, and
cognitive-emotional processing, to provide contained areas in which difficult topics (i.e.,
gender equality, violence and harassment, sexual exploitation) can be thoroughly
discussed with minimal consequences and/or repercussions (e.g., Wendorf Muhamad,
2016; Stokes, Seggerman and Rejeski, 2006). Serious games, or ELOs, hold the potential
to serve as disruptors of systems as they provide a point of entry that garners less
resistance from participants due to unobtrusive persuasive and prosocial subtext framed
within entertainment media.
Commonly, there has been an underlying directionality to conflict – moving
individuals out and away. To this end, various strategies, such as mediation, have been
developed in an effort to reach the other side of conflict. In this relationship, conflict is
viewed as a barrier to engagement and thus must be overcome. Conversely, ELOs drive
individuals to conflict as a means of engagement. Games strategically position
individuals in simulated environments that manifest underlying conflict, thus permitting
individuals to openly process difficult and potential threatening situations. This process
of shedding light on conflict through focused provocation challenges and disrupts
systems and beckons individuals to engage with each other resolutely for the achievement
of a common goal. In order for games to facilitate this process they must: a) create
experiences structured around predetermined specific goals; b) encourage interpretation
from participants so that learning and future problem solving is internalized; and c)
provide participants with immediate feedback during the experience (Gee, 2007).
Engagement in Conflict
16
According to Abt (1970) serious games serve to highlight issues of great
significance through raising questions that are not easily solved. Experientially-based
role-playing scenarios provide an avenue for exploring how conflict arises (source),
descriptive factors of conflict (how does it manifest and consequence), and potential
resolution (rehearsal of strategies). Specifically, games invite participants to a fully
engaged experience by providing facilitated spaces in which ideology, judgment, and
negative implications are suspended, also known as safe spaces. These safe spaces allow
for the expression and processing of a broader range of emotions (e.g., confrontation,
reactivity) in where the intention is to simply become present to said emotions,
dissonance, or conflict, and not seek their immediate resolution. Resolution then becomes
a byproduct of collective processing through enacted situations that mirror real-life
difficult social contexts. It is through this collective efficacious processing that
engagement is attained. In this way, facilitated ELOs serve as activators of conflictive
engagement in social settings through a process that includes information dissemination,
retrieval of stored information, acquisition of new information, and enacted or simulated
cognitive-emotional responses.
Traditionally, within organizations experientially-based strategies have been
employed as learning tools that facilitate discussion. More frequently, conflict resolution
based games present an opposing viewpoint in order to gain understanding of how others
might feel, think, and process different scenarios. Through this process it is expected that
participants participate in active listening, turn taking, and other pre-determined rules.
The premise being that during these sessions of role-play there are no right or wrong
answers, but instead open exploration of potential conflictive issues. Often, however, this
strategy is used reactively (post emergence of conflict) as opposed to preemptively and
does not consider elements such as tension as part of the engagement process. This is a
key distinction as it lays out the goal of the game or simulation – to cool down conflict
(resolve) and not to explore deeply the reasons why conflict emerged. To some degree,
the sessions become about making sense of the conflict from the viewpoint of the other
instead of engagement in conflict as a way to challenge disparate attitudes or beliefs
Although these strategies might serve short-term goals, they often fail to create spaces
that purposefully disrupt systems that might breed conflict and/or the mitigating factors
around the situation.
Beyond the more common role-playing strategies for conflict discussed above,
there are other innovative ways in which conflict and engagement is enacted through
experientially-based strategies. One such game is Golombiao, a conflict resolution game
for Colombian youth developed by UNICEF and Colombia Joven (Colombia Joven,
2014). Golombiao is a modified version of traditional soccer in which youth must execute
the values of non-violence, gender equity, pluriethnic diversity, and others. To start, team
members meet game advisers or mediators (as there are no referees) on the field for a
briefing. During this time all players actively participate in developing agreements for
game play. Some agreements, however, are built into the game and non-negotiable, for
example (1) first point must be scored by a female complying with gender equality and
(2) thereafter, all points (goals) must be alternated between female and male until all
players have had the opportunity to score. At the end of the match individuals again
gather on the field with game advisors and discuss which team they believe upheld the
pre-established agreements (game winner). Conversely, Golombiao is not singular
Engagement in Conflict
17
conflict scenario based actively, but instead positions individuals in a shared space that
fosters tension through dismantling social constructs.
We see value in both traditional and novel forms of serious games for engagement
in conflict processes. Traditional games have the potential to create constructive
engagement around existing conflicts, while more novel approaches may work to alter
systems that create conflict situations and provide opportunity for increased engagement
overall. The body of scholarship on games is relatively new and growing, and we see
great opportunity for both theoretical development of how serious games can increase
engagement and productive conflict management, as well as opportunities for the
development of new serious games themselves. We also see serious game design as
compatible with the process of communication design presented above – with games
serving as new protocols for conflict resolution.
Conclusion
The concept of engagement in conflict is ever-present in the literature, but has
received little formal elaboration. In this chapter we set forward a definition of
constructive engagement in conflict and show how different styles of conflict
management embody engagement. Additionally, we identify barriers and facilitators to
engagement in conflict, and how engagement is enacted in mediation and negotiation
processes. Conflict can also be used to spur on engagement in other areas, such as
communities and organizations. Research and practice on conflict has also benefitted
from different levels of engagement with scholar/practitioners and practitioner/scholars
working toward improving both conflict resolution in the real world and theories for
conflict management. Finally we advance communication design and interactive
approaches as promising ways to facilitate productive engagement in conflict.
Engagement in Conflict
18
References
Aakhus, M. (2003). Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse,
and the design of argumentation. Argumentation, 17(3), 265-290.
Aakhus, M. (2007). Communication as design. Communication Monographs,74(1), 112-
117.
Aakhus, M., & Harrison, T. R. (2015). Design thinking about communication in health
system innovations. In T. R. Harrison & E. A. Williams (Eds.), Organizations,
communication, and health (pp. 402 – 419). New York: Routledge.
Azar, E. E. (1990). The management of protracted social conflicts: Theory and cases.
Dartmouth Publishing Company.
Barbour, J., Gill, R., & Dean, M. (2015). Work space, gendered occupations, and the
organization of health: Redesigning emergency department communication. In T.
R. Harrison & E. A. Williams (Eds.), Organizations, communication, and health,
(pp. 101-118). New York: Routledge.
Bauer, F. (2000). The practice of one ombudsman. Negotiation Journal,16(1), 59-79.
Baumgartner, M. P. (1984). Social control from below. In D. Black (ed.) Toward a
general theory of social control, Volume 1: Fundamentals, (pp. 303 – 345). New
York: Academic Press, Inc.
Baumgartner, M. P. (1989). The moral order of a suburb. Oxford University Press.
Barge, J. K., & Andreas, D. C. (2013). Communities, conflict, and the design of dialogic
conversations. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.) Sage handbook of
conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice, 2nd ed. 609-
634. Los Angeles: Sage
Barge, J. K., & Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2008). Engaged scholarship and the creation of
useful organizational knowledge. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 36(3), 251-265
Barnes, C. (2006). Agents for change: civil society roles in preventing war & building
peace. European Centre for Conflict Prevention.
Black, D. (1990). The elementary forms of conflict management. In D. Black (Ed.) The
social structure of right and wrong (pp. 43-69), San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Black, D. & Baumgartner, M. P. (1983). Toward a theory of the third party. In K. O.
Boyum & L. Mather (Eds.) Empirical theories about courts (pp. 84-114). New
York: Longman.
Broome, B. J. & Hatay, A. J. (2006). Building cultures of peace: The role of intergroup
dialogue. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.) Sage handbook of conflict
communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 627 – 662). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Broome, B. J. (2013). Building cultures of peace: The role of intergroup dialogue. In J. G.
Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.) Sage handbook of conflict communication:
Integrating theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.) (pp. 737 – 761). Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
Brummans, B. H., Putnam, L. L., Gray, B., Hanke, R., Lewicki, R. J., & Wiethoff, C.
(2008). Making sense of intractable multiparty conflict: A study of framing in
four environmental disputes. Communication Monographs, 75(1), 25-51.
Buber, M. (1958). I and thou (2nd ed., R. G. Smith, Trans). New York, NY: Scribner.
Engagement in Conflict
19
Carcioppolo, N., Wendorf, J., Tran, L. (2015). Serious Games, health, and organizing. In
T. R. Harrison & E. Williams (Eds.) Organizations, Communication, and Health
(pp. 240 - 257). London, UK: Routledge.
Cichy, K. E., Lefkowitz, E. S., & Fingerman, K. L. (2013). Conflict engagement and
conflict disengagement during interactions between adults and their parents. The
Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social
Sciences, 68(1), 31-40.
Coleman, P. T. (2003). Characteristics of protracted, intractable conflict: Toward the
development of a metaframework – I. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace
Psychology, 9(1), 1-37.
Coleman, P. T., Hacking, A. G., Stover, M. A., Fisher!Yoshida, B., & Nowak, A. (2008).
Reconstructing ripeness I: A study of constructive engagement in protracted
social conflicts. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(1), 3-42.
Collier, M. (2005). Cultures in conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Conley, J. M., & O'Barr, W. M. (1990). Rules versus relationships: The ethnography of
legal discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Conley, J. M., & O'Barr, W. M. (2005). Just words: Law, language, and power. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
De Dreu, C. K. (1997). Productive conflict” The importance of conflict management and
conflict issue. In C. K. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert, E. (Eds.), Using conflict in
organizations (pp. 9 – 22). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
De Dreu, C. K., & De Vries, N. K. (1997) Minority dissent in organizations. In C. K. De
Dreu & E. Van de Vliert, E. (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 72 – 86).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
De Dreu, C. K., & Van de Vliert, E. (Eds.). (1997). Using conflict in organizations. Sage.
de Rivera, J. (Ed.). (2009). Handbook on building cultures of peace. New York, NY:
Springer.
Donnellon, A., & Kolb, D. M. (1997). Constructive for whom? The fate of diversity
disputes in organizations. In C. K. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert, E. (Eds.), Using
conflict in organizations (pp. 161 – 176). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Donohue, W. A. (2006). Managing interpersonal conflict: The Mediation Promise. In J.
G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict
communication (pp. 211 – 234). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
DuBow, F. L., & McEwen, C. (1993). Community boards: An analytic profile. In S. E.
Merry and N. Milner (Eds.) The possibility of popular justice: A case study of
community mediation in the United States (pp. 125-168). Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press.
Elam, H. J. (2001). Taking it to the streets: The social protest theater of Luis Valdez and
Amiri Baraka. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Felstiner, W. L. (1974). Avoidance as dispute processing: An elaboration. Law and
Society Review, 695-706.
Fine, G. A. (1991). On the macrofoundations of microsociology: Constraint and the
exterior reality of structure. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 161-177.
Fisher, R., & Shapiro, D. (2005). Beyond reason: Using emotions as you negotiate. New
York: Viking.
Engagement in Conflict
20
Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement
without giving in. Penguin.
Folger, J. P., Scott Poole, M., & Stutman, R. K. (2013). Working through Conflict:
strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations, 7th ed., Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage.
Friedman, V. J., & Desivilya, H. (2010). Integrating social entrepreneurship and conflict
engagement for regional development in divided societies. Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 22(6), 495-514.
Friedman, G. J., & Himmelstein, J. (2008). Challenging conflict: Mediation through
understanding. Chicago: American Bar Association.
Gadlin, H. (2000). The ombudsman: What's in a name? Negotiation Journal, 16(1), 37-
48.
Gerardi, D. (2007). Emerging culture of health care: Improving end-of-life care through
collaboration and conflict engagement among health care professionals. The Ohio
State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 23, 105.
Gottman, J. M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in
marital interaction: a longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 6.
Hall, S. (1989). Ideology and communication theory. In B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B.
O’Keefe, & E. Wartella (Eds.), Rethinking communication, Vol. 1. Paradigm
issues (pp. 40-52). Newbury Pak, CA: Sage.
Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1998). Strategies of engagement: Lessons from the critical
examination of collaboration and conflict in an interorganizational
domain. Organization science, 9(2), 217-230. !!
Harrison, T. R. (2003). Victims, targets, protectors and destroyers: Using disputant
accounts to develop a grounded taxonomy of disputant orientations. Conflict
Resolution Quarterly, 20(3), 307 – 329.
Harrison, T. R. (2004). What is success in ombuds processes? Evaluation of a university
ombudsman. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 21(3), 313 – 335.
Harrison, T. R. (2007). My professor is so unfair: Student attitudes and experiences of
conflict with faculty. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24(3), 349 – 368.
Harrison, T. R. (2014). Enhancing communication interventions and evaluations through
communication design. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42 (2), 135
– 149.
Harrison, T. R., & Doerfel, M. L. (2006). Competitive and cooperative conflict
communication climates: The influence of ombuds processes on trust and
commitment to the organization. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 17(2), 129-153.
Harrison, T. R., Hopeck, P., Desrayaud, N., & Imboden, K. (2013). The relationship
between conflict, anticipatory procedural justice, and design with intentions to use
ombudsman processes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24(1), 56-
72.
Harrison, T., & Morrill, C. (2004). Ombuds processes and disputant
reconciliation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(4), 318-342.
Engagement in Conflict
21
Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (1978). Interpersonal conflict. Dubuque, IA: William C.
Brown.
Jackson, S. (1998). Disputation by design. Argumentation, 12(2), 183-198.
Jackson, S. (2015). Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice.
Argumentation, 29(3), 243-263.
Jacobs, S., & Aakhus, M. (2002). What mediators do with words: Implementing three
models of rational discussion in dispute mediation. Conflict resolution
quarterly, 20(2), 177-203.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). Affective and cognitive conflict in work groups: Increasing
performance through value-based intragroup conflict. In C. K. De Dreu & E. Van
de Vliert, E. (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 101 – 115). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Johnston, K. A. (2016). Engagement. In C. E. Carroll (Ed). The sage encyclopedia of
corporate reputation (pp. 273 – 275). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kriesberg, L. (1998). Constructive conflicts: from escalation to settlement. New York,
NY: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Kolb, D. M. (1983). The mediators. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (2006). 3D negotiation: Powerful tools to change the game
in your most important negotiations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review
Press.
Merry, S. E. & Milner, N. A. (1993). The possibility of popular justice: A case study of
community mediation in the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Moore, C. W. (2014). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict,
4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morrill, C. (1991). The customs of conflict management among corporate
executives. American Anthropologist, 93(4), 871-893.
Morrill, C. (1995). The executive way: Conflict management in corporations. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Morrill, C. (2017). Bringing culture into the study of social fields and conflict. Working
paper, Center for the Study of Law and Society, University of California,
Berkeley.
Morrill, C., Zald, M. N., & Rao, H. (2003). Covert political conflict in organizations:
Challenges from below. Annual Review of Sociology, 391-415.
Nader, L. (1991). Harmony ideology: Justice and control in a Zapotec mountain village.
Stanford University Press.
Nagda, B. A., Yeakley, A., Gurin, P., & Sorensen, N. (2012). Intergroup dialogue: A
critical-dialogic model for conflict engagement. In L. R. Tropp (Ed.) The Oxford
handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 210 – 228). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way: Intentional change in an
unpredictable world: Foundations and fundamentals of design competence.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Orbe, M. P. (1998). Constructing co-cultural theory: An explication of culture, power,
and communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Engagement in Conflict
22
Pearce, W. B., & Littlejohn, S. W. (1997). Moral conflict. When social worlds collide.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pely, D. (2011). When honor trumps basic needs: The role of honor in deadly disputes
within Israel's Arab community. Negotiation Journal, 27(2), 205-225.
Putnam, L. L. (2006). Definitions and approaches to conflict and communication. In J. G.
Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict and
communication, (pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
Putnam, L. L., Burgess, G., & Royer, R. (2003). We can't go on like this: Frame changes
in intractable conflicts. Environmental Practice, 5(3), 247-255.
Putnam, L. L., & Poole, M. S. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In F. M. Jablin, L. L.
Putnam, K. H. Roberts & L. W. Porter (Eds.) Handbook of organizational
communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 549-599). Thousand Oaks,
CA, US: Sage Publications
Rieder, J. (1984). The social organization of vengeance. In D. Black (Ed.), Toward a
general theory of social control: Fundamentals, 1 (pp. 136-148). New York:
Academic Press.
Rocha Menocal, A. (2011). State building for peace: a new paradigm for international
engagement in post-conflict fragile states? Third World Quarterly, 32(10), 1715-
1736.
Rowe, M. P. (1995). Options, functions, and skills: What an organizational ombudsman
might want to know. Negotiation Journal, 11(2), 103-114.
Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational
concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384-398.
Thompson, D. R., DuBow, (1993). Organizing for community mediation: The legacy of
community boards of San Francisco as a social-movement organization. In S. E.
Merry and N. Milner (Eds.), The possibility of popular justice: A case study of
community mediation in the United States (pp. 169-199). Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Los
Angeles: Sage.
Van de Vliert, E., Nauta, A., Euwema, M. C., & Janssen, O. (1997). The effectiveness of
mixing problem solving and forcing. In C. K. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert, E.
(Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 38 –52). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing
argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Warren, R. L., Rose, S. M., & Bergunder, A. F. (1974). The structure of urban reform:
Community decision organizations in stability and change. Lexington, Mass:
Lexington Books.
Wendorf Muhamad, J. (2016). Beyond passive entertainment: An evaluation of the role
of active entertainment-education in the prevention of commercial sexual
exploitation of children (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Paper No. 1639).
... Most of the research efforts on dispute resolution over the past decade have been aimed at improving public discourse on conflict management; for example, Yussof et al. (2020), Butteriss et al. (2001), Harrison and Wendorf Muhamad (2018), and Hodgson et al. (2018). Most of these studies simulate the impacts of a deliberate breach of contract and arouse public interest in shoddy substantial services delivery work. ...
... Emerging research suggests that negotiators with a primarily cooperative style are more successful than hard bargains at reaching novel solutions that improve everyone's outcomes (Caputo, 2016;Low, 2020;Harrison and Wendorf Muhamad, 2018;Iyiola and Rjoub, 2020). Most of the studies on conflict management had addressed dispute resolution based on the precautionary principle and segmented phased practice, not stating the roles, rights, obligations, and remedies for the Employer, Contractor, and Subcontractor amidst conflicting disagreement during the COVID-19 pandemic. ...
Article
Full-text available
Over the past months, the socioeconomic consequences of the ravaging COVID-19 pandemic reverberated through and affected all segments of life. The construction industry is not left out. The severe impacts of COVID-19 have not only witnessed tragic human losses but have also caused colossal devastating implications for construction procurement and general contract condition. The study examined the dispute resolution methods adopted by contractors in Eastern Cape, South Africa, during the COVID-19 experience to determine their appropriateness and effectiveness. The study employed a snowballing, purposive, non-probability sampling technique with a mixed research design driven by respondents' participatory action. Twelve senior personnel were interviewed, while questionnaires were administered to 30 referred employees on the sites. XLSTAT statistical software and thematic analysis were used for the aggregated questionnaire and qualitative respondents' interviews in drawing inferences. The results revealed that an interest-based rather than a right-based approach are two sides of a coin that can make or mar the wheel of progress in arriving at an amicable agreement to contract terms in construction. The need for re-negotiation in billing, which is at variance with the various construction claim, cannot be over-emphasised. At the same time, the intuitive assertions of negotiation, mediation, and conciliation were used in resolving unforeseen delays, claims, and added costs due to disruptions of COVID-19. The study's main contribution lies in mastering and deploying appropriate dispute resolution methods in project execution. The study is of utmost importance in planning, restoring, and deriving optimal societal benefits from conflict management amidst the adverse effect of Covid -19 on any construction project. Keywords: Conciliation, Construction dispute, COVID-19; Mediation, Negotiation
... However, due to governmental restrictions MNCs are limited in their direct access to civic society, lowering the chance to engage in an ongoing dialog. In this regard, our results point to the issue of power differences and relational distance in CD, which can create barriers to successful engagement (Harrison & Wendorf Muhamad, 2018). In the UAE, the government's power is rigorous and builds largely on repressive measures, reflected, for instance, in the lack of freedom of speech. ...
Article
Full-text available
While corporate diplomacy is discussed as stakeholder engagement allowing multinational companies to manage relationships, engagement approaches to public relations suggest that organizations, through interaction with their stakeholders, create social capital. This study integrates both approaches, exploring how corporate diplomacy develops social capital. Based on in-depth interviews with public relations executives (N=25) in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), our results indicate that corporate diplomacy in the UAE relies heavily on stakeholder engagement, particularly with governmental institutions, and consequently builds on dialog and collective decision-making. While governmental engagement is mainly conducted through personal relationship cultivation, engagement with other multinational corporations is based on more distant relationships. However, both approaches appear to create social capital and provide social resources, including loyalty and trust. We conclude that by employing different engagement strategies, corporate diplomacy supports both the corporation and various stakeholders in the host country, and close by discussing implications and future research directions.
Article
Full-text available
This paper explores the application of positioning theory to public diplomacy as a way to develop the theorization and empirical investigation of dialogue in the literature. First, it offers an overview of how dialogue has been conceptualized in the new public diplomacy. Secondly, it argues that there are two main problems with its current conceptualization: it is based on normative theories of communication and it does not take sufficiently into account the context where the communicative act occurs. In line with existing critical approaches to public diplomacy, the paper applies positioning theory to public diplomacy through the analysis of the case study of the Euro-Mediterranean intercultural dialogue. The preliminary conclusion is that positioning theory can enrich the theoretical foundations and empirical research of dialogue in public diplomacy and expand the use of social constructivism in IR by investigating the conditions of possibility for dialogue when relationships become mired with conflict, power, and difference.
Article
Serious games function by leveraging entertainment (hedonic processing) characteristics with cognitive and emotional engagement for specific outcomes. By focusing on persuasion, formation and change of attitudes, increased/enhanced awareness, and overt behavioral changes, serious games serve as activators of information processing. This chapter discusses multidimensional nature of interactivity as one of the factors that might have contributed to the conflicting findings regarding the effects of serious digital games. While serious games share many constructs and processes with media constructed with entertainment education, extended elaboration likelihood model, and entertainment overcoming resistance model paradigms, these processes are potentially enacted differently. Serious games are effective tools for demonstrating the intricacy and interconnectedness of social phenomena. Experientially based games create environments in which players are able to: see behaviors and attitudes manifested, hear others, and engage in problem solving. Situated games present a particular benefit in that they are more like real life than an imagined possibility.