The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)

by Peter T Coleman

  Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 561–569.

  Hundley, H. O., & Anderson, R. H. (1995). Emerging challenge: Security and safety in cyberspace. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 14, 19–28.

  Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.

  Kersten, G. E., & Lai, H. (2007). Negotiation support and e-negotiation systems: An overview. Group Decision and Negotiation, 16, 553–586.

  Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134.

  Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organizations. London, UK: Sage.

  Knoke, D. & Yang, S. (2007). Social network analysis: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  Krackhardt, D., & Stern, R. N. (1988). Informal networks and organizational crises: An experimental simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 123–140.

  Kupersmidt, J. B., Griesler, P. C., DeRosier, M. E., Patterson, C. J., & Davis, P. W. (1995). Childhood aggression and peer relations in the context of family and neighborhood factors. Child Development, 66, 360–375.

  Labianca, G., Brass, D. J., & Gray, B. (1998). Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 55–67.

  Lee, H. (2005). Behavioral strategies for dealing with flaming in an online forum. Sociological Quarterly, 46, 385–403.

  Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Brothers.

  Lyndon, A., Bonds-Raacke, J., & Cratty, A. D. (2011). College students’ Facebook stalking of ex-partners. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 711–716.

  Lysenko, V. V., & Desouza, K. C. (2012). Moldova’s Internet revolution: Analyzing the role of technologies in various phases of the confrontation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79, 341–361.

  McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.

  Mesch, G. S. (2009). Parental mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12, 387–393.

  Moor, P. J., Heuvelman, A., & Verleur, R. (2010). Flaming on YouTube. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1536–1546.

  Morris, M., Nadler, J., Kurtzberg, T., & Thompson, L. (2002). Schmooze or lose: Social friction and lubrication in e-mail negotiations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 89–100.

  Mouttapa, M., Valente, T., Gallaher, P., Rohrbach, L. A., & Unger, J. B. (2004). Social network predictors of bullying and victimization. Adolescence, 39, 315–335.

  Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever wanted: Does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy? Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12, 441–444.

  Neal, J. W. (2009). Network ties and mean lies: A relational approach to relational aggression. Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 737–753.

  Newman, M.E.J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45, 167–256.

  Olweus, D., Limber, S., & Mihalic, S. F. (1999). Blueprints for violence prevention, book nine: Bullying prevention program. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.

  Papp, L. M., Danielewicz, J., & Cayemberg, C. (2012). “Are we Facebook official?” Implications of dating partners’ Facebook use and profiles for intimate relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 85–90.

  Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (2004). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

  Raines, S. S. (2005). Can online mediation be transformative? Tales from the front. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22, 437–451.

  Ricigliano, R. (2012). Making peace last: A toolbox for sustainable peacebuilding. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

  Turnage, A. K. (2007). Email flaming behaviors and organizational conflict. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 43–59.

  Vallacher, R. R., Coleman, P. T., Nowak, A., & Bui-Wrzosinska, L. (2010). Rethinking intractable conflict: The perspective of dynamical systems. American Psychologist, 65, 262–278.

  Vanbrabant, K., Kuppens, P., Braeken, J., Demaerschalk, E., Boeren, A., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2012). A relationship between verbal aggression and personal network size. Social Networks, 34, 164–170.

  Walen, H. R., & Lachman, M. E. (2000). Social support and strain from partner, family, and friends: Costs and benefits for men and women in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 5–30.

  Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Watts, D. J. (2004). The “new” science of networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 243–270.

  Westaby, J. D. (2005). Behavioral reasoning theory: Identifying new linkages underlying intentions and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 97–120.

  Westaby, J. D. (2012). Dynamic network theory: How social networks influence goal pursuit. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  Westaby, J. D., Probst, T. M., & Lee, B. C. (2010). Leadership decision-making: A behavioral reasoning theory analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 481–495.

  Xia, L., Yuan, Y. C., & Gay, G. (2009). Exploring negative group dynamics: Adversarial network, personality, and performance in project groups. Management Communication Quarterly, 23, 32–62.

  Yilmaz, H. (2011). Cyberbullying in Turkish middle schools: An exploratory study. School Psychology International, 32, 645–654.

  Zeitzoff, T. (2011). Using social media to measure conflict dynamics: An application to the 2008–2009 Gaza conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55, 938–969.

  aWe would like to thank the editors, Claudia Cohen and Krister Lowe, for their helpful comments.

  CHAPTER FORTY-TWO

  USING RESEARCH FINDINGS IN PRACTICE: From Knowledge Acquisition to Application

  Daniel Druckman

  A noticeable trend toward multimethod research is evident in the fields of conflict management and resolution. This may be due to the complexity of the problems that confront researchers and practitioners, as well as the overlap with related fields, each emphasizing a particular mode of inquiry. It is due also to an increasing recognition that conflict is best understood from both general and specific perspectives: the general perspective focuses on shared features of different conflicts; the specific perspective seeks to understand conflict within its local context. Although the perspectives are complementary, they are also a source of tension among conflict researchers. Both the complementarities and the tensions are discussed in this chapter with implications for the application of research in applied settings.

  I introduce readers to various conflict research approaches with examples of how studies within each approach are performed. With this grounding, I discuss how the findings from these studies may be applied. I deal first with issues of communicating findings to practitioners. The chapter then considers how the findings are embedded in different kinds of practice. A key question, whether these experiences improve learning, is addressed in the next section by reporting some evaluation results. The chapter concludes with a look back on the innovations that have been achieved and a look forward toward new innovations that contribute to improving the ways that we bridge research and practice.

  DOING RESEARCH ON CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION

  Preferences for one or another research approach develop from assumptions of contending philosophical traditions. Most of the attention is given to the distinction between positivist and constructivist philosophies. The former aligns m
ore closely with traditional scientific approaches that emphasize a search for explanation through rigorous methods. The latter is rooted in subjective phenomenological approaches that emphasize a quest for understanding through inquiry. Other distinctions have loose connections to this philosophical divide. Researchers in the positivist tradition usually, but not always, prefer quantitative analysis, while constructivists often, but not always, do qualitative research. Preferring generality over nuance (or vice versa), these schools contest the purpose for doing research. The generalizers operate largely in an abstract world where concepts take precedence over description; the nuancers operate in a less abstract world where situated or contextual factors are emphasized. These differences are captured by another distinction made originally by linguists and referred to as emic or etic approaches (see Headland, Pike, and Harris, 1990). For emics, a conflict is a unique event to be understood within its own context. For etics, a particular case of conflict is regarded as an instance of a larger class of conflict processes.

  These distinctions have implications for the way that research is performed. For example, data collected from laboratory studies are usually analyzed with quantitative methods with the etic goal of generalizing results beyond the experimental situation. Case studies are often done with qualitative methods in an emic mode for contextual understandings. These sorts of connections between assumptions, analysis preference, and research methodology are summarized in table 42.1.

  Table 42.1 Examples of Methodologies in Four Research Traditions

  Emic Etic

  Qualitative Ethnography, single case study Focused comparison (small number of cases)

  ?

  Quantitative Case time series Experiments, surveys, aggregate case comparisons (large number of cases)

  Note: The question mark indicates that the challenge of integrating findings from the different approaches is considerable.

  Thus, conflict researchers investigate conflict and resolution processes in a variety of ways. Although the challenge of integrating findings from the different approaches is considerable (and noted by the question mark in the table), it is nonetheless useful to show how research is performed within the approaches. The table provides a way of organizing the discussion that follows. I will move from one cell of the matrix to another in my illustrations of how conflict research is done.

  Single Case Studies: Emic, Qualitative

  A number of features of case studies make them valuable contributions to knowledge about conflict. These include holistic and thick descriptions of cases, allowing also for detailed analyses of processes. Other features limit the prospects for causal analysis and generalizing results beyond the focal case. These trade-offs work for investigators who embrace the assumptions of emic or constructivist approaches. A way of bridging the approaches is through conducting theory-relevant case studies. Referred to also as enhanced case analysis (Druckman, 2005a), this approach views or analyzes the case through the lens of theoretical concepts. The approach can be illustrated with two examples from case studies of negotiation.

  The talks between the Soviet Union and the United States from 1985 to 1987 on the reduction of intermediate nuclear forces were analyzed in terms of the turning point concept (Druckman, Husbands, and Johnston, 1991). Turning points were discovered as punctuated events during a chronological sequence that unfolded during the talks. Theoretical implications were developed from particular turning points: convening a summit in Reykjavik, committing to unilateral initiatives, and presidential involvement in the negotiation process. Similar analyses of turning points were performed by Tomlin (1989) on the prenegotiation stage of the North American Free Trade talks and by Cameron and Tomlin (2000) on the NAFTA process. These researchers showed how critical events in the chronology provided an impetus for transitions from one negotiating stage to another. The concept was shown to be useful as well in analyses of cases of international trade negotiations (Crump and Druckman, 2012).

  Talks in 1986 between the Philippines Aquino administration and the New Peoples Army (NPA) provide another example of an enhanced case study (Druckman and Green, 1995). Drawing on literature in the sociology of conflict, we viewed the negotiation chronology through the lens of propositions on the way that values interact with interests. This analysis provided insights into cycles during the talks of polarized and depolarized values that influenced the intensity of the larger conflict between the parties. These insights provide case evidence for a theory and enhanced understanding of the way this particular case unfolded.

  The analysis process used in these studies consisted of two steps: (1) developing a detailed chronology of events that occurred before, during, and after the negotiation and (2) interpreting the events in terms of theoretical concepts. Case analysis is merged with theory in a sequential order. First, a chronology is developed and considered as the data for analysis; then relevant concepts are used to discern patterns that may be relevant to other cases. Theory is grounded in a particular case, which illuminates more general concepts as exemplars or demonstrations of particular theories. Exemplar cases were also used in another study to illustrate differences between the concepts of positive (Mozambique peace process) and negative (Nagorno-Karabakh agreement) peace (Druckman and Lyons, 2005).

  Time Series Analysis: Emic, Quantitative, Qualitative

  Times series analyses on single cases add several features to the case study approach. One feature is systematic tracking of changes through an extended time line. Another is the assembling of a large number of events to perform the analyses. A third feature consists of facilitating comparative analysis of trends during different time periods (longitudinal comparisons) or different cases (cross sectional comparisons). And a fourth feature is referred to as an interrupted time series, where the impact of a particular event is evaluated by comparing trends before and after it occurred. This feature also makes plausible a causal interpretation of changes in trends. Limitations are the single case and events focus of the approach. The former limits generalizability; the latter de-emphasizes roles played by the context surrounding the case. Examples of three types of time series analyses are illustrated and referred to as postdiction, interrupted, and process tracing.

  When an analyst is interested in predicting known outcomes in completed cases, he or she is doing postdiction. This can be done inductively to diagnose patterns preceding focal events or deductively to evaluate theories or models. An example is the coding of negotiating moves made by the Spanish and US delegations leading to the eruption of crises in the 1975–1976 base rights talks (Druckman, 1986). Rule-based coding of moves as hard or soft produced trends leading up to and following each of the four critical incidents when one or the other party left the table. Statistical analyses of the trends showed both the move patterns that preceded the crises (out-of-sync responding) and the consequences that followed (actions taken to resolve the crises). A causal interpretation involving precipitating events, departures, and consequences was induced from the time series. A companion study deduced similar patterns in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) negotiation process. Comparing three models of the way negotiators are expected to respond to each other’s concessions, Stoll and McAndrew (1986) showed a best fit for a pattern referred to as comparative reciprocity: negotiators respond to the difference between them in previous-round concessions, which is similar to the out-of-sync pattern that preceded crises in base rights study. (See also Druckman and Harris, 1990, for similar time series results from seven cases.)

  Another example of time series analysis is the evaluation of the impact of an intervention (or interruption) that occurs at a particular time. For conflict analysts, these include worker strikes, government or company collapse, an insertion of a peacekeeping force, a summit conference, a sudden influx of foreign aid, or a new insight into the source of the conflict. It may also consist of a major offensive that escalates an ongoing conflict. The 1994 offensive in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan was
shown to alter the course of that conflict: before-and-after statistical comparisons of events indicated that the offensive, rather than successive mediations, made the difference (Mooradian and Druckman, 1999). This was clearly a turning point in the chronological record of negotiations or related interactions between these disputing parties. A study in progress examines a similar question about summitry: When are summits between heads of state turning points? The question is addressed by assembling a sequence of events that occurred prior to and following the meetings. It will be answered by comparing impacts on foreign policy decisions taken by the respective governments.

  A third type of example of time series analysis comes from qualitative research. Instead of coding events as they occur, these investigations evaluate typologies or are guided by a framework that specifies a sequential pattern that can be discerned from chronologies. Lepgold and Shambaugh’s (1998) analysis of Sino-American relations from 1969 to 1997 illustrates the typology idea. Various time periods within the three decades were depicted in terms of whether the parties had short- or long-term horizons and high or low expectations of benefits. Their results indicated that the country with the longer time horizon or the one that perceived more benefits from the relationship was able to prolong negotiations until the preferred outcome was attained. Along similar lines, Leng (1998) performed a time series of recurring militarized crises between post–World War II rivals. He concluded that of the four influence strategies studied—bullying, reciprocating, trial and error, and stonewalling—reciprocating strategies were most effective in promoting cooperation. Rather than charting the trend in coded events, as is done in quantitative research, these studies compare larger chunks of time referred to often as periods during the course of relations.

  The sequential pattern idea, referred to also as process tracing, takes a closer look at particular sequences within a longer chronology. These may be defined by a framework such as the precipitant-departure-consequence sequence used to illuminate turning points in negotiation. The analyst first defines departures in the chronology, then moves backward to identify precipitants and forward to discover consequences. Further specification comes from breaking each leg of the sequence into types, such as substantive, procedural, or external precipitants. The sequences provide distinctions between critical and noncritical paths taken during the long road from getting to a table to leaving with an agreement. They also provide an approach to comparing the paths for cases from different issue areas (Druckman, 2001), types of forums (Crump and Druckman, 2012), or size of negotiation. These qualitative analyses capture changes through time that would be missed with cross-sectional analyses and complement the quantitative work.