The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)
Page 148
Focused Comparison: Etic, Qualitative
Structured focused comparisons (SFC) add other valuable features to the case study method. One feature is that more than one case is analyzed. Another is that the study design is based on the logic of experimental controls: the distinction between independent and dependent variables encourages causal inferences to be made. A third is that the small number of cases allows in-depth analyses similar to a single case study in the emic tradition. By adding an analytical dimension to case studies, SFCs bridge cases with field experimentation. The demanding design requirements bolster internal validity, while the small number of cases poses problems for generalizability or external validity. The increasing popularity of this approach is due in part to difficulties in arguing for the theoretical relevance of case studies. It is due also to concerns about the limited relevance of experimental findings for real-world conflicts. An appreciation for the approach is likely to be gained from examples of application in current research.
Examples of SFC mechanics come from research in progress on the role played by justice considerations in various types of international negotiations. Focusing specifically on adherence to distributive (DJ) and procedural (PJ) justice principles—the dependent variables (DVs)—the study examined the influence of power, size (bilateral, multilateral), and type of setting in which the talks are conducted—the independent variables (IVs). A key challenge is to provide evidence of a mostly uncontaminated relationship between each IV and the DVs. This is done by controlling for other variables that are not specified in the hypothesis. For the hypothesized relationship between power and justice, the chosen cases are matched on issue area, parties, size, and type of setting. An example of a comparison from the area of arms control is between the earlier and later periods of SALT negotiations: disparate power in SALT I changed to parity between the superpowers in SALT II. An example from environmental negotiations is a comparison between the US-Canada acid rain talks (asymmetrical power) and the same countries negotiating in the context of the UN Economic Commission for Europe.
Similar controls can be achieved for evaluating hypotheses about the relationship between size and justice. Cases are chosen for similarities on power symmetry, parties, issue area, and type of setting. An example is a comparison between Singapore and Australia negotiating free trade issues in bilateral and multilateral forums. Controls can only be imperfect, but if this is done carefully, it can increase an analyst’s confidence in inferring a causal relationship between the IV (power symmetry) and DV (justice).
Another SFC application comes from a published study on the durability of peace agreements (Albin and Druckman, 2012). The study design addressed questions about relationships among the peace process (adherence to PJ principles), outcome (agreements based on equality), and implementation of the agreement (success, partial success, failure). Four peace processes were chosen for similarity in terms of time period, region, and types of issues at stake. Each fit one of four profiles on the IVs: adhere to PJ, equality is central (Sun City, 2002); violate PJ, equality is central (Arusha Accord, 2000); adhere to PJ, equality is marginal (Helsinki agreement, 2005); and violate PJ, equality is marginal (Luanda, 2002). Each case was blind-coded for implementation success (the DV). The results were close to the expected pattern: Sun City (partial success), Arusha (partial success), Helsinki (partial success), and Luanda (failure). Only the Sun City agreement deviated somewhat from the expected successful result. These qualitative findings also supported those obtained from correlation analyses computed on a larger sample of earlier cases. More important for our purposes in this chapter, the study description illustrates the requirements that need to be met for performing SFCs.
Experiments, Surveys, and Aggregate Case Analyses: Etic, Quantitative
Quantitative methods have been a hallmark of scientific approaches to the study of conflict. Their popularity stems in part from addressing threats to both the internal and external validity of findings. Experiments are designed to reduce the plausibility of alternative explanations for findings. This is done through laboratory controls for extraneous variables, by which is meant variables not included in the causal reasoning developed in hypotheses. This has been shown to be a useful technology for accomplishing these purposes.
Surveys and aggregate case studies are designed to increase the external validity, or generalizability, of findings. This is done in surveys by a random sampling of respondents. The concept of sampling error from opinion polling captures the extent to which results obtained from a sample are likely to hold for the population from which the sample is drawn. This technology, which is quite sophisticated, has proven to be useful for reducing threats to external validity. For analyses with a large number of cases, this is done mostly through representative sampling, which means selecting cases from each of the segments (regions, time periods, actors) of a known population, such as all international negotiations on trade from 1950 to the present. A number of conflict projects include an entire population, such as the events data analyses performed on all known cases of international mediation from 1945 to 2003 (Bercovitch and Fretter, 2004). Clearly there is a trade-off between the relative emphases on internal and external validity concerns for experiments and surveys or aggregate case studies. Recognizing this trade-off, a number of recent methods texts develop mixed-methods strategies for doing research (e.g., Druckman, 2005a; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2006).
A topic explored with both experiments and comparative case analyses is the impact of type of issue on negotiation processes and outcomes. Laboratory research showed that conflicts over values, such as issues of fairness or justice, were more difficult to resolve, resulted in less yielding, and were viewed as being more competitive than conflicts over interests (Druckman, Rozelle, and Zechmeister, 1977; Harinck and de Dreu, 2004). Knowing this, researchers have been asking about interventions that may facilitate agreements for each of these types of conflict. Two types of interventions in particular are being evaluated for their impact on the two types of issues. One, relevant for value conflicts, is a shared identity: shared identities improve the chances of resolving value differences (but not the differences on interests). Another, relevant to interest conflicts, is transaction costs: increasing costs incurred as the negotiation unfolds improve the chances of resolving the conflicting interests (but not the conflicting values). Thus, the impacts of the interventions on resolution are expected to depend on the type of issue being discussed. This is referred to as a statistical interaction.
To investigate this interaction hypothesis, a two-variable experiment was designed: type of issue as values (for or against raising prices for donations to charity) or interests (for or against raising prices for increasing profits) and type of intervention as rate of increase in transaction costs or shared values as similar or different political orientations. Referred to as a 2 × 2 design, the experiment provides opportunities to gauge the impact of each variable separately (known as main effects) and together (an interaction). Support for the hypothesis would occur if high transaction costs led to more agreements than low costs for the interest conflict but not for the value conflict, and if a shared identity produced more agreements than when identities were not shared for the value but not for the interest conflict. In addition to specific practical implications, these findings contribute more generally to bargaining theory (see Cramton, 1991) and theories of identity threat (Brewer, 2000).
Value and interest issues can also be compared with case data. An example comes from a study of turning points in international negotiation (Druckman, 2005b). Turning points were coded for thirty-four cases sorted by three primary sources of conflict: conflicts over values, understanding, or interests. A turning point was considered to be a departure in the negotiation process leading toward or away from eventual agreement. The interesting finding was that the turning points that occurred in the value conflicts led to escalations (away from agreement), while those that occurred in the conflicts of under
standing and interests had deescalatory (toward agreement) consequences. Most of the escalations that occurred were for the cases that dealt primarily with values. Note here the difference between experiments and case studies. The former are prospective: types of conflict are created in the scenarios presented to negotiators; the outcomes are unknown prior to the negotiation. The latter are retrospective: completed negotiation cases are coded for the primary source of conflict; the outcomes are known prior to the analysis. The convergent results obtained from the two methods bolster the argument for validity.
The findings from case analyses of a large number of cases provide evidence for robustness, by which is meant evidence from a diverse set of cases. An example comes from cross-cultural research. A challenge posed for cross-cultural researchers is to measure variables at more or less the same time period for each sample case. Time synchrony allows a researcher to perform statistical analyses that specify causal relationships among the set of measured variables. This challenge was met by Ember and Ember’s (1992) study of 186 societies drawn from the Human Relations Area Files. They coded warfare frequency, threat of famine, threat of natural disasters, resource scarcity, and taking of resources. Each variable was measured for a specified time and scaled for frequency or degree, taking into account concerns about threshold effects (for famines and disasters) and organizational features of preindustrial societies. These and other precautions taken in coding (including reliability analyses) provided confidence in the interesting findings obtained: war may be caused by a history of natural disasters (fear of nature) and to some extent by socialized mistrust (fear of others). People in preindustrial societies protected themselves from future disasters by taking resources from their enemies.
This study is a good example of doing systematic research in an etic tradition with archived ethnographic reports assembled for emic (case study) research. Verbal reports were used to construct scaled variables that were analyzed by statistical path models, leading to inferences about the strength of relationships and direction of causation. It is a model for how rigorous research can be performed with archival data on topics that have important theoretical implications.
* * *
This concludes the section on how research is done. My aim was to sample studies that are exemplars for each of the four primary conflict research traditions. I turn now to a discussion of how these kinds of results can be communicated to a broad audience of practitioners with an interest in improving their craft through training.
COMMUNICATING RESEARCH FINDINGS
The research I have discussed contributes to the understanding of conflict and resolution processes. A question of interest is whether the knowledge also contributes to the conduct of negotiation and related approaches to conflict resolution. One way of addressing this question is through gathering data on impacts. This has been difficult for various reasons, most notably a lack of access to practitioners but also a lack of interest from them emanating from the widely discussed gulf between the knowledge-generating and practice cultures (George, 1993; Druckman and Hopmann, 1989). Without access to practitioners and a strategy for communicating research results (and perspectives) to them, it is unlikely that their work will be informed by academic research. One route for addressing both challenges is through training. In this section, I describe an approach intended to bridge this gap.
A hallmark of the approach is the thematic narrative—a short essay that communicates key research findings on a theme, such as alternatives, culture, flexibility, or turning points in negotiation. The narrative emphasizes readability and thus attempts to avoid technical jargon and details of methodology while citing the articles that report the findings. To date, seventeen narratives have been prepared drawing on negotiation as well as some mediation research published from 1965 to the 2000s. In addition, a number of learning aids are included in the narratives package: discussion questions, key points from each narrative, counterintuitive insights, and some prescriptions that derive from the research. Here is an example of a counterintuitive finding from the narrative on achieving integrative agreements: Extensive information searches during negotiation may reveal incompatibilities of interest that escalate rather than resolve the conflict. A corresponding prescription is: If an integrative solution is apparent, avoid exchanging too much information. The narratives are regarded as works in progress because they can be updated to include new research findings.
Many of the findings discussed in the section on doing research are included in the training narratives. These include findings from case studies about process dynamics, such as the interplay of values and interests or the emergence of turning points during a negotiation, as well as from experiments on the relative importance of values and interests or the conditions that produce turning points. For these narratives, both kinds of findings are included, illustrated by a snapshot of the narrative on interests and values.
We refer first to experimental findings in the etic-quantitative tradition as follows: A finding obtained in several studies is that conflicting interests are more difficult to resolve when they are linked to differences in values over the sources of the problems. When values are salient, negotiators take longer and settle fewer issues than when values are not invoked. One way to reduce the negative impact of values is to separate them from the interests. Another is to discuss the values prior to and outside negotiation, in informal workshops. The latter approach has been shown (in experiments) to be more effective in producing durable agreements.
We turn next to field research in the emic-qualitative tradition as follows. When these two sources of conflict are examined in the field with historical cases, we observe how they interact over time, leading to more or less difficult negotiations. These cycles of escalation and deescalation have also been shown to be influenced by differences (in values) within the negotiating teams as when moderates pull their more extremist members toward the (ideological) center, increasing the chances for compromise agreements. The real-world research has the advantage of allowing researchers to examine processes that unfold over a longer period of time than would be possible in the laboratory.
This kind of juxtaposing of findings demonstrates an advantage of multimethod research. The field research illuminates a process that unfolds over a time period that is difficult to reproduce in the laboratory. The experiments provide comparisons of conditions or scenarios—in this case, alternative approaches to addressing value differences. These findings are knit together in the narrative form, similar to telling a story. But this form conveys received wisdom from research largely conducted in a positivist tradition. It does not encourage argumentation by raising contentious issues for discussion as emphasized by constructivist orientations toward knowledge generation and application. The subjective experiences that are invoked by the latter extend the learning process in the direction of questioning the findings: You have now reviewed the research on culture in negotiation. How do these findings comport with your experience negotiating with people from other societies?
The idea of challenging conventional wisdom, including accepted research findings, is similar to the concept of constructive controversy. This consists of a series of steps involving role reversal and synthesis (see Johnson and Johnson, 2008, 2009; Rapoport, 1960). The process encourages open debate of different perspectives leading to an unfreezing of positions or opinions. In turn, the unfreezing provides opportunities for new solutions to problems or new ways of viewing old issues. It also encourages breaking down dualities such as between positivist and constructivist epistemologies or the distinction between emic and etic approaches to knowledge (see Druckman, 2005a). An exercise used to address negotiating dilemmas illustrates how this is done.
An example of a negotiating dilemma is as follows. Your delegation is faced with a decision dilemma as a deadline approaches: you must decide whether you will take the available terms, reject them in favor of a stalemate, or reconvene at another time. How should you balance your
available alternatives against accepting the terms on the table in making this decision? The relevant narratives are time pressure and alternatives. The relevant issue for the negotiators is how to deal with the uncertainty that comes from incomplete information about alternatives. One group is primed to address this question with research findings summarized in these narratives. This priming alerts them to the importance of perceptions (and misperceptions) of the other negotiator’s alternatives. They are likely to avoid a stalemate by accepting the terms. Another group is asked to construct a response based on their own experience in similar bargaining situations. This priming leads to a focus on the attractiveness of one’s own alternatives. They are likely to reject the terms and accept a stalemate. These different conclusions are then debated with ground rules established for engaging in constructive controversy. Properly enacted, the process should encourage unfreezing and synthesis, leading to new solutions that take into account research findings on both perceptions and lived experience.