The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)
Page 152
Needed Future Explorations
The technique of nonviolent action has been disproportionately neglected by academics, policymakers, and exponents of major social and political change. As the practice of this type of struggle grows and scholarly studies of it increase, it is becoming ever clearer that nonviolent action merits increased attention in several fields. Significant efforts are still required to correct the long-standing neglect of this phenomenon.
Studies of nonviolent action and the dynamics of this technique are likely to cross disciplinary boundaries, but certain disciplines have been identified as particularly relevant. Nonviolent action is of major significance for the social sciences, especially for the study of social conflict, social movements, historical sociology, and political sociology. Social psychologists can shed light on the shifts in attitudes, emotions, opinions, and group action during the course of a nonviolent conflict.
Some historians have identified the need to examine understudied developments of the past to correct the historical record that has usually given priority attention to violent action rather than nonviolent struggle. Recent studies that focus on nonviolent struggles are Walter H. Conser Jr., Ronald M. McCarthy, David J. Toscano, and Gene Sharp (Eds.), Resistance, Politics, and the American Struggle for Independence, 1765–1775 (1986); and Nathan Stoltzfus, Resistance of the Heart: Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse Protest in Nazi Germany (1996).
Recent studies of the practice of nonviolent action provide grounds for political and social theorists to reexamine basic concepts such as power, authority, sanctions, political obligation, and the presumed necessity of violence. In addition, it has been suggested that some important problems in political ethics and moral theology related to the use of violence require reexamination in light of the growing practice of nonviolent struggle and the scholarly studies of the phenomenon.
CONCLUSION
Nonviolent action is an important technique for conducting social, economic, and political conflicts without the use of physical violence. It is an old technique that appears to be coming into increasingly significant use in conflicts in various parts of the world. The phenomenon has been attracting scholarly attention and also efforts to refine its strategic application. Expanded knowledge of nonviolent action, and its operation and potential, is likely to have a significant impact on its future consideration in conflicts and the quality of its application. New efforts have been initiated to make the technique more effective in dealing with the hard cases, such as foreign occupations, coups d’état, and ruthless dictatorships. Steps are being taken to disseminate the increasing knowledge of the technique through popularization for the general public. Although knowledge of the technique has expanded, nonviolent struggle merits additional careful attention by scholars in various disciplines and policy analysts and also policymakers dealing with internal and international conflicts.
GLOSSARY
Boycott
Noncooperation—social, economic, or political.
Civil disobedience
A deliberate peaceful violation of particular laws, decrees, regulations, ordinances, orders, and the like.
Civilian-based defense
A national defense policy to deter and defeat aggression, both internal (i.e., coups d’état) and external (i.e., invasions) by preparing the population and institutions for massive nonviolent resistance and defiance.
Mechanisms of change
The processes by which change is produced in successful cases of nonviolent struggle: conversion (rare), accommodation (compromise), nonviolent coercion, and disintegration.
Methods
The specific forms of action within the technique of nonviolent action. They are grouped under three classes: nonviolent protest and persuasion, noncooperation, and nonviolent intervention.
Noncooperation
A class of methods of nonviolent action that involve deliberate restriction; discontinuance; or withholding of social, economic, or political cooperation (or a combination of these) with a disapproved person, activity, policy, institution, or regime.
Nonviolence
A term commonly used with various meanings, including moral and religious beliefs that reject violence, pragmatic nonviolent struggle, and mixtures of these. Therefore, the term often contributes to ambiguity and confusion, and it is not recommended to be used except with very restricted meanings, such as, “They maintained their nonviolence.”
Nonviolent action
A general technique that includes a multitude of specific methods grouped into three main classes—nonviolent protest and persuasion, noncooperation, and nonviolent intervention—all conducted without physical violence.
Nonviolent intervention
A class of methods of nonviolent action that in a conflict situation directly interfere by nonviolent means with the opponents’ activities and operation of their system.
Nonviolent protest and persuasion
A class of methods of nonviolent action that are symbolic acts, expressing opposition opinions or attempting persuasion (as vigils, marches, or picketing).
Pillars of support
The institutions and sections of the society that supply the existing regime with its needed sources of power to maintain and expand its power capacity.
Political jiu-jitsu
A special process that may sometimes operate during a nonviolent struggle to change power relationships. Negative reactions to the opponents’ violent repression against nonviolent resisters are turned to weaken the opponents’ power position and strengthen that of the nonviolent resisters.
Sources of power
Origins of political power that derive from the society, including authority, human resources, skills and knowledge, intangible factors, material resources, and sanctions. Each of these sources is dependent on the acceptance, cooperation, and obedience of the population and the society’s institutions and may be supplied or restricted in varying degrees.
Strategic nonviolent struggle
Nonviolent struggle that is waged according to a strategic plan that has been prepared on the basis of analysis of the conflict situation; the strengths and weaknesses of the contending groups; the nature, capacities, and requirements of nonviolent action; and, especially, strategic principles of that technique.
Violence
Physical violence against other human beings that inflicts injury or death, or threatens to do so, or any act dependent on such infliction or threat. Nonviolent struggle is the waging of determined conflict by strong forms of nonviolent action, especially against determined and resourceful opponents who may respond with repression.
References
Ackerman, P., and Kruegler, C. (1994). Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth Century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Bondurant, J. V. (1958). Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Case, C. M. (1923). Non-violent Coercion: A Study in Methods of Social Pressure. New York: Century.
Conser, W., McCarthy, R. Toscano, T., and Sharp, G. (Eds.). (1986). Resistance, Politics, and the American Struggle for Independence, 1765–1775. Boulder: CO: Lynne Rienner.
Crook, W. H. (1931). The General Strike: A Study of Labor’s Tragic Weapon in Theory and Practice. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
de Ligt, B. (1938). The conquest of violence: An essay on war and revolution. New York: Dutton.
Ebert, T. (1968). Gewaltfrier Aufstand: Alternative Zum Burgerkrieg. Freiburg: Verlag Rombach.
Ehrlich, K., Lindberg, N., and Jacobsen, G. (1937). Kamp Uden Vaaben: Ikke-Vold Som Kampmiddel Mod Krig Og Undertrykkelse. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard, Ejnar Munksgaard.
Hiller, E. T. (1928). The Strike: A Study in Collective Action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laidler, H. (1913). Boycotts and the Labor Struggle: Economic and Legal Aspects. New York: John Lane.
Sharp, G. (1973). The Politic
s of Nonviolent Action. Boston: Porter Sargent Publisher, Boston.
Sharp, G. (2011). Sharp’s Dictionary of Power and Struggle: Language of Civil Resistance in Conflicts. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shridharani, K. (1939). War without Violence: A Study of Gandhi’s Method and Its Accomplishments. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Stoltzfus, N. (1996). Resistance of the Heart: Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse Protest in Nazi Germany. New York: Norton.
PART EIGHT
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
CHAPTER FORTY-FOUR
A FRAMEWORK FOR THINKING ABOUT RESEARCH ON CONFLICT RESOLUTION INITIATIVES
Morton Deutsch
Jennifer Goldman-Wetzler
Christine T. Chung
In this chapter, we propose a framework for conceptualizing research on conflict resolution initiatives (CRIs).1 We first describe different types of research and for what kinds of issues each is most suited. Second, we briefly discuss types of audiences or users of research and what they want. Here, we explore some substantive issues or questions for research that practitioners consider to be important. Next, we consider some of the difficulties in doing research in this area, as well as what kinds of research strategies may be helpful in overcoming these difficulties. Finally, we offer a brief overview of the research in this area.
TYPES OF RESEARCH
There are many kinds of research, all with merit. They have differing purposes and often require varying types of skill. There is a tendency among both researchers and practitioners to derogate research that does not satisfy their specific needs or does not require their particular kind of expertise. Thus, “action research” is frequently considered to be second-class research by basic researchers and “basic research” is often thought of as impractical and wasteful by practitioners. Such conflict, however, is based on misunderstanding rather than on a valid conflict of value, fact, or interest; it is what Deutsch (1973) has termed as a “false conflict.”
We turn to a discussion of several types of research that are relevant to conflict resolution: basic research, developmental research, field research, consumer research, and action research. Some researchers work primarily in one type; others move back and forth among them. We start our list with a discussion of basic research, but we do not assume the natural flow is unidirectional from basic to developmental research, and so forth. The flow is (and should usually be) bidirectional: basic does not mean initial.
Basic Research
There are many unanswered questions basic to knowledge and practice in the field of conflict resolution. To illustrate just a few:
What is the nature of the skills involved in constructive conflict resolution?
What determines when a conflict is ripe for intervention or mediation? What gives rise to intractable conflict, and how can it be changed constructively?
What are the basic dimensions along which different cultures vary in their response to and management of conflict?
How can people learn to control transference and countertransference (to use psychoanalytic terms) so that their emotional vulnerability does not lead to counterproductive behavior during conflict?
What are the important similarities and differences in conflict processes at the interpersonal, intergroup, and international levels?
What are reliable, valid, and reasonably precise ways of measuring the knowledge, attitudes, and skills involved in constructive conflict resolution?
What are the intervening psychological processes that lead to enduring and generalized change in managing conflict, and what are the psychological and social consequences of such change?
What are the most effective ways of dealing with difficult conflict and difficult people?
What type of value system is implicit in the current practice of conflict resolution?
These are only a few of the important questions that must be addressed if we are to have the kind of knowledge that is useful for those interested in making conflict constructive—whether in families, schools, industry, community, or across ethnic and international lines. Many other questions are implicit in the chapters of this book.
Developmental Research
Much developmental research is concerned with helping to shape effective educational and training programs in this area. Such research is concerned with identifying the best ways of aiding people to acquire the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary for constructive conflict resolution by answering such questions as these: How should something be taught (e.g., using what type of teaching methods or pedagogy)? What should be taught (using what curriculum)? For how long? Who should do the teaching? In what circumstances? With what teaching aids? These best ways are likely to vary as a function of the age, educational level, cultural group, and personality of the children and adults involved.
There is a bidirectional link between developmental and basic research. To assess and compare the changes resulting from various educational and training programs, it is necessary to know what changes these programs were seeking to induce and also to develop valid and reliable measuring instruments and procedures for measuring these changes. We are now creating and testing such instruments and procedures. One example is the conceptual framework for comparative case analysis of interactive conflict resolution by d’Estree, Fast, Weiss, and Jakobsen (2001). This framework was devised as a tool that can be used to evaluate and compare the results of a diverse set of conflict resolution initiatives. The framework is described in the final section of this chapter. Another example is the action evaluation research initiative (Rothman, 1997, 2005; Rothman and Friedman, 2005; Rothman and Land, 2004; Rothman and Dosik, 2011; Ross, 2001), a process that has been developed (though still being tested and refined) to help CRIs identify the changes they seek to create and evaluate whether and how those changes have occurred. This project is also described at the end of this chapter. While these examples demonstrate the work currently being done to increase our ability to evaluate CRIs, there is still much work to do in order to empirically better understand what types of initiatives are most effective and most efficient.
Field Research
Much developmental research can be done in experimental classrooms or workshops. However, field research is needed to identify the features of political systems, cultures, and organizations that facilitate or hinder effective CRIs. What type of effects do CRIs have with populations living under conditions of intractable ethnic conflict? What kinds of cultures are most favorable to such initiatives, and what kinds make it unfeasible or ineffective? Which levels in an organizational hierarchy must be knowledgeable and supportive of a CRI for it to be effective? In schools, what types of CRI models should be employed: extracurricular activities, specific courses in CR, an infusion model in all school courses, use of constructive controversy, or all of these? Is cooperative learning a necessary precondition or a complement to a CRI? What criteria should be employed in selecting CR practitioners? And so forth.
Most of these questions have to be asked and answered in terms of the specific characteristics of an individual setting, taking into account the resources, organization, personnel, population, and social environment. While this type of research can be difficult and costly (in both time and money) to conduct, examples can be found in the literature. Such research has been conducted on CRIs that have taken place over the past few decades between parties in ethnic conflict, including those between Israelis and Palestinians (see Abu-Nimer, 1999, 2004, 2012; Kelman, 1995, 1998, 2011; Maoz, 2004, 2005, 2011) and Greek and Turkish Cypriots (Angelica, 2005; Rothman, 1999), among others, both internationally and domestically.
Consumer Research
It would be valuable to have periodic surveys of where CRIs are taking place, who is participating, what kinds of qualifications the practitioners have, and so on. Also, it would be good to know how the CRIs are evaluated by recipients both immediately after the initiatives and one year later. In addition to studying those who have participate
d in CRIs, it would be useful to assess what the market is for CRIs among those who have not yet engaged in these programs.
Most of the research on CRIs in organizations has been essentially studies of “consumer satisfaction.” The research usually involved studying the effects of CRIs in a particular classroom, workshop, or institution. Results are quite consistent in indicating a considerable degree of approval among those exposed to CRIs, whether in the role of practitioner or participant. This is indeed encouraging, but awareness of the Hawthorne effect suggests both caution in our conclusions and the need to go considerably beyond consumer satisfaction research. (The Hawthorne effect refers to the phenomenon of people changing their behavior, often for the better, when participating in a program and how this may result simply from the increased attention they receive in the context of being in the program and not due to the benefits of the program itself.)
Action Research
Action research is a term originally employed by Kurt Lewin (1946) to refer to research linked to social action. To be successful, it requires active collaboration between the action personnel (the practitioners and participants) and the research personnel. What the action personnel do can be guided by feedback from the research concerning the effectiveness of their actions. To study the processes involved in successfully producing a change (or failing to do so) in a well-controlled and systematic manner, researchers depend on the cooperation of action personnel. Most studies on CRIs conducted in the field are a form of action research.