======================================================================
= Conflict_resolution =
======================================================================
Introduction
======================================================================
Conflict resolution is conceptualized as the methods and processes
involved in facilitating the peaceful ending of conflict and
retribution. Committed group members attempt to resolve group
conflicts by actively communicating information about their
conflicting motives or ideologies to the rest of group (e.g.,
intentions; reasons for holding certain beliefs) and by engaging in
collective negotiation. Dimensions of resolution typically parallel
the dimensions of conflict in the way the conflict is processed.
Cognitive resolution is the way disputants understand and view the
conflict, with beliefs, perspectives, understandings and attitudes.
Emotional resolution is in the way disputants feel about a conflict,
the emotional energy. Behavioral resolution is reflective of how the
disputants act, their behavior. Ultimately a wide range of methods and
procedures for addressing conflict exist, including negotiation,
mediation, mediation-arbitration, diplomacy, and creative
peacebuilding.
Characteristics
======================================================================
Wallensteen defines conflict resolution (for peace and conflict
studies) as:
The "conflicting parties" concerned in this definition are formally or
informally organized groups engaged in intrastate or interstate
conflict.
'Basic incompatibility' refers to a severe disagreement between at
least two sides where their demands cannot be met by the same
resources at the same time.
Territoriality
================
According to conflict database Uppsala Conflict Data Program's
definition, war may occur between parties who contest an
incompatibility. The nature of an incompatibility can be territorial
or governmental, but a warring party must be a "government of a state
or any opposition organization or alliance of organizations that uses
armed force to promote its position in the incompatibility in an
intrastate or an interstate armed conflict". Wars can conclude with a
peace agreement, which is a "formal agreement... which addresses the
disputed incompatibility, either by settling all or part of it, or by
clearly outlining a process for how [...] to regulate the
incompatibility."
A ceasefire is another form of agreement made by warring parties;
unlike a peace agreement, it only "regulates the conflict behaviour of
warring parties", and does not resolve the issue that brought the
parties to war in the first place.
Peacekeeping measures may be deployed to avoid violence in solving
such incompatibilities. Beginning in the last century, political
theorists have been developing the theory of a global peace system
that relies upon broad social and political measures to avoid war in
the interest of achieving world peace. The Blue Peace approach
developed by Strategic Foresight Group facilitates cooperation between
countries over shared water resources, thus reducing the risk of war
and enabling sustainable development.
The escalating costs of conflict have increased use of third parties
who may serve as a conflict specialists to resolve conflicts. In fact,
relief and development organizations have added peace-building
specialists to their teams. Many major international non-governmental
organizations have seen a growing need to hire practitioners trained
in conflict analysis and resolution. Furthermore, this expansion has
resulted in the need for conflict resolution practitioners to work in
a variety of settings such as in businesses, court systems, government
agencies, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions
throughout the world. Democracy has a positive influence on conflict
resolution.
Modes
=======
Ruble and Thomas transposed the managerial grid model in terms of
conflict resolution. They adapted the classification scheme to
dimensions identified in conflict research that represent a range of
behaviors beyond the dichotomy between cooperation and competition.
The X-axis evaluates cooperativity, the extent by which mutual goals
are achieved. The Y-axis evaluates assertiveness, how parties insist
on carrying their own objectives.
Thomas and Kilmann extended that grid with a rating system for five
modes of behavior. When parties are assertive but their objectives
lack compatibility, they become competitive; when parties are
assertive toward compatible objectives, they can be collaborating;
when no party prioritizes objectives that are mutually exclusive, they
can display avoidance; parties can be accommodating when
assertiveness is low but cooperativity is high; when there is no real
bias toward assertiveness and cooperativity, compromising can obtain.
However, not every style leads to an acceptable result in every
situation. For example, a collaboration does not work if the goals of
the two conflict parties are immutable and mutually exclusive. The
different styles have different advantages and disadvantages.
Depending on the situation, different conflict styles can be
considered desirable to achieve the best results.
Dual concern
==============
The dual concern model of conflict resolution is a conceptual
perspective that assumes individuals' preferred method of dealing with
conflict is based on two underlying themes or dimensions: concern for
self (assertiveness) and concern for others (empathy). According to
the model, group members balance their concern for satisfying personal
needs and interests with their concern for satisfying the needs and
interests of others in different ways. The intersection of these two
dimensions ultimately leads individuals towards exhibiting different
styles of conflict resolution. The dual model identifies five group
conflict resolution styles or strategies that individuals may use
depending on their dispositions toward pro-self or pro-social goals.
Avoidance
: Characterized by joking, changing or avoiding the topic, or even
denying that a problem exists, the conflict avoidance style is used
when an individual has withdrawn in dealing with the other party, when
one is uncomfortable with conflict, or due to cultural contexts.
During conflict, these avoiders adopt a "wait and see" attitude, often
allowing conflict to phase out on its own without any personal
involvement. By neglecting to address high-conflict situations,
avoiders risk allowing problems to fester or spin out of control.
Accommodating
: In contrast, yielding, "accommodating", smoothing or suppression
conflict styles are characterized by a high level of concern for
others and a low level of concern for oneself. This passive pro-social
approach emerges when individuals derive personal satisfaction from
meeting the needs of others and have a general concern for maintaining
stable, positive social relationships. When faced with conflict,
individuals with an accommodating conflict style tend to harmonize
into others' demands out of respect for the social relationship. With
this sense of yielding to the conflict, individuals fall back to
others' input instead of finding solutions with their own intellectual
resolution.
Competitive
: The competitive, "fighting" or forcing conflict style maximizes
individual assertiveness (i.e., concern for self) and minimizes
empathy (i.e., concern for others). Groups consisting of competitive
members generally enjoy seeking domination over others, and typically
see conflict as a "win or lose" predicament. Fighters tend to force
others to accept their personal views by employing competitive power
tactics (arguments, insults, accusations or even violence) that foster
intimidation.
Conciliation
: The conciliation, "compromising", bargaining or negotiation conflict
style is typical of individuals who possess an intermediate level of
concern for both personal and others' outcomes. Compromisers value
fairness and, in doing so, anticipate mutual give-and-take
interactions. By accepting some demands put forth by others,
compromisers believe this agreeableness will encourage others to meet
them halfway, thus promoting conflict resolution. This conflict style
can be considered an extension of both "yielding" and "cooperative"
strategies.
Cooperation
: Characterized by an active concern for both pro-social and pro-self
behavior, the cooperation, integration, confrontation or
problem-solving conflict style is typically used when an individual
has elevated interests in their own outcomes as well as in the
outcomes of others. During conflict, cooperators collaborate with
others in an effort to find an amicable solution that satisfies all
parties involved in the conflict. Individuals using this type of
conflict style tend to be both highly assertive and highly empathetic.
By seeing conflict as a creative opportunity, collaborators willingly
invest time and resources into finding a "win-win" solution. According
to the literature on conflict resolution, a cooperative conflict
resolution style is recommended above all others. This resolution may
be achieved by lowering the aggressor's guard while raising the ego.
Regret analysis
=================
The conflict resolution curve derived from an analytical model that
offers a peaceful solution by motivating conflicting entities. Forced
resolution of conflict might invoke another conflict in the future.
Conflict resolution curve (CRC) separates conflict styles into two
separate domains: domain of competing entities and domain of
accommodating entities. There is a sort of agreement between targets
and aggressors on this curve. Their judgements of badness compared to
goodness of each other are analogous on CRC. So, arrival of
conflicting entities to some negotiable points on CRC is important
before peace building. CRC does not exist (i.e., singular) in reality
if the aggression of the aggressor is certain. Under such
circumstances it might lead to apocalypse with mutual destruction.
The curve explains why nonviolent struggles ultimately toppled
repressive regimes and sometimes forced leaders to change the nature
of governance. Also, this methodology has been applied to capture
conflict styles on the Korean Peninsula and dynamics of negotiation
processes.
Four-sides
============
In the third step, the actual conflict of interest is identified and
mutual understanding for the interest of the other party is developed.
This requires understanding and respecting the underlying values and
motivations. According to the four-sides model by Friedemann Schulz
von Thun, there are two levels of information in every statement: the
content level and the emotional or relationship level. Both levels
contain interests, the differences of which to the other conflict
party should be balanced as much as possible. Then a win-win solution
for the conflict can be developed together.
Circle of Conflict
====================
Christopher W. Moore's "Circle of conflict" model, first published in
1986, emphasizes five sources of conflict:
* data: information, interpretation, incompleteness;
* relationship: personal dynamics, miscommunication, misbehaviors;
* value: incompatible beliefs, principles, or priorities;
* structure: organization failures, power imbalances, resource
constraints;
* interests: needs, desires, incentives, procedures.
Conflicts may have multiple sources. Identifying the source of the
conflict ought to facilitate its resolution.
Relational dialectics
=======================
The main concepts of relational dialectics are:
* Contradictions - The concept is that the contrary has the
characteristics of its opposite. People can seek to be in a
relationship but still need their space.
* Totality - The totality comes when the opposites unite. Thus, the
relationship is balanced with contradictions and only then it reaches
totality
* Process - Comprehended through various social processes. These
processes simultaneously continue within a relationship in a recurring
manner.
* Praxis - The relationship progresses with experience and both people
interact and communicate effectively to meet their needs. Praxis is a
concept of practicability in making decisions in a relationship
despite opposing wants and needs
Strategy of conflict
======================
Thomas Schelling applied game theory to situations where the outcome
is not zero-sum.
* Conflict is a contest. Rational behavior, in this contest, is a
matter of judgment and perception.
* Strategy makes predictions using "rational behavior - behavior
motivated by a serious calculation of advantages, a calculation that
in turn is based on an explicit and internally consistent value
system".
* Cooperation is always temporary, interests will change.
Mechanisms
============
One theory discussed within the field of peace and conflict studies is
conflict resolution mechanisms: independent procedures in which the
conflicting parties can have confidence. They can be formal or
informal arrangements with the intention of resolving the conflict. In
'Understanding Conflict Resolution' Wallensteen draws from the works
of Lewis A. Coser, Johan Galtung and Thomas Schelling, and presents
seven distinct theoretical mechanisms for conflict resolutions:
# A 'shift in priorities' for one of the conflicting parties. While it
is rare that a party completely changes its basic positions, it can
display a shift in to what it gives highest priority. In such an
instance new possibilities for conflict resolutions may arise.
# The contested resource is 'divided.' In essence, this means both
conflicting parties display some extent of shift in priorities which
then opens up for some form of "meeting the other side halfway"
agreement.
# 'Horse-trading' between the conflicting parties. This means that one
side gets all of its demands met on one issue, while the other side
gets all of its demands met on another issue.
# The parties decide to 'share control', and rule together over the
contested resource. It could be permanent, or a temporary arrangement
for a transition period that, when over, has led to a transcendence of
the conflict.
# The parties agree to 'leave control to someone else'. In this
mechanism the primary parties agree, or accept, that a third party
takes control over the contested resource.
# The parties resort to 'conflict resolution mechanisms', notably
arbitration or other legal procedures. This means finding a procedure
for resolving the conflict through some of the previously mentioned
five ways, but with the added quality that it is done through a
process outside of the parties' immediate control.
# Some issues can be 'left for later'. The argument for this is that
political conditions and popular attitudes can change, and some issues
can gain from being delayed, as their significance may pale with time.
Nicholson notes that a conflict is resolved when the inconsistency
between wishes and actions of parties is resolved. Negotiation is an
important part of conflict resolution, and any design of a process
which tries to incorporate positive conflict from the start needs to
be cautious not to let it degenerate into the negative types of
conflict. Actual conflict resolutions range from discussions between
the parties involved, such as in mediations or collective bargaining,
to violent confrontations such as in interstate wars or civil wars.
"Between" these are the variants of lawful or courtly clarification,
which by no means have to take the form of "mud fights", but can be
handled as "professional delegation" of the problem to lawyers, in
order to relieve oneself from the time-consuming and strenuous
clarification procedure. Many conflicts can be resolved without
escalation by the parties involved. If the conflict parties do not
come to a solution themselves, accompanying measures can be taken by
third parties.
The goal of conflict resolution is an effective and lasting solution
to the conflict. This is achieved through the satisfaction of all
parties involved, which ideally results in constructively working
together on the problem (collaboration, cooperation).
In addition, a regulation of the conflict can occur through a
decision by an authority, e.g., by an arbitrator, a court, a parent,
or a supervisor. Unprocessed conflicts generate frustration and
aggression, which can result in cost, damage, and scapegoats.
De-escalation
===============
The first step in a dispute is usually de-escalation (e.g., cessation
of hostilities, reduction of open aggression). A reciprocal tit for
tat strategy ("an eye for an eye") can build trust between groups in
the case of mutually collaborative or mutually competitive conflict
styles. To facilitate a change of positions in a conflict party,
face-saving bridges should be built, e.g., by discussing what has
already changed since the beginning of conflict resolution or by
introducing common fair behavioral norms.
Escalating behavior should not be reacted to immediately, to give the
person or persons time to regain emotional self-control, making them
more accessible to arguments and avoiding mutual escalation. Anger can
be reduced by an apology, humor, a recess, common behavioral norms,
greater distance (switch to online discussion), or by background
information that the escalation of the other side was not intended.
Afterwards, the problematic behavior can be addressed in a calm
manner, followed by an acknowledgment of those substantive points of
the escalating person that are correct. Alternatively, a feedback
sandwich can be used.
In the case of avoiding behavior, more questions should be asked and
more attention should be paid to the participation of these persons in
the conflict resolution and to their immaterial interests (such as
recognition and autonomy). In the conversation, a reminder can be
given for motivation that the processing of the conflict serves the
satisfaction of the interests of both sides.
Regulated communication
=========================
The second step is the initiation of communication between the
conflicting parties, often through mediation. Accompanying conditions
are described in Roger Fisher and William Ury's seminal 1981 book
'Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In'.
Alternatively, the moderation cycle according to Josef W. Seifert can
be followed. Furthermore, I-messages can be alternated with active
listening according to Thomas Gordon or nonviolent communication
according to Marshall B. Rosenberg can be used to depersonalize a
discussion.
Glasl's management strategies
===============================
Glasl, on the other hand, assigns six strategies for conflict
management to the nine escalation stages of Friedrich Glasl's model of
conflict escalation.
* Level 1-3 (hardening, polarization & debate, actions instead of
words): Moderation
* Level 3-5 (actions instead of words, concern about image &
coalitions, loss of face): Process support
* Level 4-6 (concern about image & coalitions, loss of face,
threatening strategies): socio-therapeutic process support
* Level 5-7 (loss of face, threatening strategies, limited destructive
strikes): conciliation/mediation
* Level 6-8 (threatening strategies, limited destructive strikes,
fragmentation): arbitration/judicial proceedings
* Level 7-9 (limited destructive strikes, fragmentation, together into
the abyss): power intervention
Interest-based relational approach (IBR)
==========================================
Developed by Fisher and Ury in 'Getting to Yes', the IBR approach
originated from work at the Harvard Negotiation Project. It has four
core tactics:
* separate the people from the problem;
* focus on interests, not positions;
* find options for mutual gain;
* insist on using objective criteria.
The Harvard Negotiation Project was one of the founding entities of
the Program on Negotiation (PON) at Harvard Law School in 1983.
Forcing
=========
When one of the conflict's parts firmly pursues his or her own
concerns despite the resistance of the other(s). This may involve
pushing one viewpoint at the expense of another or maintaining firm
resistance to the counterpart's actions; it is also commonly known as
"competing".
Forcing may be appropriate when all other, less forceful methods, do
not work or are ineffective; when someone needs to stand up for
his/her own rights (or the represented group/organization's rights),
resist aggression and pressure. It may be also considered a suitable
option when a quick resolution is required and using force is
justified (e.g. in a life-threatening situation, to stop an
aggression), and as a very last resort to resolve a long-lasting
conflict.
However, forcing may also negatively affect the relationship with the
opponent in the long run; may intensified the conflict if the opponent
decides to react in the same way (even if it was not the original
intention); it does not allow to take advantage in a productive way of
the other side's position and, last but not least, taking this
approach may require a lot of energy and be exhausting to some
individuals.
Win-win / collaborating
=========================
Collaboration involves an attempt to work with the other part involved
in the conflict to find a win-win solution to the problem in hand, or
at least to find a solution that most satisfies the concerns of both
parties. The win-win approach sees conflict resolution as an
opportunity to come to a mutually beneficial result; and it includes
identifying the underlying concerns of the opponents and finding an
alternative which meets each party's concerns. From that point of
view, it is the most desirable outcome when trying to solve a problem
for all partners.
Collaborating may be the best solution when consensus and commitment
of other parties is important; when the conflict occurs in a
collaborative, trustworthy environment and when it is required to
address the interests of multiple stakeholders. But more specially, it
is the most desirable outcome when a long-term relationship is
important so that people can continue to collaborate in a productive
way; collaborating is in few words, sharing responsibilities and
mutual commitment. For parties involved, the outcome of the conflict
resolution is less stressful; however, the process of finding and
establishing a win-win solution may be longer and should be very
involving.
It may require more effort and more time than some other methods; for
the same reason, collaborating may not be practical when timing is
crucial and a quick solution or fast response is required.
Compromising
==============
Different from the win-win solution, in this outcome the conflict
parties find a mutually acceptable solution which partially satisfies
both parties. This can occur as both parties converse with one another
and seek to understand the other's point of view. Compromising may be
an optimal solution when the goals are moderately important and not
worth the use of more assertive or more involving approaches. It may
be useful when reaching temporary settlement on complex issues and as
a first step when the involved parties do not know each other well or
have not yet developed a high level of mutual trust. Compromising may
be a faster way to solve things when time is a factor. The level of
tensions can be lower as well, but the result of the conflict may be
also less satisfactory.
If this method is not well managed, and the factor time becomes the
most important one, the situation may result in both parties being not
satisfied with the outcome (i.e. a lose-lose situation). Moreover, it
does not contribute to building trust in the long run and it may
require a closer monitoring of the kind of partially satisfactory
compromises acquired.
Withdrawing
=============
This technique consists on not addressing the conflict, postpone it or
simply withdrawing; for that reason, it is also known as Avoiding.
This outcome is suitable when the issue is trivial and not worth the
effort or when more important issues are pressing, and one or both the
parties do not have time to deal with it. Withdrawing may be also a
strategic response when it is not the right time or place to confront
the issue, when more time is needed to think and collect information
before acting or when not responding may bring still some winnings for
at least some of the involves parties. Moreover, withdrawing may be
also employed when someone know that the other party is totally
engaged with hostility and does not want (can not) to invest further
unreasonable efforts.
Withdrawing may give the possibility to see things from a different
perspective while gaining time and collecting further information, and
specially is a low stress approach particularly when the conflict is a
short time one. However, not acting may be interpreted as an agreement
and therefore it may lead to weakening or losing a previously gained
position with one or more parties involved. Furthermore, when using
withdrawing as a strategy more time, skills and experiences together
with other actions may need to be implemented.
Smoothing
===========
Smoothing is accommodating the concerns of others first of all, rather
than one's own concerns. This kind of strategy may be applied when the
issue of the conflict is much more important for the counterparts
whereas for the other is not particularly relevant. It may be also
applied when someone accepts that he/she is wrong and furthermore
there are no other possible options than continuing an unworthy
competing-pushing situation. Just as withdrawing, smoothing may be an
option to find at least a temporal solution or obtain more time and
information, however, it is not an option when priority interests are
at stake.
There is a high risk of being abused when choosing the smoothing
option. Therefore, it is important to keep the right balance and to
not give up one own interests and necessities. Otherwise, confidence
in one's ability, mainly with an aggressive opponent, may be seriously
damaged, together with credibility by the other parties involved.
Needed to say, in these cases a transition to a Win-Win solution in
the future becomes particularly more difficult when someone.
Between organizations
======================================================================
Relationships between organizations, such as strategic alliances,
buyer-supplier partnerships, organizational networks, or joint
ventures are prone to conflict. Conflict resolution in
inter-organizational relationships has attracted the attention of
business and management scholars. They have related the forms of
conflict (e.g., integrity-based vs. competence-based conflict) to the
mode of conflict resolution and the negotiation and repair approaches
used by organizations. They have also observed the role of important
moderating factors such as the type of contractual arrangement, the
level of trust between organizations, or the type of power asymmetry.
Conflict management
=====================
Conflict management refers to the long-term management of intractable
conflicts. It is the label for the variety of ways by which people
handle grievances--standing up for what they consider to be right and
against what they consider to be wrong. Those ways include such
diverse phenomena as gossip, ridicule, lynching, terrorism, warfare,
feuding, genocide, law, mediation, and avoidance. Which forms of
conflict management will be used in any given situation can be
somewhat predicted and explained by the social structure--or social
geometry--of the case.
Conflict management is often considered to be distinct from conflict
resolution.
In order for actual conflict to occur, there should be an expression
of exclusive patterns which explain why and how the conflict was
expressed the way it was. Conflict is often connected to a previous
issue. Resolution refers to resolving a dispute to the approval of one
or both parties, whereas management is concerned with an ongoing
process that may never have a resolution. Neither is considered the
same as conflict transformation, which seeks to reframe the positions
of the conflict parties.
Counseling
============
When personal conflict leads to frustration and loss of efficiency,
counseling may prove helpful. Although few organizations can afford to
have professional counselors on staff, given some training, managers
may be able to perform this function. Nondirective counseling, or
"listening with understanding", is little more than being a good
listener--something often considered to be important in a manager.
Sometimes simply being able to express one's feelings to a concerned
and understanding listener is enough to relieve frustration and make
it possible for an individual to advance to a problem-solving frame of
mind. The nondirective approach is one effective way for managers to
deal with frustrated subordinates and coworkers.
There are other, more direct and more diagnostic, methods that could
be used in appropriate circumstances. However, the great strength of
the nondirective approach lies in its simplicity, its effectiveness,
and that it deliberately avoids the manager-counselor's diagnosing and
interpreting emotional problems, which would call for special
psychological training. Listening to staff with sympathy and
understanding is unlikely to escalate the problem, and is a widely
used approach for helping people cope with problems that interfere
with their effectiveness in the workplace.
Cultural issues
======================================================================
Conflict resolution as both a professional practice and academic field
is highly sensitive to cultural practices. In Western cultural
contexts, such as Canada and the United States, successful conflict
resolution usually involves fostering communication among disputants,
problem solving, and drafting agreements that meet underlying needs.
In these situations, conflict resolvers often talk about finding a
mutually satisfying ("win-win") solution for everyone involved.
In many non-Western cultural contexts, such as Afghanistan, Vietnam,
and China, it is also important to find "win-win" solutions; however,
the routes taken to find them may be very different. In these
contexts, direct communication between disputants that explicitly
addresses the issues at stake in the conflict can be perceived as very
rude, making the conflict worse and delaying resolution. It can make
sense to involve religious, tribal, or community leaders; communicate
difficult truths through a third party; or make suggestions through
stories. Intercultural conflicts are often the most difficult to
resolve because the expectations of the disputants can be very
different, and there is much occasion for misunderstanding.
In animals
======================================================================
Conflict resolution has also been studied in non-humans, including
dogs, cats, monkeys, snakes, elephants, and primates. Aggression is
more common among relatives and within a group than between groups.
Instead of creating distance between the individuals, primates tend to
be more intimate in the period after an aggressive incident. These
intimacies consist of grooming and various forms of body contact.
Stress responses, including increased heart rates, usually decrease
after these reconciliatory signals. Different types of primates, as
well as many other species who live in groups, display different types
of conciliatory behavior. Resolving conflicts that threaten the
interaction between individuals in a group is necessary for survival,
giving it a strong evolutionary value. A further focus of this is
among species that have stable social units, individual relationships,
and the potential for intragroup aggression that may disrupt
beneficial relationships. The role of these reunions in negotiating
relationships is examined along with the susceptibility of these
relationships to partner value asymmetries and biological market
effects. These findings contradict previous existing theories about
the general function of aggression, i.e. creating space between
individuals (first proposed by Konrad Lorenz), which seems to be more
the case in conflicts between groups than it is within groups.
In addition to research in primates, biologists are beginning to
explore reconciliation in other animals. Until recently, the
literature dealing with reconciliation in non-primates has consisted
of anecdotal observations and very little quantitative data. Although
peaceful post-conflict behavior had been documented going back to the
1960s, it was not until 1993 that Rowell made the first explicit
mention of reconciliation in feral sheep. Reconciliation has since
been documented in spotted hyenas, lions, bottlenose dolphins, dwarf
mongoose, domestic goats, domestic dogs, and, recently, in red-necked
wallabies.
See also
======================================================================
* Appeasement
* Civil resistance
* Conflict continuum
* Conflict early warning
* Conflict management
* Conflict style inventory
* Cost of conflict
* Deterrence
* Dialectic
* Dialogue
* Fair fighting
* Family therapy
* Gunnysacking
* Interpersonal communication
* Nonviolent Communication
* Perceptual defense
Organizations
===============
* Center for the Study of Genocide, Conflict Resolution, and Human
Rights
* Conscience: Taxes for Peace not War is a London organisation that
promotes peacebuilding as an alternative to military security
* Crisis Management Initiative (CMI)
* Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research
* Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center
* Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution
* Search for Common Ground is one of the world's largest
non-government organisations dedicated to conflict resolution
* Seeds of Peace develops and empowers young leaders from regions of
conflict to work towards peace through coexistence
* United Network of Young Peacebuilders (UNOY) is a global
non-governmental organization and youth network dedicated to the role
of youth in peacebuilding and conflict resolution
* University for Peace is a United Nations mandated organization and
graduate school dedicated to conflict resolution and peace studies
* Uppsala Conflict Data Program is an academic data collection project
that provides descriptions of political violence and conflict
resolution
Works cited
======================================================================
* Bannon, I. & Paul Collier (Eds.). (2003). 'Natural resources and
violent conflict: Options and actions.' WThe World Bank.
* Ury, F. & Rodger Fisher. (1981). 'Getting to yes: Negotiating
agreement without giving in'. Penguin.
* Wilmot, W. & Jouyce Hocker. (2007). 'Interpersonal conflict.'
McGraw-Hill.
* Bercovitch, Jacob and Jackson, Richard. 2009.
[
http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=106467 'Conflict
Resolution in the Twenty-first Century: Principles, Methods, and
Approaches'.] University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
* de Waal, Frans B. M. and Angeline van Roosmalen. 1979.
Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. 'Behavioral Ecology
and Sociobiology' 5: 55-66.
* de Waal, Frans B. M. 1989. Peacemaking Among Primates. 'Harvard
University Press'.
*
*
* de Waal, Frans B. M. and Filippo Aureli. 1996. 'Consolation,
reconciliation, and a possible cognitive difference between macaques
and chimpanzees. Reaching into thought: The minds of the great apes'
(Eds. Anne E. Russon, Kim A. Bard, Sue Taylor Parker), Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY: 80-110.
*
*
* Aureli, Filippo and Frans B. M. de Waal, eds. 2000. 'Natural
Conflict Resolution'. University of California Press.
* de Waal, Frans B. M. 2000. Primates--A natural heritage of conflict
resolution. 'Science' 289: 586-590.
* Hicks, Donna. 2011.
[
http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/Dignity-the-essential-role-it-plays-in-resolving-conflict-Donna-Hicks.php
'Dignity: The Essential Role It Plays in Resolving Conflict.'] Yale
University Press
*
*
*
*
* Bar-Siman-Tov, Yaacov (Ed.) (2004). 'From Conflict Resolution to
Reconciliation.' Oxford University Press
Further readings
======================================================================
*
* Staniland, Paul (2021). 'Ordering Violence: Explaining Armed
Group-state Relations from Conflict to Cooperation'. Cornell
University Press. .
License
=========
All content on Gopherpedia comes from Wikipedia, and is licensed under CC-BY-SA
License URL:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Original Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_resolution
