Search results

This study employs interaction analysis to explore micro-level conflict processes and macro-level phasic structures of conflict management in two jury deliberations. Results indicate that the deliberations have fundamentally different conflict management processes. Differences in the tasks posed by the two deliberations and in the norms enacted in them, as well as microinteractional patterns, are posited to account for the divergent interaction processes.

This paper pleads for hermeneutic processes to be taken into account in the discussion of role conflict. In order to avoid reification of mechanistic assumptions underlying cross-pressure models of social action, it is suggested that theory as well as research should take into consideration that norms and behaviour are mediated by interpretative processes. These constitute a level of `social understanding' which can be operationalized in role-conflict terms as three different types of conflict. Reciprocity of perspectives and evaluation, as the main dimensions of interpretation processes, are shown to be the main features of conflicts in role interaction.

This study explores group participants' bias toward reducing conflict in consensus ver sus majority decision styles. Recent research suggests that diminished disagreement seriously jeopardizes the quality of groups' final decisions. This study tests for conflict expectation differences between consensus and majority processes. A semantic differ ential questionnaire examines expectation ratings for consensus versus majority pro cesses. Results suggest that the participants expect climate in consensus process to be more agreeable and friendly than in majority process. Among subjects, MSWs showed greater confidence in consensus than in majority, but MBAs did not. In practice, both professions frequently engage in consensus group decision making. Implications of the findings suggest that consensus process might be governed by an "agreement norm" that has the potential to restrict disagreements needed to reach sound decisions.

Three sets of assumptions about elite and constituent relations prevail in approaches to conflict termination. The `Interest-based', `Identity-based', and `Timing' approaches offer important insights into conflict termination processes but differ in how they conceive of the locus and direction of domestic political power during conflict termination. Despite such important differences, these contending approaches have not been tested comparatively. In this paper, I introduce the Dynamic Group approach and test it against these current approaches. The Dynamic Group approach differs from these others in that it is grounded in the two-level perspective on negotiation. The Dynamic Group approach treats the domestic locus and direction of power as variable (1) across cases and (2) across conflict stages within a given case. Accommodating such variation introduces the concept of domestic ratification as an important determinant of the success or failure of conflict settlement attempts. The Dynamic Group approach offers greater generalizability than the current approaches. Specifically, I demonstrate (1) that whereas these three contending approaches apply only to cases in which elite's and constituent's interests are consonant, the Dynamic Group approach covers cases of elite and constituent interest dissonance, and (2) that whereas the three approaches apply to no more than two stages of conflict termination, the Dynamic Group approach comprehends differential effects of four distinct stages. I demonstrate that the Dynamic Group approach best accounts for conflict-stage effects in the 1973 and 1985 attempts to settle the Northern Ireland conflict.

Of the dozens of conflicts in the Third World which have occurred in the post-war era, few have been of greater duration and bloodshed or have attracted the attention of as many outside actors, including the superpowers, as Angola. It has only been since the mid-1980s that the conflict began moving towards eventual settlement, with the prospects for peace often seeming to depend largely on the attitudes of Cuba, South Africa, the Soviet Union, and the United States. Further affecting the overall environment was the state of East–West relations, the internal situation in Angola, and South Africa's occupation of Namibia. A short historical background will serve as prelude to an extensive examination of the dynamics which fuelled the war in Angola for such a long period of time.

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a theory of measurement. When applied in decision‐making, it assists one to describe the general decision operation by decomposing a complex problem into a multi‐level hierarchic structure of objectives, criteria, subcriteria and alternatives. The AHP provides a fundamental scale of absolute magnitudes to represent judgments in the form of paired comparisons. A ratio scale of relative magnitudes expressed in priority units is then derived from each set of comparisons. An overall ratio scale of priorities is synthesized to obtain ranking of the alternatives. What is illustrated here is an application of the AHP to a retributive ongoing conflict in which the parties maximize both their benefits from and costs to the opponent. Using the AHP, benefit and cost hierarchies are constructed for the parties, four for each, involving actual and perceived benefits and costs of concessions. Similarly, a mediator must construct his own hierarchies to evaluate and propose changes in judgments and new concessions to improve an impasse in negotiation.

First published in 1999, this volume examines ways in which adversarial relationships can be transformed and reconciled in diverse settings. It is intended to enhance our understanding of the nature of structural transformation as well as the processes for changing psychological relations between adversaries. Conflict resolution is ingrained in the analysis of inter-group dynamics as well as the process and outcome of negotiating different values and incompatible interests. The Contributors to the volume include Christopher Mitchell, Tarja Veayrynen, Ronald J. Fisher, Louis Kriesberg, Malvern Lumsden, E. Franklin Dukes and Richard E. Rubenstein.

Private peace entrepreneurs (ppes) are private citizens with no official authority who initiate diplomatic correspondence with official representatives from the opposing side during a conflict in order to promote conflict resolution. This article outlines a theoretical framework for analyzing this phenomenon, drawing on a wide range of case studies. It defines the phenomenon and analyzes the power resources and factors that help theppeinfluence official processes. The article shows that althoughppes lack official authority and legal status, they have alternative, unofficial resources that help them influence the diplomatic sphere, and some have even played critical roles in conflict resolution efforts. The analysis distinguishes among different means of influence – through official decision makers, public opinion, the rival side, or a third side. The article offers insights about the individual private citizen as an actor in peace diplomacy and describes important historical figures who were excluded from history textbooks.

'Conflict Resolution: Dynamics, Process, and Structure' edited by Ho-Won Jeong is reviewed.