When we study civil wars and conflicts we tend to conceptualise them as occurring in stages: starting from domestic political disagreements, to demonstrations and protests escalating into violence and war. How armed conflicts end is often seen as the reverse process, moving from high intensity armed interaction, to a drawing down, war weariness, negotiations and termination, followed by a transition to peace. This contribution argues that this is a faulty understanding of conflict, which obscures rather than illuminates. More attention to the processes of aggravation of conflict and the many leaps and bounds of the use of pressure and coercion is warranted. Similarly, the drawing down of conflict is not necessarily linked to a linear progression of de-escalation. Sometimes armed conflicts end at the pinnacle of violence. This article focuses on the state of the art in the field of escalation and de-escalation in the study of civil war and conflict. Moreover, it will offer an invitation to scholars to focus more on these phenomena by outlining where our present knowledge and insights fall short.
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast two formal models of escalation and de-escalation: the attractor landscape model and the S-shaped reaction function model. Also, the paper aims to enumerate conditions that affect the shape and location of reaction functions and, hence, the stability of less and more escalated states.
Design/methodology/approach – Both models are presented together with geometric proofs of the main assertions of the second model. Overlap and comparative strengths of the models are reviewed. Parts of the social science literature are synthesized in a discussion of the antecedents of stability.
Findings – Though derived from totally different traditions, these models are similar in their basic assumptions and predictions. Each model has value. The attractor landscape model is easier to grasp and contains a concept of resistance to escalation that is not found in the S-shaped reaction function model. The latter model looks at individual parties rather than the dyad as a whole and, thus, offers an explanation for most of the phenomena described by the former model. It also allows identification of many variables that affect the shape and location of reaction functions and, hence, can be viewed as antecedents of escalation and de-escalation.
Research limitations/implications – Seven testable hypotheses are presented in the Conclusions section. Laboratory tasks for testing such hypotheses have yet to be developed and there is only one study employing real-life measures. However, it is clear that once research on these phenomena really begins, new variables will be found that moderate the strength of the effects hypothesized.
Practical implications – The models provide concepts for thinking about how to avoid runaway escalation and promote runaway de-escalation. The variables mentioned in the hypotheses suggest ways to diminish the likelihood of runaway escalation and can also be used for constructing measures of the likelihood of that phenomenon. The theories also imply that when the likelihood of runaway escalation increases, disputants should be doubly careful to avoid initiating escalative behavior.
Originality/value – The article is original in that the S-shaped reaction function model is refined and further developed and the proofs are new. The comparison between the models is also new, as is most of the enumeration of conditions affecting the stability of low and high escalation. The value of the article is to provide concepts and theory for thinking about escalation and de-escalation, and testable hypotheses for studying these phenomena.
In: Hallett , N & Dickens , G L 2017 , ' De-escalation of aggressive behaviour in healthcare settings : concept analysis ' , International Journal of Nursing Studies , vol. 75 , pp. 10-20 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.07.003
BACKGROUND: De-escalation is the recommended first-line response to potential violence and aggression in healthcare settings. Related scholarly activity has increased exponentially since the 1980s, but there is scant research about its efficacy and no guidance on what constitutes the gold standard for practice. OBJECTIVES: To clarify the concept of de-escalation of violence and aggression as described within the healthcare literature. DESIGN: Concept analysis guided by Rodgers' evolutionary approach. DATA SOURCES: Multiple nursing and healthcare databases were searched using relevant terms. REVIEW METHODS: High quality and/or highly cited, or otherwise relevant published empirical or theoretical English language literature was included. Information about surrogate terms, antecedents, attributes, consequences, and the temporal, environmental, disciplinary, and theoretical contexts of use were extracted and synthesised. Information about the specific attributes of de-escalation were subject to thematic analysis. Proposed theories or models of de-escalation were assessed against quality criteria. RESULTS: N =79 studies were included. Mental health settings were the most commonly reported environment in which de-escalation occurs, and nursing the disciplinary group most commonly discussed. Five theories of de-escalation were proposed; while each was adequate in some respects, all lacked empirical support. Based on our analysis the resulting theoretical definition of de-escalation in healthcare is "a collective term for a range of interwoven staff-delivered components comprising communication, self-regulation, assessment, actions, and safety maintenance which aims to extinguish or reduce patient aggression/agitation irrespective of its cause, and improve staff-patient relationships while eliminating or minimising coercion or restriction". CONCLUSIONS: While a number of theoretical models have been proposed, the lack of advances made in developing a robust evidence-base for the efficacy of de-escalation is striking and must, at least in part, be credited to the lack of a clear conceptualisation of the term. This concept analysis provides a framework for researchers to identify the theoretical model that they purport to use, the antecedents that their de-escalation intervention is targeting, its key attributes, and the key negative and positive consequences that are to be avoided or encouraged.
Purpose – The management of violence and aggression is an important aspect of any service in the NHS and has been rightly tackled as a whole organisational approach. De-escalation is one such aspect of the organisation approach relating foremost to the safety of people and as such is a central part of relational security, personal safety and the therapeutic relationship.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper explores the evidence and policies around de-escalation.
Findings – The paper recommends that a randomised-controlled trial be designed, comparing different de-escalation techniques to establish an evidence base for this routine practice.
Research limitations/implications – The paper is limited to discussing de-escalation as an approach and the policy that directs it, and does not consider individual theories on aggression and management. It makes recommendations for policy, research and practice.
Practical implications – There is a lack of high-quality evidence around de-escalation policy and principles which staff may believe is evidence-based practice because training is often mandatory. This obviously impacts upon the patient experience and aspects of safety. The paper is valuable to practitioners working in secure environments, or with offenders that may require management of violence and aggression.
Originality/value – There are many policies and guidelines from the government and from professional bodies that seems to have tailored off since 2005 (Muralidharan and Fenton, 2006; UKCC, 2002). Forensic staff are constrained by such guidance which is further complicated by debates concerning care/coercion and forensic environments, some of which is alluded to here.
Civil conflicts undergo cycles of escalation. Beginning with riots, purges, and other violent acts of aggression, they escalate further and often culminate in outright civil war. This paper studies the effects of foreign aid on the escalation and de-escalation of conflict. We make three major contributions. First, we combine data on civil wars with data on low level conflicts in a new ordinal measure that captures the two-sided nature of conflict. Second, we study the effect of development aid on escalation and de-escalation. This allows us to give a rich description of how conflicts evolve dynamically, and to highlight the different roles played by bilateral aid in these transitions. We stress that low level conflicts matter since they are a violent expression of discontent over the distribution of rents (including aid) or of repression by the state. Third, we employ a new instrumental variable, which we then use to predict bilateral aid of DAC donor countries to 125 recipient countries over the period of 1975 to 2010. This solves the endogeneity concerns which have so far plagued the aid-conflict relationship. Our results show that the effect of foreign aid on the various transition probabilities is heterogeneous and sometimes very large. For example, receiving bilateral aid raises the chances of escalating from peace to small conflict, and from small conflict to armed conflict, but does not affect the transition from peace to civil war. Our main findings are robust to different estimation methods, controls and measures of conflict or foreign aid.
