Protracted, intractable conflicts mark a new research frontier in the field of conflict studies. These intense, inescapable conflicts over issues such as critical resources, identity, meaning, justice, and power are complex, traumatic, and often resist even the most serious attempts at resolution. But why are they intractable? What characteristics distinguish intractable conflicts from more tractable, resolvable conflicts? Scholars have begun to identify a diverse array of interrelated factors. This article is the first in a three-part series that presents a metaframework for protracted, intractable conflict: a broad conceptual framework for theory building and intervention. This article begins the series by outlining the unique characteristics and challenges posed by conflict in this domain.Protracted, intractable conflict is a domain of human interaction that may very well determine our capacity to survive as a species. The news of the day (every day) tells the stories of countless, ongoing perso nal, group, and international struggles that appear to be inherently irreconcilable and potentially catastrophic. The intransigence, complexity, and trauma associated with these phenomena present substantial challenges to the models and approaches used by contemporary conflict scholars and practitioners.Here are three contemporary examples.The first conflict concerns a young couple, both Colombian immigrants in their early twenties, who came to the United States seeking work. They met and were married in the States, had a child, and secured modest jobs: he as an assistant dental tech-
Intractable conflicts are demoralizing. Beyond destabilizing the families, communities, or international regions in which they occur, they tend to perpetuate the very conditions of misery and hate that contributed to them in the first place. Although the common factors and processes associated with intractable conflicts have been identified through research, they represent an embarrassment of riches for theory construction. Thus, the current task in this area is integrating these diverse factors into an account that provides a coherent perspective yet allows for prediction and a basis for conflict resolution in specific conflict settings. We suggest that the perspective of dynamical systems provides such an account. This article outlines the key concepts and hypotheses associated with this approach. It is organized around a set of basic questions concerning intractable conflict for which the dynamical perspective offers fresh insight and testable propositions. The questions and answers are intended to provide readers with basic concepts and principles of complexity and dynamical systems that are useful for rethinking the nature of intractable conflict and the means by which such conflict can be transformed.
Conflicts that endure despite repeated good faith attempts to resolve them are considered intractable. Such conflicts can exist at the family, organizational, community, and international levels and present conflict resolution practitioners with extraordinarily difficult challenges. Over time, they can become highly complex, mercurial, and malignant, and render standard methods of conflict resolution such as negotiation and mediation less effective. This article is the 3rd in a 3-part series presenting a meta-framework for addressing protracted, intractable conflicts. It offers a new approach to conflict analysis and intervention that is responsive to the complex dynamics and long-term natures of these problems. A set of guidelines for intervention is outlined and applied to a contemporary case for illustration. This article is the third in a series dealing with protracted, intractable conflicts. In the first article, their characteristics and attributes were described. In the second, the different existing frameworks for intervening in such difficult, complex conflicts were identified and described. In this article, a new approach, or meta-framework, is offered to conflict analysis and intervention that is responsive to the complex dynamics and long-term natures of these problems. It suggests that applying multiple perspectives to these situations can provide "frame-breaking" insights into key opportunities for constructive and sustainable change (Morgan, 1997). This article concludes with a set of guidelines for intervention applied to a contemporary case for illustration. ). It consists of a superordinate frame that employs a process of multiperspective reframing, and a methodology for analyzing, intervening, and using feedback to address conflicts. It is similar to Morgan's (1997) approach, who advocated the use of multiple frames when endeavoring to generate a comprehensive understanding of complicated situations and events (see also Breunlin et al., 2001). He suggested a strategy of identifying one superordinate frame for analysis that can guide the use of alternative perspectives. For instance, if power and authority were central concerns to an observer of a conflict between different ethnic groups, she might employ a political framework as her dominant frame, and in addition explore how cultural and psychological frames can help elucidate the power struggles between the groups.Given a specific conflict, certain frames will feel inherently more valuable than others. However, intentionally changing perspectives forces us to reflect on our assumptions and consider viable alternatives. Thus, the process of reframing helps to highlight the limitations of our initial frames and can lead to new understanding. It is important to note here that it is not simply the variety of perspectives that is important in comprehending complex events, but also the ability to see connections between the aspects of a problem made salient by different frames. Returning to the power frame analysis, we might ask how the psychologic...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.