Discourse Categories in Encounters Between Palestinians and Israelis

Steinberg, Shoshana

doi:10.1023/b:ijps.0000019614.17252.52

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For researchers interested in the descriptions qualitative data collection offers, or settings that are more conducive to these methods, ethnography, discourse analysis, focus groups, observations, and case studies may be used (Berg, 1998;Steinberg, 2004). Process evaluation and discourse analysis address important ethical issues such as power imbalance and culturally competent dialogue design (Dessel, Rogge, and Garlington, 2006;Dessel, 2006;Suleiman, 2004;Thompson-Robinson, Hopson, and SenGupta, 2004) and serve to illuminate how identity, culture, and power are reproduced in and mediated by language (Rogers and others, 2005).…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of intergroup dialogue: A review of the empirical literature

Dessel

Rogge

2008

Conflict Resolution Qtrly

161

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Practitioners in the developing field of intergroup dialogue seek to address critical social issues of prejudice and intergroup conflict. Goals of dialogue work include relationship building, civic participation, and social change. Outcome evaluation of this work is necessary to further understand the processes and effectiveness of dialogue practices, improve on the work being done, and obtain funding. This literature review summarizes empirical evaluation research in the field of intergroup dialogue and presents a compendium table. Strengths and limitations of current research are discussed, with emphasis on the importance of expanding evaluation work in this field. I ntergroup conflict tears at the fabric of society in numerous ways.

show abstract

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of intergroup dialogue: A review of the empirical literature

Dessel

Rogge

2008

Conflict Resolution Qtrly

161

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the literature review presented sources that related to the non-violent characteristic of the strategy, we found that two of the three most prominent types of discourse were ethnocentric talk and attack –which are violent in nature (Steinberg, 2004). The violent rhetoric also appears to be accompanied by aggressive protests; since the 2014 Gaza War, in a number of venues, Israelis have had extremely difficult times speaking/performing because of raucous protests taking place at the venue (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…We used two methods in the analysis by: constructing five questions for discourse analysis (DA), based on recommendations by Alvesson and Skoldberg (2000); and using a typology of quality of discourse, conceptualized by Steinberg (2004), augmented by the identification of loaded words – highly-emotional terms that often trigger negative emotions and defensiveness – in the texts. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…using a typology of quality of discourse, conceptualized by Steinberg (2004), augmented by the identification of loaded words – highly-emotional terms that often trigger negative emotions and defensiveness – in the texts.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second method of analysis was Steinberg’s (2004) typology that identifies the quality of rhetoric in texts (see p. 475 for details in the 2004 text). While this system was originally used to analyze face-to-face dialogue between Palestinian and Jewish-Israelis, we adopted it for our study because the essence of the categories was relevant for interpreting the texts on the boycott movements, because each text creator was writing for an imagined/concrete audience, and because it tied to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Polarized words: discourse on the boycott of Israel, social justice and conflict resolution

Chaitin

Steinberg

2017

IJCMA

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The study aimed to investigate how Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and others from around the world present their views on boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) and the Palestinian Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). The quality of discourse was examined along with the implications of the rhetoric for social-justice and conflict resolution frameworks. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative study analyzed 257 texts (newspaper articles, opinion pieces, YouTube videos, emails. Facebook posts, Twitter tweets, campaigns and websites) for content and quality of discourse and for their implications for social-justice and conflict resolution work. Findings Most texts divided into those in favor of the boycott and those opposed. The content was also polarized − most pro-BDS texts saw Israel as a settler-colonial enterprise, and emphasized issues of social-justice, whereas opponents perceived Israel as a legitimate nation and were skeptical of the human rights angle. The main types of discourse discerned included: ethnocentric talk, attack and intellectual discussion, regardless of national/ethnic origin of the writer or stance toward the boycott. Research limitations/implications Different types of texts were analyzed, which did not always fit easily into the discourse categories. Because this was the first study of its kind and looked at limited years, results should be approached with this in mind. Practical implications The rhetoric leaves little place for dialogue between those in favor and those opposed. Specific suggestions for combining social-justice work and conflict resolution work are offered. Social implications BDS discourse in its present form hampers finding a solution to the conflict and abuse of Palestinian rights. A new approach is needed to try to resolve these issues. Originality/value Because there are few systematic studies on BDS, this article provides insight into how people discuss the strategy and how it connects to frameworks for resolving conflicts.

show abstract

Transforming the Way We Speak, Transforming the Way We Listen: Dialogue and the Transformation of Relationships

Chaitin¹

2021

The Palgrave Handbook of Positive Peace

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discourse Categories in Encounters Between Palestinians and Israelis

Cited by 13 publications

References 26 publications

Evaluation of intergroup dialogue: A review of the empirical literature

Evaluation of intergroup dialogue: A review of the empirical literature

Polarized words: discourse on the boycott of Israel, social justice and conflict resolution

Transforming the Way We Speak, Transforming the Way We Listen: Dialogue and the Transformation of Relationships

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About