Conflict Resolution Part 2: Literature And Conceptualization

Conflict Resolution Part 2 Literature And Conceptualization Assignm

This Conflict Resolution: Part 2 – Literature and Conceptualization Assignment will, eventually, comprise the second section of your Conflict Resolution: Part 4 – Proposal Assignment. The Conflict Resolution: Part 2 – Literature and Conceptualization Assignment will consist of a thorough review of the literature pertaining to the identified conflict as well as the theoretical orientation you have chosen to conceptualize the conflict dynamic.

You should begin this Conflict Resolution: Part 2 – Literature and Conceptualization Assignment by reviewing the salient required texts (you may need to read ahead) for this course and any texts listed in the References Section of this Syllabus. Your articles should all be directly related to the conflict or conceptualization you have chosen. Be certain to appropriately cite all of the sources you use for this assignment. It is essential that the conceptualization you delineate is grounded in the conflict resolution research literature. PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENTS!!!!

Paper For Above instruction

The second part of the Conflict Resolution assignment requires a comprehensive review of existing literature relating to a specific conflict and an explanation of the theoretical framework employed to understand this conflict dynamic. This step is crucial because it lays the foundation for developing effective resolution strategies rooted in scholarly research. In this paper, I will explore relevant literature, analyze existing theories, and articulate a conceptual model that will guide the resolution process.

Introduction

Conflict is an inevitable aspect of human interaction across various settings, whether interpersonal, organizational, or societal. Understanding the roots and manifestations of conflict is essential for devising effective resolution strategies. The literature on conflict resolution offers diverse perspectives, from psychological and sociological theories to communication and negotiation models. This review aims to synthesize the relevant research, focusing on the specific conflict in question, and to establish a solid theoretical grounding for subsequent analysis and intervention.

Literature Review

Research indicates that conflict arises from a complex interplay of factors including miscommunication, value disagreements, structural inequalities, and personality differences (Rahim, 2017). Sherif’s (1966) realistic conflict theory suggested that competition over resources intensifies conflicts, especially in organizational or community settings. Similarly, Pruitt and Rubin (1986) emphasized that perceptions of fairness and trust significantly influence conflict escalation and resolution outcomes.

Fundamental to understanding conflict is the negotiation and communication process. Fisher and Ury’s (1981) principled negotiation model advocates for focusing on interests rather than positions, promoting mutual gains and understanding. Their approach emphasizes separating people from the problem, inventing options for mutual gain, and insisting on objective criteria—techniques that are validated across multiple contexts (Shell, 2006).

Psychological models further explore individual differences in conflict responses. Thomas and Kilmann’s (1974) Conflict Mode Instrument identifies five conflict-handling modes—competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating—which are situationally effective depending on the context. Additionally, social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) highlights that group identities can exacerbate conflicts, particularly in ethnically or culturally divided settings.

Theoretical Orientation

For this project, I have selected the transformative conflict theory, which emphasizes the importance of empowerment and recognizing multiple perspectives. Transformative theory, rooted in the work of Bush and Folger (1994), posits that conflicts are opportunities for personal and relational growth when parties are encouraged to understand each other's narratives and develop mutual recognition.

This theoretical framework deviates from traditional resolution models by prioritizing the transformation of relationships rather than merely resolving specific issues. It advocates for a dialogic process that fosters mutual understanding, trust, and agency, leading to sustainable peace and cooperation (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Applying this theory to the identified conflict, I will focus on facilitating awareness, dialogue, and empowerment among conflicting parties.

Grounding in Literature

The choice of transformative conflict theory is supported by empirical studies demonstrating its effectiveness in contexts characterized by deep-rooted disagreements, such as intercultural conflicts (Lederach, 2003). Its emphasis on relational change aligns with the findings from conflict analysis literature, which underscore the importance of addressing underlying perceptions and identities (Bar-Tal, 2000). Furthermore, its advocacy for participatory dialogue is consistent with communication research supporting active listening and empathy as tools for de-escalation (Rogers, 1961).

Conclusion

The literature on conflict resolution provides a diverse array of insights, from structural causes to individual responses. Selecting an appropriate theoretical orientation is vital for guiding intervention. The transformative conflict theory offers a robust framework that emphasizes relational growth and mutual recognition, grounded in empirical research. This literature review and conceptualization lay the groundwork for developing a tailored resolution strategy aimed at fostering understanding and sustainable peace.

References

• Bar-Tal, D. (2000). Fromingroup bias to conflict: The role of social psychological factors in the perpetuation of conflict. Political Psychology, 21(2), 243-271.
• Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (1994). The Promise of Mediation: The Transformative Approach. Jossey-Bass.
• Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin.
• Lederach, J. P. (2003). When Blood and Bone Meet: Ritual and Reconciliation. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
• Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57-125.
• Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social Conflict: Escalation, Resolution, & Conflict Transformation. McGraw-Hill.
• Rahim, M. A. (2017). Managing Conflict in Organizations. Routledge.
• Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist's view of psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin.
• Shell, G. R. (2006). Negotiation and conflict resolution. International Journal of Conflict Management, 17(2), 154-167.
• Sherif, M. (1966). Intersgroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.