SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Bloomfield D. J. Peace Res. 1995; 32(2): 151-164.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1995, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0022343395032002003

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This article argues the case for a model of conflict management based on a complementary view of two approaches to conflict, resolution and settlement, which have traditionally been presented in the literature as opposed. It employs empirical evidence of complementarity in practice to highlight the failure of this dichotomized theoretical debate. It endorses a theoretical model based on complementarity which both unblocks the paralysis caused by such dichotomization and energizes the prescriptive potential of both approaches. The article first describes and defines the two schools of thought and their respective prescriptions for conflict management, and then considers the potential for complementarity between the two at the theoretical level. Fisher and Keashly's contingency model of intervention (1991) is critiqued, and two descriptive weaknesses are identified: an overdependence on a sequential view of conflict, and an assumption of intra-party cohesion. Evidence for complementarity in practical conflict management strategies in the Northern Ireland conflict is then reviewed. Finally, an expansion of the contingency model based on such empirical study is discussed, in particular a means of building a model which is more flexible and context-responsive through the use of embedded criteria at the prescriptive stage.

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print