Bar-Tal (2000) provides more context for the specific alternative of interactive conflict resolution by offering a sweeping historical overview of the ways in which conflict resolution is essential across diverse groups and is, in many ways, essential reading along with the work by Rothman and Olson (2003) that is more specifically geared towards interactive conflict resolution. Bar-Tal (2000) makes the same implicit and explicit claims that Fisher (1993) and Rothman and Olson (2003) do, although his sentiments are placed within a much broader historical and political context. The suggestion by Bar-Tal is that identity is an important aspect in influencing the success of individual scenarios requiring mediation, but that interest-based solutions must also be considered. In short, Bar-Tal agrees with Rothman and Olson (2003) that identity is critical when proposing solutions, one cannot completely ignore the issue of political, economic, and social interests as they comprise part of cultural identity more generally. Like Fisher (1993) Bar-Tal sees a lack of perceived effort on the part of current mediators in international conflict resolution positions to adopt this integrative approach to problem-solving and agrees that the current problems that exist, especially in the Middle East, are due to a failure to combine a deep understanding of the psychology behind conflict.

More specifically, that by combining broader cultural and identity issues as well as strategic political and interest-based elements, a proper and workable solution can be achieved. According to Abu-Nimber (2001) these cultural differences that are at the heart of failed attempts at mediation are often based on a lack of understanding of the importance of religious differences and that these, not interests or resources, are the most valuable assets cultures posses. If the assessment by Abu-Nimer is correct, Fisher (1993) and Bar-Tal (2000) both recognize the issue of cultural understanding in the process of meditation, but overlook religion specifically as a cornerstone of effective negotiation.

While Abu-Nimer (2001) states that religious differences are the heart of societal conflicts and thus are best suited to interactive solution strategies, others contend that religious issues can be aided by this form of negotiation, but are secondary concerns against political disputes. Rothman (1997) builds upon the work of Fisher (1993) and is in agreement that the approach of interactive conflict resolution is particularly well-suited to long-standing and difficult conflicts, especially as they relate to political and territorial disputes. The author also agrees with Fisher’s assessment that there have been far too few studies performed to validate interactive conflict resolution, despite a scholarly push toward this yet unpracticed form of mediation that began in the early 1990s. Rothman (1997) states, “Appropriate means of evaluating conflict resolution are still lacking; new methodologies consistent with, and even constitutive of, normative conflict resolution goals and values are required” (p. 452) and that past methods for dealing with long-standing conflicts invariably fail due to a lack of scope. Rothman does not seem to agree with Fisher (1993) that funding gaps are the bulk of the problem behind a rejuvenated interest in interactive conflict resolution, but rather states that the inability to adopt this form of mediation is due to an inability to escape older modes of thinking. Despite relative failures in terms of mediating disputes, especially in developing countries, there is no push to change the paradigm, thus the same failures continue to occur.  (Abu-Nimer, 2001)

Rothman and Olson (2003) concur with Fisher that interactive conflict resolution strategies are an overlooked but valuable resource, particularly in the international political context and the authors agree that there has been too little research into practical application of interactive conflict resolution theories despite the growing presence of need of new solutions. Rothman and Olson (2003) see the issue of identity as being integral in relationships during the mediation process and contend that “identity-based, ethnopolitical conflicts are often resistant to traditional resource- and interest-based resolution methods” (p. 289). The natural course of action in the context discussed by the authors is one that emphasis the individual’s needs in a mediated dispute and discusses the important role the social scientist plays in negotiating the issue of identity as the problem is solved. The authors examine the weaknesses in former dominant modes of problem-solving and international conflict mediation and conclude that the proposed solutions and mediation tactics did not take into account the distinct identities of the two conflicting parties. Rothman and Olson (2003) make the contention that due to its nature, “the ICR approach is designed to address protracted social conflicts involving identity groups” (p. 291) and this inherent benefit in focus is what has been lacking in prior resource- and interest-based approaches. While Fisher’s initial suggestions about the benefits of using interactive conflict resolution to settle disputes because it provided a more solid framework as the problem-solving groups would be guided by a trained social scientist, Rothman and Olson take the idea one step further and state that the trained mediator, in the role of scientist, should be well acquainted with identity. “Framing conflicts, or at least their source, in terms of identity can provide a foundation for successful negotiation by fostering the will that a settlement is worthwhile” (Rothman & Olson, 2003, p. 292) and the “framer” of such conflicts and their resolutions would be the social scientist, which is in line with Fisher’s suggestion.

It has been established that society, culture, and diversity are key aspects to be addressed by the social scientist mediator when applying interactive conflict resolution theory. It has also been established that this is a useful method of addressing intense conflicts in international contexts because it is, at its heart, a culturally integrative approach. It was difficult to find source material from credible journals or scholarly books that took an unfavorable position against the use of interactive conflict resolution. In fact, the most profound problem was how to prove the effectiveness of such a method of negotiation. While “proving” the success of one form of conflict resolution over another is itself a hotly contested issue, most scholars tended to agree that recent failures, particularly in the Middle East, might allow this mediation strategy to gain a life outside of mere theory and might provide the more succinct academic framework for more concrete assertions about the validity of this practice.

Related Articles

Theories in Science and Their Impact on Psychology

References

 

Abu-Nimer. (2001). Conflict resolution, culture, and religion: toward a training model of interreligious peacebuilding. Journal of Peace Research , 38 (6), 685-704.

Bar-Tal, D. (2000). From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to reconciliation: psychological analysis. Political Psychology , 21 (2), 351-365.

Fisher, R. J. (1993). Developing the field of interactive conflict resolution: issues in training, funding and institutionalization. International Society of Political Philosophy , 14 (1), 123-138.

Rothman, J. (1997). Action evaluation and conflict resolution training: theory, method and case study. International Negotiation , 2 (4), 451-470.

Rothman, J., & Olson, M. (2003). From interests to identities: towards a new emphasis in interactive conflict resolution. Journal of Peace Research , 38 (3), 289-305.