Advancing Dispute Resolution by Unpacking the Sources of Conflict: Toward an Integrated Framework

Organizational leaders, public policy makers, dispute resolution professionals, and scholars have developed diverse methods for resolving workplace conflict. But there is inadequate recognition that the effectiveness of a dispute resolution method depends on its fit with the source of a particular conflict. Consequently, it is essential to better understand where conflict comes from and how this affects dispute resolution. To these ends, this paper uniquely integrates scholarship from multiple disciplines to develop a multi-dimensional framework on the sources of conflict. This provides an important foundation for theorizing and identifying effective dispute resolution methods, which are more important than ever as the changing world of work raises new issues, conflicts, and institutions

Sources of Conflict in a Divided America

The Sixties and early Seventies were a time of great conflict in America, including the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK; the civil rights movement; the Vietnam War and our invasion of Cambodia; and Watergate and Nixon’s forced resignation. Today we seem to be in another period of great conflict, including nationally about the 2016 presidential campaigns and election, and locally about our state’s efforts to control federal public lands. This blog post discusses sources of current conflict in a divided America

Fact Sheet: Managing Sources of Conflict in Collaborative Settings

Anyone who has been involved in a collaborative process knows that a conflict within the group typically involves multiple participants, can be complex, and can intensify dramatically, if left unresolved. Everyone involved has their own thoughts and feelings about what is happening as well as perceptions about the thoughts and feelings of others. As conflict increases, reasonable people may demonstrate irrational or unwarranted behaviors. Natural reactions to these behaviors may be to strike back, give in, or break off. Objectivity--the faculty needed most to navigate conflict effectively--is sacrificed

Ontological and Theoretical Sources of Conflict and Peaceful Change

Tensions between the United States and China have grown considerably during the last couple of years. While China bolstered its claims on disputed territories and engaged other states to form regional organizations separate from established Western dominated ones, the United States conducted a “return to Asia”, “rebalance” or “pivot” in order to reassure its allied partners. Following these moves policy-makers, think tanks and academics debated opportunities and challenges of new great power relations. This paper seeks to explain the U.S.-China conflict as a result of deeper ontological assumptions and distinct understandings of international relations. Both sides engage primarily in mirror imaging rather than empathizing. For the purpose of this paper mirror imaging is defined as information processing that bases the construction of meaning on one’s own, independent assumptions, theories and worldviews. Empathizing by contrast is information processing by using the lens (assumptions, theories, worldviews) of others when making sense of their behavior. Based on its findings the paper concludes that there are alternatives to the ways the conflict is constructed that could facilitate different ways of peaceful change. The paper first evaluates western political perceptions of the China-U.S. relationship. Secondly, it summarizes how western think tanks mapped the conflicts and how they affect American interests. Thirdly, it confronts this map with recent academic scholarship on sources of China’s foreign policy written by Asian area studies specialists. Fourthly, it uncovers hidden ontological assumptions and theories of international relations upon which Chinese scholars seem to base their analysis of American foreign policy, contemporary great power relations and policy recommendations for China’s foreign policy. Fifthly, the paper shows that these assumptions and theories indeed clearly show up in the recent Chinese academic literature on great power relations. Finally, it concludes that exploiting this finding can facilitate an outside the box of western theories understanding of China’s foreign policy, great power relations and strategies on how to cope with China’s assertiveness more successfully. The paper encourages avoiding to fall into the trap of mirror imaging and instead using empathy when interpreting Chinese foreign policy. Such an approach also helps reducing uncertainties of interpretation that still pervades Western policy statements and the think tank literature

Bargaining Versus Fighting

I examine the determinants of conflict and settlement by embedding probabilistic contests in a bargaining framework. Different costly enforcement efforts (e.g., arming, litigation expenditures) induce different disagreement points and Pareto frontiers. After examining the incentives for settlement, I demonstrate how different division rules and bargaining norms have real, economic effects. I then analyze some sources of conflict. I emphasize long-term, strategic considerations by examining an illustrative model and discussing particular historical examples.Conflict; Negotiation; War; Settlement; Arming; Litigation

Economics and ethics in health care

This editorial provides a review of the current ways in which health economics is impacting on policy and reviews some of the key ethical and value-judgmental issues that commonly arise in and as a result of the work of economists. It also briefly highlights the contributions of the authors of this special issue of the journal, all of which illustrate how economists have approached ethical issues in health service policy (both in its financing and its delivery), and some of which explore the major methodological matters that arise and go on to discuss their potential as sources of conflict or harmony with other approaches to the same question

Interpersonal sources of conflict in young people with and without mild to moderate intellectual disabilities at transition from adolescence to adulthood

<p><b>Background:</b> Interpersonal conflict is a source of stress and contributes to poor mental health in people with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities. Understanding the contexts in which conflict typically occurs can better equip services to help people with such difficulties. However, existing studies into the contexts of conflict have included participants with wide-ranging ages and may not reflect the experiences of young adults in particular.</p> <p><b>Materials and Methods:</b> Twenty-six young adults (16-20 years) with intellectual disabilities and 20 non-disabled young adults completed a semi-structured interview about a recent experience of interpersonal conflict. Participants were asked to describe their beliefs and feelings about the event and their subsequent response.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> Participants with intellectual disabilities were more likely to encounter conflict with strangers or peers outside their friendship group and to describe incidents of aggression than non-disabled participants. They were also more likely to characterize the other person globally as 'bad' and to perceive the other's actions as being personally directed at them. Young women with intellectual disabilities were less likely to describe responding aggressively to incidents.</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> Findings suggest that young adults with intellectual disabilities are often the target of overt aggression from those outside their inner social sphere, while their non-disabled peers are more likely to experience conflict with people close to them. Young adults with intellectual disabilities may also be more likely to feel victimized by interpersonal conflict. Implications of these findings and limitations of the study are discussed.</p&gt