Pioneers in Arts, Humanities, Science,Engineering, Practice

Volume 14

Series editor

Hans Günter Brauch, Mosbach, Germany

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15230http://afes-press-books.de/html/PAHSEP.htmhttp://afes-press-books.de/html/PAHSEP_Fisher.htm

Ronald J. Fisher

Ronald J. Fisher:A North American Pioneerin Interactive ConflictResolution

123

Ronald J. FisherInternational Peace and Conflict ResolutionSchool of International ServiceAmerican UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Acknowledgement: The cover photograph as well as all other photos in this volume weretaken from the personal photo collection of the author who also granted the permission ontheir publication in this volume. The cover photo was taken by Jeff Watts, courtesy ofAmerican University, Washington, D.C. The two logos were also used with the permission ofAU. A book website with additional information on Ronald J. Fisher, including videos andhis major book covers is at: http://afes-press-books.de/html/PAHSEP_Fisher.htm.

ISSN 2509-5579 ISSN 2509-5587 (electronic)Pioneers in Arts, Humanities, Science, Engineering, PracticeISBN 978-3-319-39036-9 ISBN 978-3-319-39038-3 (eBook)DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-39038-3

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016956849

© The Author(s) 2016This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or partof the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmissionor information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilarmethodology now known or hereafter developed.The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in thispublication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt fromthe relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in thisbook are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor theauthors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein orfor any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Copyediting: PD Dr. Hans Günter Brauch, AFES-PRESS e.V., Mosbach, Germany

Proofreading: Jared Pentz at American University and Cassandra de Alba at Harvard University

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer NatureThe registered company is Springer International Publishing AGThe registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To the thousands of my students and traineesin conflict resolution, who carry the seeds ofbuilding peace and of managing differencesconstructively, forward into a very troubledand fragile world.The best of luck in this endeavor!

Foreword

In her seminal book on the practice of mediation, Kolb (1994) identified threecategories of contributors to the field: professionals, extenders of mediation, andfield-builders. According to Kolb, field-builders create the models from which otherpractitioners work. If there is one moniker that comes to mind for Professor RonaldFisher, recently retired Director of the International Peace and Conflict ResolutionProgram of American University, it is a field-builder. In addition to the articles andchapters in this volume, Ron Fisher has written four books and authored numerousarticles and chapters. These works have become foundational pieces in conflictresolution, aggregating and integrating theory, developing models, bridging disci-plines, and documenting impact—and they are widely read. Somewhat less knownis how these works have informed and in turn are informed by his applicationof these models and theories through intervening into existing intercommunalconflicts, most notably in Cyprus and Sudan. But perhaps most hidden are hiscontributions in the designing and implementing of the architecture of the profes-sion itself—in the infrastructure and initiatives Ron has framed for the field, givingcoherence and focus, guiding colleagues to identify principles, lessons, and limitsof the field.

The title of this series, ‘Pioneers’, has a certain irony in our consideration ofRon’s life and work. While Ron fits the description of the spirit in which it wasmeant, the larger discussion about the term’s meaning for different communities fitswell in line with Ron’s larger life’s work in discussing and addressing identityconflicts head on. Teaching as I do at a university that has a Pioneer as its mascot,I am aware of the contested nature of this term. While connoting an adventurer,a trailblazer, and an entrepreneur, ‘pioneer’ also connotes “being there first”, and“mapping uncharted territory”, which for many native people in North America is ata minimum an insult, and can be perceived as a denial that others were there alreadyor that those who were already there didn’t count. It is only a short step from a‘pioneer’ to a ‘colonizer’, which of course is perceived as entirely identity-denying.Ron spent many years working to bring groups together within communities in away that acknowledged oppression and worked for change, from First Nations in

vii

his home province of Saskatchewan to Maori in New Zealand. He also has made apoint to gently challenge conflict resolution practitioners to consider how theblinders of culture and privilege may be impacting our own work (Fisher 1997,2006, 2016, 2010).

Ron Fisher grew up in Saskatchewan, a western province of Canada with largeopen prairie. Though far from the cross-cultural incubators of capitols or coastalcities, his international interests began early. For his doctoral work, he went to theUniversity of Michigan to study social psychology and international relations. Hefirst sought to improve models of effective negotiation (1972, 2016), but found thegreater need to be for better understanding of the contributing role of attitudinal andrelationship challenges that hamper parties from effectively negotiating oraddressing the conflict themselves. He began his faculty career at the University ofGuelph, but soon was hired back to the Psychology Department at the University ofSaskatchewan where he had done his early studies. He remained withSaskatchewan until 2000, though with numerous visiting appointments globally,including New Zealand, Austria, Spain, and Washington, DC. He also served as aresearch fellow with the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security inOttawa. After numerous visiting positions had allowed him to contribute to theWashington DC policy environment, he finally made the move to permanentlylocate himself there in 2001, when he became Professor of International Peace andConflict Resolution in American University’s School of International Service, andultimately the Director of the International Peace and Conflict Resolution Program.

The unifying thrust of Ron’s work has been to identify how to improve inter-group relations in intense, protracted identity conflicts in order to increase theeffectiveness of peacemaking. Better negotiation, or changes in resource distribu-tions, will fall short without transforming intergroup relationships. This focus hasincluded bringing to bear theories of protracted intergroup conflict, theories ofsocial intervention and interactive conflict resolution, and meta-theories: about therole of social science in social change, the importance of model building andtesting, and the need for learning from doing, through action research and evalu-ation. Most salient and influential for my own work have been his theory of thethird-party role in problem-solving workshops, his clarification of the importance ofanalysis and diagnosis, his contingency model clarifying when and for what pur-poses various intervention approaches may be most effective, and his emphasis onthe importance of evaluation for our field to learn, improve, and gain recognition forits role in peacemaking.

Central to Ron’s work is grounding in the field of applied social psychology,which includes passion both for the insight that social science can provide as wellas the social change that it can guide and catalyze. The University of Michiganduring the 1960s and 1970s generated many pioneering applied social psycholo-gists, in both international and intergroup relations and also organizationaldynamics. Ron Fisher brought the best of these together. For Ron, this meantfurther developing basic theories of intergroup conflict as well as applied theories ofintervention in those conflicts, especially third-party methods. His 1982 textbook,Social psychology: An applied approach, defined applied social psychology as

viii Foreword

“social research and practice in real-world settings, directed toward the under-standing of social behavior and the amelioration of social problems” (Fisher 1982,p. 20). Ron’s work reveals tremendous breadth in identifying and organizing therichness of social psychological theory and research that speaks to an understandingof intergroup conflict and its resolution. His 1990 book, The social psychology ofintergroup and international conflict resolution, remains one of the best and mostthorough works in this area. He builds on this review in his 1993 chapter inLarsen’s Conflict and social psychology (2016) to present a comprehensive modelfor understanding the sources, processes and outcomes of intergroup conflict, onethat is phenomenological, interactive, and includes multiple levels of analysis.

While thorough and integrative reviews of bodies of theory are not unique, Ronpairs this knowledge with the complementary body of theory and research on howto intervene to create social change. Here Ron is able to draw on thorough study notonly in international and intergroup relations, but also in organizational behaviorand organizational dynamics. Building on the work of Walton (1969) andBlake/Mouton (1964), Ron brought to the study of international conflict the notionof third-party ‘consultation’. When most innovators were responding to their col-leagues in political science and international relations (Burton, Azar, Kelman,Cohen), Ron turned to another area of applied social psychology and found richresources he could bring to bear.

Ron incorporated the contributions of organizational scholars who offered athird-party role for intervening in distressed systems. Walton (1969) had coined theterm “third-party consultation” to refer to his work with corporate executives caughtin dysfunctional conflicts. Parties could engage in “productive confrontation”,discussing the difficult issues between them with the facilitation of an experiencedand skilled third party. This ‘consultant’ could provide strategic functions such asencouraging positive motivation to attempt to reduce the conflict, improving thecommunication, pacing the phases, and influencing the choice of context for theinteraction. Organizational scholars offered procedures for intervening into con-flicted intergroup relations, encouraging parties to engage in joint conflict analysis,joint problem-solving, reframing to integrative strategies, and joint work to restorerespect and trust (Blake et al. 1964; Blake/Mouton 1984).

Ron built on these theorists with his model of the third party. Especially notableare his contributions on the role, or appropriate behaviors, for the third party(Fisher/Keashly 1988, 1991), where he has gone to lengths to distinguish thefacilitative and diagnostic role in problem-solving from other third-party roles, suchas those in arbitration and mediation. He also documents both the strategies—suchas improving openness, increasing communication accuracy—and tactics—such assummarizing, stopping repetitive interactions—that are used by the third-partyconsultant.

Ron’s work is also characterized by a drive to identify underlying principles andmodels that guide the construction of true theory—generic principles that applyacross cases and across domains—in a field marked by enormous complexity andvariation. The dynamics of conflicting corporate executives and their organizationscan bring insights for conflicting national leaders. Conflict between identity groups

Foreword ix

in New Zealand can bring insight into identity conflict in Cyprus, or in Canada.His 1990 model of intergroup conflict provides a comprehensive scaffolding toparallel and complement the theories of Azar, Burton and Kelman, (structure ofconflict, frustrated, and escalatory interaction). His 1994 article (2016) identifiesgeneric principles for resolving intergroup conflict that fall into three phases heconsiders essential—analysis, confrontation, and resolution. Each phase builds onthe next, and acknowledges that ultimately for sustainable solutions, transformationis required to both a state and relational context that addresses frustrated andsuppressed basic human needs. This includes transforming decision-making andpolicy formation, and modifying institutional structures to support tolerance,equality, self-respect and autonomy for culturally distinct identity groups.

This same drive for underlying principles led Ron to associate/consolidateintervention processes he felt were similar in important ways. He considered itimportant to conceptualize interactive problem-solving as part of a larger categoryof interactive conflict resolution, that also included dialogue, sustained dialogue,third-party consultation, and aspects of track two diplomacy (Fisher 1997, 2006).These processes all had similar goals of addressing the subjective factors indestructive intergroup conflict, such as negative attitudes and misattributions,unchecked assumptions and negative expectations, lack of understanding, poorcommunication, and hopelessness. They also have potential transfer effects beyonddirect participants to public opinion, policymaking and political decision-making,because they all build on the assumption that social systems can change through theinteraction of their component individuals engaging in mutual influence.

Using his own conflict resolution intervention work as a source of new insights,Ron in turn could use his research to improve the effectiveness of conflict resolutionintervention. Over the years Ron engaged in many conflict interventions, from localtrainings and workshops when based in Saskatchewan or New Zealand, to trainingsof diplomats and UN staff, to trainings and problem-solving workshops onDarfur/Sudan, Moldova/Transdniester, and most significantly, Cyprus. The projectshe began in Cyprus under the Canadian Institute for International Peace andSecurity, and then expanded through partnering with Conflict Management Groupand Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy in the 1990s, resulted in the training andengagement in conflict resolution of a significant percentage of the island. Foreverpersevering, Ron returned to working on Cyprus in 2007, galvanizing a secondwave of workshops from 2009 to 2013 that contributed to the official negotiationswhen they restarted in 2015.

One theme in Ron’s career that has both informed his research and been aservice to all of us in the field has been his devotion to develop the case base toform theory inductively. Evident has been the care he has taken to document,archive and comparatively analyze cases of interactive conflict resolution, andproblem-solving workshops in particular. This is no small feat, given that manyefforts are done intentionally away from the glare of the public eye. His 1997 book,Interactive conflict resolution takes pains to document multiple cases of theproblem-solving workshop, from its first use by Burton in 1965 in theMalaysia–Indonesia conflict, to Cyprus, Northern Ireland, and the Middle East.

x Foreword

His 2005 book, Paving the way, is not only an ingathering of several colleaguescollective experience and lessons learned from nine cases of interactive conflictresolution in diverse contexts, but also a systematic and critical comparison leadingto overall conclusions. His comparative case analysis reinforces that there is evi-dence both for the expected direct impacts of problem-solving workshops on theparticipants and for second order impacts of transfer into policy processes.

The primary purpose of these works is, of course, for the analysis Ron con-tributes by assembling and comparing cases. However, Ron’s work in the largerprofessional community to be the archivist and organizer suggests that his motivesfor documenting cases go well beyond writing books. Ron has been the shaper ofseveral efforts to shepherd colleagues to learn from each other and be morereflective as a field. He knows and believes the critical need for cultivating acommunity of inquiry within a community of practice (Argyris et al. 1985; d’Estrée2013). From early efforts to sustain the coalescing of the ‘second generation’ ofinteractive conflict resolution scholar-practitioners, to convening the proto-networkthat evolved in part into the umbrella organization Alliance for Peacebuilding, tohosting conferences and meetings with various themes: Cyprus practitioners,interactive conflict resolution scholars, peace and conflict graduate degree pro-grams, Ron has played a critical but often unseen convening role for the field atlarge.

One of the most creative and important field-building initiatives Ron led, alongwith Leila (Lee) Dane from the Peace Psychology Division of APA and AnneAnderson from Psychologists for Social Responsibility, was the drafting andpublishing online of a curriculum for better training practitioners in the comple-mentary but often siloed specialties of trauma relief and conflict resolution. The1999 initiative brought together psychologists from the subfields of conflictresolution/intergroup relations, cross-cultural communication, trauma, and com-munity psychology, with funding from the US Institute of Peace, which Ron hadsecured. I had the privilege of being on the planning committee. While noting theneed for more general collaboration between these two areas where psychologyplays a central role, this initiative focused specifically on developing a curriculumfor those undergoing doctoral training in psychology to prepare them to work ineither trauma relief or conflict resolution in zones of ethnopolitical warfare. Thecurriculum identified Competencies (knowledge, skills and attitudes/values)required for professional practice in their domain, Components (courses, trainingmodules) necessary to train those competencies, and Resources (faculty, publica-tions, internship settings) required to support the training process.

Ron clearly felt that in order for the conflict resolution field to advance andmature, more opportunities had to be cultivated for professional interaction andlearning. With no dedicated conference on intergroup conflict resolution, efforts hadto be made to identify and organize meetings within the context of larger, broaderprofessional organization conferences where scholar-practitioners were alreadygathering. Ron was again the driving force over many years in creating conflict

Foreword xi

resolution-focused sessions and even series of sessions within the conferencesof the International Society of Political Psychology, and then the InternationalStudies Association. Because the teaching of intergroup conflict resolution wasfurther specialized, he helped to catalyze, organize and host small conferences forprograms with this focus, using his base at American University and in collabo-ration with other influential programs such as Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute forInternational Peace Studies, and George Mason University’s School for ConflictAnalysis and Resolution.

Finally, Ron’s commitment to the development of the specific method ofthird-party consultation and interactive conflict resolution in identity conflicts ledhim to take on one further generative and field-building role, developing andinstitutionalizing a mechanism for continuing to train future practitioners of thisimportant third-party method. While most of the initial developers of this approachhad been scholars engaged in action research, developing the method iterativelywith documentation, analysis and further research, Ron recognized that moreproactive steps would be needed to preserve and grow a cadre of trained third-party‘consultants’ for intergroup identity conflicts. Ron and colleague ChristopherMitchell at GMU put into place curriculum at both institutions for training in thisinnovative method. This effort has grown into an interuniversity consortiuminvolving AU, GMU, the University of Baltimore and the University of Denver thatnow trains approximately 30 students a year in this method, preserving theawareness of its contributions and increasing the likelihood that it will be consid-ered and used as a method of intervention in protracted conflicts of all sorts.

As is the case with most peacemakers, Ronald Fisher’s work has been facilitativeand behind-the-scenes, making the need for this volume and tribute to bring it tolight and capture it for future peacemakers even more keen. Ron has left us a legacyof thorough and thoughtful concept analysis and model building, passionate andtheory-informed social change, and thriving and evolving professional institutions,networks and initiatives to foster future work. Although he is too modest toacknowledge it, he also can claim many changed lives, from graduate students andjunior colleagues he has mentored, to colleagues he has provided with usefulconcepts and a sense of community, and to members of societies he has influencedthrough his interactive conflict resolution initiatives, possibly reducing theirexperience of violence, harm and oppression. If the measure of a man or woman isthe lives they have touched, Ron Fisher stands tall indeed.

January 2016 Tamra Pearson d’EstreeConflict Resolution Institute

University of DenverDenver CO, USA

xii Foreword

References

Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods, andskills for research and intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1984). Solving costly organizational conflicts. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.Blake, R. R., Shepard, H. A., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). Managing intergroup conflict in industry.

Houston, TX: Gulf.d’Estrée, T. P. (2013). Conflict resolution as a profession and the need for communities of inquiry.

International Journal on Conflict Engagement and Resolution, 1, 83–95.Fisher, R. J. (1972). Third party consultation: A method for the study and resolution of conflict.

Journal of Conflict Resolution, 16(1), 67–94.Fisher, R. J. (1982). Social psychology: An applied approach. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.Fisher, R. J. (1990). The social psychology of intergroup and international conflict resolution.

New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.Fisher, R. J. (1993). Toward a social-psychological model of intergroup conflict. In K.S. Larsen

(Ed.), Conflict and social psychology (pp. 109–122). London, UK: Sage/PRIO.Fisher, R. J. (1994). Generic principles for resolving intergroup conflict. Journal of Social Issues,

50(1), 47–66.Fisher, R. J. (1997). Interactive conflict resolution. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Fisher, R. J. (Ed.). (2005). Paving the way: Contributions of interactive conflict resolution to

peacemaking. Lanham, MD: Lexington.Fisher, R. J. (2006). Interactive conflict resolution: A social-psychological approach to resolving

violent ethnopolitical conflict. In M. Fitzduff and C. Stout (Eds.), The psychology of resolvingglobal conflict: Volume 3. Intervention (pp. 41–68). New York, NY: Praeger.

Fisher, R. J. (2010). Challenges of power asymmetry and justice for problem-solving workshops.Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 3, 145–161.

Fisher, R. J., & Keashly, L. (1988). Third party interventions in intergroup conflict: Consultation isnot mediation. Negotiation Journal, 4, 381–391.

Fisher, R. J., & Keashly, L. (1991). The potential complementarity of mediation and consultationwithin a contingencymodel of third party intervention. Journal of Peace Research, 28(1), 29–42.

Kolb, D., & Associates. (1994). When talk works: Profiles of mediators. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Walton, R. E. (1969). Interpersonal peacemaking: Confrontations and third party consultation.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Tamra Pearson d’Estrée, Ph.D., is Henry R. Luce Professor of Conflict Resolution in the JosefKorbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver, where she co-directs theinterdisciplinary Conflict Resolution Institute. Her research areas include identity dimensions ofsocial and ethnic conflict, intergroup conciliation and reconciliation, procedural justice, and theevaluation of international, community and environmental conflict resolution. She has served as anevaluation consultant to community, academic, and non-governmental organizations as well as toUNESCO, UNDP, USIP, and USIECR. In addition to numerous book chapters and articles invarious interdisciplinary journals, she is co-author, with Bonnie G. Colby, of Braving theCurrents: Evaluating Conflict Resolution in the River Basins of the American West (Springer). Herwork in conflict contexts includes conflict resolution training, intergroup interactiveproblem-solving workshops, and the development of conflict resolution academic programsabroad. Contexts for her conflict work have included Israel–Palestine, Ethiopia, Ukraine, Georgia,Guatemala, US intertribal disputes, US Native–non-Native relations, US policy disputes, and USinterreligious relations. She has served on the governing councils of the International Society ofPolitical Psychology and the Association for Conflict Resolution. She has a Ph.D. in SocialPsychology from Harvard University.

Foreword xiii

Acknowledgments

My professional career has been a lengthy journey with many helping hands alongthe way. A succession of much appreciated teachers and mentors made unique andlasting contributions to my orientations and capabilities. Dan Sydiaha atSaskatchewan opened my eyes to the value of social science in the service ofhuman welfare, thus reaffirming my choice of pursuing social psychology as myprofession. At Michigan, Rafe Ezekiel was a model of challenging orthodoxy, andencouraged me to go my own way, while Dan Katz demonstrated longstandingcommitments to doing work of the highest quality and value.

Over my academic career at various universities, numerous colleagues andstudents (some noted in the Autobiography) valued my contributions and collab-orated on projects that advanced our shared objectives. In my professional andscholarly work in interactive conflict resolution, I benefitted greatly from the col-legiality and collaboration provided by two dear friends—Chris Mitchell at GeorgeMason and Herb Kelman at Harvard. In the international conflict resolution train-ing, I was enriched by working alongside Louise Diamond, Diana Chigas andothers who pioneered this innovative form of peacebuilding.

The existence of this book is a result of the vision and dedication of Hans GünterBrauch, who created this series to acknowledge the life’s work of pioneering socialscientists and practitioners. In the preparation of this volume and the one I edited onHerbert Kelman, I benefitted from Hans Günter’s patience, flexibility and unfailingsupport in finding ways to overcome issues and move forward. I also appreciatedthe contributions of Johanna Schwarz, who provided a competent and responsiveshepherding of the manuscript through the publishing process at Springer. Here atAmerican University, my research assistant, Jared Pentz, used his excellent com-puter skills to prepare the selected texts, while at Harvard University, HerbKelman’s assistant, Cassandra de Alba, carefully assisted with the preparationof the references. It is a distinct pleasure to have published this collection, withthanks to all those who have contributed to this outcome.

Washington, DC, USA Ronald J. FisherJanuary 2016

xv

Contents

Part I Ronald J. Fisher

1 Ronald J. Fisher: Advancing the Understanding and Effectivenessof Third Party Interventions in Destructive Intergroup Conflict . . . . 31.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.2 The Childhood Years: Early Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3 Early Adulthood and the Acquisition of a Profession . . . . . . . . . . 51.4 The University of Guelph and Applied Social Psychology . . . . . . 71.5 The 1980s: The Study of Intergroup Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.6 Training and Consultation in Conflict Resolution

and Related Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.7 Peace Activism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.8 The 1990s: CIIPS and Cyprus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.9 The Genesis and Assessment of “Interactive Conflict

Resolution” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121.10 International Training in Conflict Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151.11 Continuing Efforts in Interactive Conflict Resolution . . . . . . . . . . 181.12 Graduate Education in Peace and Conflict Resolution . . . . . . . . . 231.13 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2 Ronald J. Fisher’s Selected Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Part II Texts by Ronald J. Fisher

3 Third Party Consultation: A Method for the Studyand Resolution of Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373.2 Some Examples of Third Party Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.2.1 Applications in the Interpersonal Sphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393.2.2 Applications in the Intergroup Sphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393.2.3 Applications in the International Sphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413.2.4 Some Examples of Related Intervention Methods . . . . . . . 42

xvii

3.3 A Model of Third Party Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433.3.1 The Third Party Consultation Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453.3.2 Third Party Identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473.3.3 Third Party Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493.3.4 The Identity and Role of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523.3.5 The Objectives of Third Party Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . 533.3.6 Third Party Functions and Tactics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563.3.7 Third Party Procedures, Supportive Activities,

and Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613.4 Toward a Critique of Third Party Consultation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

3.4.1 Normative Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623.4.2 Factual Assumptions About the Nature of Conflict . . . . . . 633.4.3 Some Directions for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

4 Towards a Social-Psychological Model of Intergroup Conflict. . . . . . 734.1 Introduction: Social-Psychological Contributions to the Study

of Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 734.2 Constructing an Integrated, Eclectic Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 784.3 System States and Boundaries of the Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814.4 Conclusion: Understanding Protracted Social Conflict . . . . . . . . . 83References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

5 Generic Principles for Resolving Intergroup Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875.2 The Foundation for Generic Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

5.2.1 Phase I: Conflict Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905.2.2 Phase II: Conflict Confrontation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935.2.3 Phase III: Conflict Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

5.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

6 Interactive Conflict Resolution: A Social-Psychological Approachto Resolving Violent Ethnopolitical Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056.2 Current Practice in ICR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

6.2.1 The Problem-Solving Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106.2.2 The Psychodynamic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126.2.3 A Public Peace Process and Sustained Dialogue . . . . . . . . 1136.2.4 Intercommunal Dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1146.2.5 Training as ICR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

6.3 Issues Facing the Field of ICR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1186.3.1 Applicability and Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1186.3.2 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

xviii Contents

6.3.3 Funding, Training, Professionalization,and Institutionalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

6.3.4 Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1216.4 Increasing ICR’s Policy Influence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1226.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

7 Assessing the Contingency Model of Third-Party Interventionin Successful Cases of Prenegotiation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1337.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1337.2 The Problem-Solving Workshop (PSW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1347.3 The Contingency Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1357.4 Cases of Complementarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

7.4.1 PSWs on the Indonesia—Malaysia Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . 1407.4.2 Interactive Problem-Solving in the Israeli—Palestinian

Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1417.4.3 Sustained Dialogue in the Tajikistan Conflict . . . . . . . . . . 1437.4.4 Track Two Conflict Resolution

in the Moldova—Transdniestria Conflict. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1447.4.5 The Contribution of Track Two to the Peru-Ecuador

Peace Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1467.4.6 Comparative Case Analysis Based on the Contingency

Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1487.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

American University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

About this Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Contents xix