Conflict Transformation: Contrasting Definitions and Practices
Conflict Transformation: Contrasting Definitions and Practices
Conflict Transformation: Contrasting Definitions and Practices
By
Sarah Hooley
and
Eric Schmucker
February 2009
Introduction
The past decade has witnessed an explosion of peacebuilding terminologies across
the field of nonviolent conflict intervention. This terminology serves as a major source of
identity for peacebuilders and in many respects has become the elephant in the room,
because not only has the number of terminologies increased but also much of the
terminology that peacebuilders utilize to define themselves and their practice have been
assigned disparate meanings. These differing definitions create underlying tensions and
confusion in the field between practitioners and theorists alike. The first purpose of this
paper is to better understand the confusing and separate terminologies of non-violent
conflict intervention, specifically conflict resolution and conflict transformation. The
second and arguably more important purpose of this paper is to figuratively stand up and
yell, Doesnt anyone see the elephant?!?
We will attempt to address this patchwork of definitions in two separate ways:
first, by taking glimpses of how several authors in the field define and use the terms
conflict resolution and conflict transformation in their written work and second by
comparing a qualitative study completed by Dr. Gloria Rhodes, and a quantitative study
prepared by undergraduate students at Eastern Mennonite University, both of which
analyzed and compared conflict intervention practitioners definitions and use of conflict
resolution and conflict transformation terminology and their goals and strategies for
conflict intervention.
that works for a win-win solution. Lastly, these principles assume that long-term
intervention is possible and probable.
enough similarities to all converge under the heading of conflict resolution. Another
author, Schellenberg, suggests that the umbrella term of conflict resolution should be
divided into five different categories: coercion, negotiation and bargaining, adjudication,
mediation, arbitration, and what Rhodes calls a catch all category of other means
(Rhodes, 2008). Finally, authors Porter and Taplin who represent the sociological view
list avoidance, conquest, education, spontaneous resolution, transactional resolution
which would include both mediation and negotiation, arbitration, judicial decision, and
non-reconciliation as means of the broader term conflict resolution. There are differing
opinions on these placements of processes. Many of these processes, such as arbitration,
are thought of as coercive; and others, such as conquest, are often brought about
violently. The debate then, is over what level of coercion and violence can be tucked
under the conflict resolution umbrella (Rhodes, 2008).
Initially the field of conflict resolution was synonymous with building up an
information base through analysis; however, over time it has grown to encompass much
more. Problem solving seems to be an integral part of what conflict resolution has
become. Several authors have identified conflict resolution as a process to bring about a
win-win solution. Problem solving reframes the act of resolving conflict as a puzzle to
be solved instead of a tug-of-war (Rubin, 1997).
Time Frame of Conflict Resolution:
Another interesting disagreement in the discussion of defining conflict resolution
includes the time frame which these interventions take place. Some contend that the term
conflict resolution implies permanently ending the conflict over one specific incident in a
relatively short period of time (University of Colorado 1999-2008). Others disagree,
saying that broader conflict is made up of smaller, individual conflicts which each must
be addressed and permanently resolved (Tidwell, 2001). While some describe conflict
resolution as a field made up of varying degrees of long-term to short-term intervention,
still others conclude that conflict resolution is a reactionary approach, dealing with the
immediate crises in order to keep a resemblance of order and peace with violence at a
minimum (Welsh 2002). This would then explain the common belief that social justice is
often a piece left out of the puzzle leaving uneven power structures and latent injustice
after the conflict resolution process is complete (Rhodes, 2008).
Definition for the Study:
After stating many authors definitions and pointing out the different
understandings of the term conflict resolution Rhodes gives the definition used later in
her qualitative study. She defines conflict resolution as, nonviolent, cooperative
intervention process used by a mutually acceptable third party to intentionally understand
the sources and dynamics of a problem and find a mutually acceptable, peaceful
solution. She goes on to clarify that the understanding for a mutually acceptable
solution meets the underlying needs and interests of each party (Rhodes, 2008).
includes innovation, a step beyond realpolitik, in the journey toward change. Three
fundamental assumptions of reconciliation as well as several paradoxes were also
revealed through Lederachs writing that are interwoven with the understanding of the
field of conflict resolution. The idea of reconciliation is one where peace and justice,
truth and mercy converge and are built upon engagement, relationship, and
acknowledgement. Finally, three topics stemming from common disagreements were
introduced from Rhodes deeper review; time frame of intervention, the underlying
values, and the processes involved in conflict resolution.
10
not be resolvable at the local level without changing the structures or policies which have
produced them (Miall et al, 2008). Changing the structure involves changing the root
causes of the conflict; an example of this would be changing the power relationship
between a dominant and weaker party. Actor transformation, as its name suggests, refers
to redefinition of direction or goals, as well as a change in perspective of the parties
involved. Issue transformation is intricately tied with the art of reframing the positions of
the conflicting parties as well as the change in direction or goals discussed in actor
transformation. Personal and group transformation, for author Curle quoted by Miall et
al, is the center of all transformation; they write, Excruciating suffering leads in time
through mourning and healing to new life (Miall et al, 2008).
Mediation and Advocacy:
As those different types of transformation indicate, the term transformation is
meant, in this book, to refer to changes within the differing groups interests, goals, and
self-definition, among others. Transformation seeks to go beyond the surface of
behavior, and transform the deeper elements of the conflict -- the root causes. Thus
transformation is deeply connected with the power systems of the groups involved.
Mediation then, is not the only necessary intervention, but advocacy is also needed for
the party who has less power. Mediation is not a synonym of advocacy; instead the two
processes should, in the transfomationist view, work side by side. Intervention should not
be restricted to the local level but should work throughout the context in order to balance
the power systems. Miall, Ramsbotham, and Woodhouse write, Peace and justice are
indivisible and have to be pursued together.
11
The idea that peace and justice are complementary is at the heart of conflict
transformations main critique of many organizations in the field. This critique addresses
the tendency of nonviolent conflict interventions to create a temporary break in high
levels of violence without seeking to address the deep-rooted causes of conflict. The
authors write that these peacemaking interventions are condemned to reproduce existing
power imbalances and discourses that underpin existing exclusions (Miall et al,
2008).
12
13
14
Transformative mediators believe that conflict is not inherently bad and therefore
has underlying positives for creating healthier social interaction. Though the process of
working through conflict may be unpredictable, and at times explosive, it is not always
so. This conflict situation, if handled constructively, provides a time for parties to choose
to listen to and respond to each other, which in turn can give long-term personal
fulfillment and a more definite closure to the topic of tension. Secondly, empowerment
and respect can re-humanize the parties to each other. Thus conflict can bring about a
more positive social interaction between the two parties (Bush Folger, 2005).
The second assumption of transformative mediation is that social interaction is
not merely a way to gain something we could not do on our own, nor is it a negative
necessity present only because an alternative has not been found. Rather, social
interaction is an integral part of being human and a positive necessity on the road to
building identity. According to this understanding of social interaction combined with
the belief that conflict is an opportunity to deepen this interaction, control of a conflict by
a third party is unhelpful. This conflict control limits the parties and deprives them of the
opportunity to use their inherent capabilities of strength and connection (Bush Folger,
2005).
The third understanding of transformative mediators is that the interaction of
parties in conflict is the component in need of change. If this interaction is transformed it
will strengthen the parties themselves, strengthen their connection to each other, and in
turn strengthen the communities that the parties are from. Thus, individual change and
structural change is possible, but it stems from the transformation of individuals choosing
15
to humanize their interaction with each other. The authors write that there is a,
concrete possibility of conflict transformation through moral conversation.
These three assumptions begin to convey the understanding of transformative
mediators. Throughout these understandings runs the implication that controlling conflict
is the opposite of conflict transformation in the same way that social separation is
opposite to social connection. Throughout the assumptions there also runs a thread of
suggestion that social connection and relationship is integral to people and their identity,
and that rebuilding these relationships takes time. However, they are very explicit in
proposing that transformative mediation is the way in which to exemplify these
assumptions by writing that they see transformative mediation as embodying the
relational ideology of social connection and conflict transformation (Bush Folger 2005).
16
being in relationship with people. Conflict rises from change in a relationship and creates
further change in the relationship simultaneously. Therefore, conflict will never be
absent if a relationship is going to continue. While the word resolution implies that a
permanent solution will be found, transformation shows the inevitability of conflict and
works to bring about changes in the structure of how it is addressed. Thus transformation
does not work for an end in conflict, but rather a switch from destructive patterns to
constructive patterns of dealing with this inevitability (Lederach, 2003).
Social Justice:
In light of the statement made above of changing systems that surround the
conflicts rather than attempting to put an end to all conflict it becomes obvious that social
justice is integral to the practice of conflict transformation. Rhodes discusses the critique
that conflict resolution allows the existing social structures to remain in place; the status
quo remains untouched (Lederach, 2003). Mitchell suggests that working within the
structures in place is less helpful than working beneath them with the intent of changing
them into a constructive system. There is nothing sacred about the status quo Mitchell
writes (Mitchell, 2002). As these statements imply, the ideology of conflict
transformation is especially important in asymmetrical conflict situations where power is
imbalanced (Miall et al, 2005).
Key Principles:
In such situations there seem to be several attributes that successful
transformations share. The following is a list compiled by Mitchell of such shared
principles. Since conflict transformation is especially conscious of power imbalance it is
imperative that groups from all social levels of society that are affected participate in the
17
intervention and decision making sessions. Likewise, the intervention must be supported
and agreed upon by all parties involved, and co-creation of the new structures being put
in place is central. Another principle is that interventions must focus beyond the
immediate crisis, looking into the structures and systems that bring about such conflict.
The procedures done in the intervention must also be capable of introducing and
sustaining changes in the way conflict is resolved and prevented. A large part of this
procedure is intervention that teaches all parties involved how the inevitable future
conflict can be worked through. This extensive and difficult intervention must also be
done by interveners who know both the culture and the present systems in place that
surround the groups involved, their relationship with each other, and therefore the
conflict.
Conclusion:
Kraybill states that Conflict transformation suggests that the goal is not only to
end or prevent something bad but also to begin something new and good (Kraybill,
2001). Thus conflict transformation brings an immense amount of hope to the field. Not
only is change possible, but it is imperative to remind people, communities, and all
humanity that we can indeed change for the better.
18
19
study and work in the field. Third, this term is becoming known among the media and
the public and at this time is the most familiar to those groups of people (Miall et al,
2008).
Within this confusing layout of differing opinions, perspectives, and ideas of what
conflict transformation and conflict resolution mean, and how they relate to, include, or
contrast each other Miall, Ramsbotham, and Woodhouse bring up a valid point. They
suggest that, In our view it does not matter in the end what label is used as the umbrella
termso long as the field is coherent enough to contain the substance of what is being
advocated in each case. We believe that the field retains its coherence, that it is best left
intact, and that conflict resolvers and conflict transformers are essentially engaged in the
same enterprise (Miall et al, 2008). Perhaps in focusing so avidly on the differences
between each school of thought the similarities between them are passed over and
ignored. As many peacebuilders teach, differences are inevitable but if constructively
handled they can bring about a deeper understanding of self and others. Perhaps what
can be learned from this review of literature around differing definitions and terms is that
a balance is needed. This balance between the differences that bring out each groups
specialty and the similarities that draw the different schools of thought together is
necessary for a varied yet comprehensive field.
20
lies the definitional debate between theorists and practitioners of conflict resolution and
conflict transformation. Practitioners generally tend to identify with and divide
themselves into many different schools of thought, but even practitioners within the same
peacebuilding ideology have different definitions of their respective paradigms. This
inconsistency in conflict intervention definitions has detrimental effects for the field as
competing denotations are laced with latent conflict.
Without a common language inter-peacebuilder communication becomes difficult
and inconsistent. Peacebuilders also use various terms in different ways to develop their
own identity surrounding their conflict intervention work.
21
22
The five strategic users of terminology perceived the different terms (such as
conflict resolution, conflict transformation, conflict management, etc.) as distinctive
approaches to conflict intervention, appropriate for specific types of intervention or
desired outcomes in conflict, (Rhodes 2008). These practitioners would strategically
choose their terminology in relation to their goals and theories for the intervention.
The final two practitioners using terms contextually defined their interventions
philosophically. Practitioners in this category also changed their terms depending upon
client or audience, but they did so because of an underlying philosophy about terms and
conflict intervention (Rhodes 2008).
As the second subset of Rhodes initial research question on the practitioners
definition, participants were asked their respective definitions of both conflict resolution
and conflict transformation. Rhodes found that practitioners who identified themselves
and their practice with the conflict resolution paradigm defined conflict resolution as
either problem-solving or resolving issues, while three out of four included the idea of
process as part of their definition.
Practitioners who identified themselves and their work exclusively as conflict
transformation also largely defined conflict resolution as problem or issue resolving (four
out of five). All conflict transformation practitioners defined conflict transformation as a
social change process (Rhodes 2008). Each of the practitioners in this paradigm
discussed personal change, change in relationship, or structural/systems change, with
three out of five identifying a long term involvement. Generally conflict resolution was
identified to entail problem-solving and agreement seeking strategies while conflict
transformation was defined as relationship building and social change strategies.
23
24
25
and fostering social or relational change. The survey was also designed to test Rhodes
findings that many conflict resolution practitioners also employ goals and strategies
associated with conflict transformation.
Additionally, the student led research attempted to identify possible relationships
between a variety of descriptive independent variables and a practitioners identification
with either conflict transformation or conflict resolution in order to further explore the
apparent gender split between the two schools of thought in Rhodes research. These
descriptive independent variables were measured nominally: gender (1=male, 2=female),
religious affiliation (1=Protestant, 2=catholic, 3=Jewish, 4=Muslim, 5=other), age (1=2029 years, 2=30-39, 3=40-49, 4=50-59, 5=60-69, 6=70+), years of practice (1=0-4 years,
2=5-9, 3=10-14, 4=15-19, 5=20-24, 6=25-29, 7=30+), location of practice (1=United
States/Canada, 2=Central America, 3=South America, 4=Africa, 5=Asia, 6=Middle East,
7=Europe, 8=Other), and ethnicity (1=Caucasian, 2=African-America, 3=Hispanic,
4=African, 5=Asian, 6=Other).
The main independent variable was the participants Identification with either
conflict transformation or conflict resolution. Participants were asked to respond to the
statements: I use the term conflict transformation to describe my work, and I use the term
conflict resolution to describe my work, on a Likert scale from never to always (1= never,
2=sometimes, 3=often, and 4=always). Even though the study limited responses strictly
to conflict transformation and conflict resolution terms, the contextual users of
terminology, which Rhodes categorized, were still identifiable because Identification was
strategically treated as an ordinal variable on a Likert scale. Contextual users of
terminology invariably identified both conflict transformation and conflict resolution to
26
describe their work, while pure conflict transformation and conflict resolution
practitioners self identified solely with one paradigm. To calculate the number of
contextual terminology users the participants score from the conflict resolution statement
(4 points possible) was subtracted from the conflict transformation statement (4 points
possible) creating the equation: conflict transformation conflict resolution = contextual
score. Contextual identification scores of -1 to 1 implied that participant used both terms
to describe their work, scores of -3 or -2 implied that the participant primarily identified
with conflict resolution, while scores of either 2 or 3 signified that a participant primarily
used conflict transformation to describe their work.
The first dependent variable was initially supposed to be a second independent
variable under Identification helping to operationalize the concept of Identification. The
question asked participants to identify on a Likert scale, (1= never, 2=sometimes,
3=often, and 4=always), how they describe their practice according to two statements: I
describe my work as problem solving and I describe my work as relationship building.
The initial design was based upon the literature review and a similar design found in
Rhodes, but after tentative analysis the statement was determined to essentially be a
primary dependent variable.
The principle dependent variable was the participants theory of practice which
was defined as and divided into the participants goals and strategies, as in Rhodes study.
The participants goals and strategies were operationalized by a series of statements,
which through a comprehensive literature review, were classified to either pertain to
conflict resolution or conflict transformation. The statements were adapted from
27
specifically selected goals and strategies used in Rhodes study for their richness of
information or counterintuitive findings.
Conflict transformation goals were defined as relationship-centric (on the survey,
goal statements 1, 3, and 6) while conflict resolution goals were defined as problemcentric; focused on solving an immediate problem (goal statements 2, 4, 5, and 7).
Conflict transformation strategies were defined as techniques focusing on a long-term
approach to the conflict and relationship-centric (strategy statements 1, 4, 5, and 6) while
again conflict resolution strategies were defined as techniques focusing on immediate
issues related to the conflict (strategy statements 2, 3,and 7). As with Identification the
concepts of goals and strategies were treated as ordinal variables on a Likert scale with
four choices ranging from never to always (1= never, 2=sometimes, 3=often, and
4=always), which were defined as: always equals 100% of the time, often as more than
50%, sometimes as less than 50% and never as 0%.
The sampling frame of this study consisted of all the alumni and current students
of Eastern Mennonite Universitys (EMU) Center for Justice and Peace (CJP) Program.
The CJP program at EMU is specifically intriguing because of its historical identification
with conflict transformation specifically. As a result, all of the participants had a
background understanding of conflict transformation along with a possible bias, through
their education and training at Eastern Mennonite University. This emphasis on conflict
transformation can be contrasted to all of the conflict resolution practitioners in Rhodes
study who were unfamiliar with the transformation paradigm. The entire population was
surveyed by sending an e-mail to all 375 alumni and current students of the CJP program.
Recipients were asked to complete the survey in a Microsoft Word document and attach
28
the completed survey in a reply e-mail. From the population, 72 completed surveys were
received, providing a response rate of 19%. This low response rate affects the
generalizability of our data, as the sample size may not represent the entire population.
29
30
practitioners are much more likely to be Caucasian than any other ethnicity (Table9:
p=.009, r=.526). Testing practitioner goals and strategies against the demographic
independent variables proved inconclusive as no significant relationships were
discovered. Even controlling for contextual participants in multi-variate analysis there
were still no relationships discovered between identification and the demographics of the
survey. Overall, no real significant relationships were discovered between the
demographics of the participants and the dependent variables.
Through bi-variate analysis of the practitioner demographics and using problem
solving as a descriptor of personal practice we discovered significant relationships. The
lowest p-values were associated with practitioners aged 40 years and older (Table10:
p=.065), currently involved in conflict intervention (Table11: p=.092), working in Asia
(Table12: p=.024) and who had been practicing for more than five years (Table13:
p=.050) suggesting that they were more likely to use problem solving to describe their
work. In this we included p-values above .05 as being tentatively significant in light of
our small sample size. We advocate that given a larger sample size this data would have
proven more significant, even though .05 is generally considered the cut off. Since EMU
is a historical conflict transformation institution not prone to using the term problem
solving this suggests that as a participant is engaged in and exposed to the field the terms
they use to describe their work will increase, making them more pragmatic. No
relationships were discovered between participants use of relationship building and
demographics, which is not surprising because all of the participants were trained in a
conflict transformation institution well known to emphasize the importance of
relationship building.
31
In spite of the fact that our variables were essentially ordinal, when comparing
two of the same Likert scales against each other, we decided it appropriate to use a Phi
and Crammers V test, comparing them as nominal variables for the purposes of
statistical analysis, because we had relatively few categories of response. Even though
there was rank order, the variables were designed on such a small scale that, in our
thinking, made comparing them using ordinal measures less effective. Bi-variate
statistical analyses between pairs of variables were identified as showing a significant
relationship if the p-value was less than .1 because of our small sample size. To test
participant definitions of conflict transformation and conflict resolution, to see if they
validated and were consistent with Rhodes findings, we compared the participants
identification with conflict transformation and conflict resolution with all of the goals
and strategies.
For the concept of goals, two composite scores were created: one to measure
goals for conflict transformation and one to measure goals for conflict resolution. The
composite score for conflict transformation goals included Likert responses of the
statements addressing a focus on relationships, the aim for interdependence, and the
desire to develop better communication between conflicting parties, with a maximum
score of 12. The composite score for resolution goals included Likert responses to the
goal statements addressing finding a solution, meeting immediate needs, coming to an
agreement, and ending a conflict, with a maximum score of 16. These composite
measures of participant goals were then tested against participant Identification. A
significant relationship was discovered between conflict transformation identification and
32
transformation goals (Table 14: p=.004) and conflict resolution identification and conflict
resolution goals (Table 15: p=.08).
Composite scores of participant strategies were created in the same way as goals.
The conflict transformation strategy composite included Likert responses to techniques
involving the healing and dealing with feelings, research of underlying causes, use of
dialogue, and training of parties beyond the immediate conflict resulting in a maximum
score of 16. The conflict resolution strategy composite included Likert responses to
techniques involving the use of a preset process, viewing work as short-term, and the
drive to an agreement as the definition of completed work, which resulted in a maximum
score of 12. Bi-variate analysis provided no significant relationships between either
conflict resolution identification and conflict resolution strategies or conflict
transformation identification and conflict transformation strategies.
Two final composite scores were created, totaling participant scores from both
conflict transformation goals and strategies and also conflict resolution goals and
strategies, compiling the theory of practice for both paradigms. A significant relationship
was apparent between conflict transformation identification and conflict transformation
theory of practice (Table 16: p=.023) but one did not exist between conflict resolution
identification and conflict resolution theory of practice, which can probably be explained
by the lack of conflict resolution practitioners. We then compared Identification to all of
the goals and strategies individually to gain a better understanding of participant
responses, specifically why there was no significant relationship discovered between
Identification and strategies used.
33
34
35
likely to use CR goals and strategies than pure CT practitioners. However, conflict
transformation practitioners were more likely to describe their work as relationship
building then were contextual practitioners (Table 31: p=.050, r=.408). These findings
imply that even though conflict transformationists use different terminology to describe
their field and their work they also use conflict resolution goals and strategies as well.
Contextual practitioners were then compared to practitioners who identify
primarily with conflict transformation across all of the goals and strategies laid out in the
survey. Conflict transformation practitioners were more likely to provide an opportunity
for healing and dealing with feelings (Table 32: p=.072, r=.323), and to train with skills
beyond the immediate conflict (Table 33: p=.029, r=.367), while contextual practitioners
were more likely to view their work as short term (Table 34: p=.018, r=3.97), and
probably sometimes or often work with a preset process (Table 35: p=.104) if given a
larger sample size. The most interesting discovery when comparing contextual
practitioners to conflict transformationists was that those identifying themselves as
conflict transformation practitioners were more likely to use problem solving to describe
their work (Table38: p=.042, r=.347), a term not typically associated with transformation
ideology. This implies that many conflict transformation practitioners also use conflict
resolution theories of practice, which would be consistent with the idea that conflict
transformation is an umbrella term for the field.
36
Practitioners aged 40 years and older, currently involved in conflict intervention, working
in Asia and who had been practicing for more than five years were more likely to use
problem solving to describe their work. The remaining demographic independent
variables did not present any relationship with any of the dependent variables.
In this study it was interesting to discover how many of the participants were
contextual, either strategic or pragmatic, with their use of peacebuilding terminology. The
large majority of the participants surveyed were contextual in their use of language, 49
respondents (68%), while on the other extreme there was only one practitioner who
identified themselves as a conflict resolutionist and 19 respondents (26%) who identified
with the conflict transformation school of thought. The large number of contextual
practitioners can be explained by one or all of three theories, which are un-testable
because of the design of the study. The first theory states that students become trained in
conflict transformation at EMU, but slowly become either pragmatic or strategic with
their use of language once they leave conflict transformation academia and come into
contact with users of other terminologies; in order to communicate they adopt other
terms. The second theory states that practitioners come from previous experience using
primarily conflict resolution, or other, terminology and then begin to adopt conflict
transformation terminology and strategies after attending EMU; a transition from a
conflict resolution identification to contextual. The third theory understands that
participants, preferring to use language besides transformation and resolution could have
checked Never for on the survey, and still have been coded on the survey as a contextual
user.
37
The survey supported Rhodes findings and the literature reviews definitions of
conflict transformation as relationship-centric and long-term oriented, and conflict
resolution as problem/solution-centric and focused as a short-term process. The
contextual practitioners did show support for a relationship between conflict resolution
identification and relationship building but this would, in theory, remain inconsistent
across the greater field. As in Rhodes study, contextual practitioners used a variety of
terms to describe their work, which their kaleidoscopic theories of practice reflected.
Consistently, conflict transformation practitioners had transformation goals and a
relationship was shown between identification with conflict resolution and resolution
goals, but no relationship existed between participant identification and strategy. This
finding could demonstrate a strong difference between practitioners espoused theories of
practice and their actual theories of practice. The goals a practitioner has could be
strongly tied to their identity, which is supported by our findings, but when it comes to
strategies, practitioner self-identification with either paradigm had no casual effect on the
strategies they utilized. The specific findings in this study seem to support the theory that
conflict transformation practitioners espouse many specific transformation-based goals,
but employ a plethora of different strategies unassociated with the conflict transformation
school of thought.
When comparing contextual users of terminology and practitioners who identified
with conflict transformation there were no significant differences between the uses of
conflict resolution strategies. Coupled with the fact that there was no relationship found
between practitioner identification and peacebuilding strategies suggests that while
practitioners may define themselves very differently they often use the same strategies
38
and share similar goals. Again, this implies that many conflict transformation
practitioners also use conflict resolution theories of practice, which would be consistent
with the idea that conflict transformation is an umbrella term for the field. Even though
practitioners may identify themselves and their practice along strict and different lines,
with different terminologies and espoused goals, graduate practitioners from EMU all use
very similar strategies regardless of identification.
The data uncovered in this quantitative study support many of Rhodes findings.
Even though practitioners may identify themselves and their practice in disparate ways in
relation to conflict resolution and conflict transformation terminology, they still apply the
same strategies.
39
change. A few Mennonite practitioners have also been very influential in establishing and
developing the conflict transformation paradigm. All of this influenced the population in
our study to be more conflict transformation oriented, and thereby limiting the power of
comparison between the two schools of thought. For future research it would be
beneficial to survey a larger population of practitioners, including those who do not come
from a conflict transformation background.
The second major limitation to the survey was a design flaw in the creation of the
Likert scale. Responses of never, sometimes, often and always were too ambiguous and as
a result many of the participants checked sometimes and often, right down the middle of
the survey. This lack of extremes made it hard to find relationships between participants
identification and their theories of practice. A future survey should use a forced choice
format between conflicting statements in order to give more definite, extreme answers
with fewer options to mark in the middle.
The method in which the survey was distributed to CJP students also presents the
possibility of response bias. We sent an e-mail to the entire list of CJP alumni and
students and attached the survey in a Microsoft Word document. The respondents were
asked to underline and check their choices on the survey as indicated in the instructions.
In order to respond to the survey, the recipients needed to: have access to the Internet,
have an e-mail account, have Microsoft Word, know how to operate Microsoft Word, and
be able to attach a document to a reply e-mail. This method of distribution was
complicated and did not account for practitioners working in areas outside of Internet
range or practitioners for whom we did not have a current e-mail address. Therefore, our
40
results are slightly biased towards CJP students who have frequent access to the Internet,
own Microsoft Word, and are fairly competent using a computer.
The wording on a few of the statements should be changed in order more clearly
code the information as either conflict transformation or conflict resolution and to make
sure that the statement is measuring what it is supposed to measure. For example, the
statement, when gathering information about two parties, I research beyond the present
conflict to understand underlying issues or causes, was supposed to be coded as a
conflict transformation strategy as it was implying that the intervener would take into
account the whole relationship of the parties, but was not worded to be discernible from
conflict resolution strategy. If the wording of the statements was improved we would
probably have seen an increase in the strength and number of relationships between
conflict transformation identification and transformation strategies.
The response rate for our survey was approximately 19%, which was similar to
our expectations; however, not all of the respondents answered every question. Also, in
some circumstances, respondents selected more than one answer, which made such
responses difficult to code. These difficulties most likely resulted from the format of our
survey. Providing clearer directions may have been one way to reduce these problems.
Also, using an online survey with a link to a webpage would have allowed us to prevent
respondents from choosing more than one answer and would have required respondents
to answer every question.
Future research questions to test the three theories of contextual practitioners from
the Summary of Key Findings section would be: 1) How many years has it been since
you graduated from the CJP Program at EMU? 2) A survey of students identification and
41
theories of practice pre- and post-CJP, and 3) Are there any other terms you use to
describe your work?
Conclusion
The purposes of this quantitative study were to further test and triangulate the
findings in Rhodes exploratory study on conflict intervener self-identification and
theories of practice. As previously summarized, our study supported Rhodes findings
that practitioners each identify themselves in different ways, sometimes denoting the
same terms differently, but ultimately they use similar strategies in their practice. One of
the issues this study brings to light is the superfluity of definitions that exist for the same
terms in the field. The second issue this study scratches is a latent identity conflict among
peacebuilders related to the definitions of the terms used to describe themselves and
others.
It is not without a bitter sense of irony that peacebuilders and the larger field of
non-violent conflict intervention have themselves been plagued and divided by latent
identity conflict. Deceptively innocuous at first glance, this conflict stems from the
terminology used to define practices and intervention strategies. We derive our identities
as peacebuilders from the terminology we use and the definitions and meanings we
ascribe to these terms. It is from values and theories of conflict intervention that we
create and denote peacebuilding terminology and when opposing definitions contradict
our own they challenge our identity as peacebuilders. Rhodes describes it in this way:
Someone choosing a term to describe him/herself based on deeply
held values about how intervention should be done can have this
identity threatened by others who choose the same term to describe
42
43
44
Appendix
Tables in this appendix are taken from a larger document that includes all of the statistical
analyses performed on the data. Only the tables referenced in the paper are included
here.
Table 1- Sex Demographic
Sex
Valid
Male
Female
Total
Frequency
38
34
72
Percent
52.8
47.2
100.0
Valid Percent
52.8
47.2
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
52.8
100.0
Valid
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70+
Total
Frequency
6
22
18
16
9
1
72
Percent
8.3
30.6
25.0
22.2
12.5
1.4
100.0
Valid Percent
8.3
30.6
25.0
22.2
12.5
1.4
100.0
45
Cumulative
Percent
8.3
38.9
63.9
86.1
98.6
100.0
Valid
Frequency
2
29
6
4
12
19
72
Percent
2.8
40.3
8.3
5.6
16.7
26.4
100.0
Valid Percent
2.8
40.3
8.3
5.6
16.7
26.4
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
2.8
43.1
51.4
56.9
73.6
100.0
Valid
Frequency
1
45
2
9
9
6
72
Percent
1.4
62.5
2.8
12.5
12.5
8.3
100.0
Valid Percent
1.4
62.5
2.8
12.5
12.5
8.3
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
1.4
63.9
66.7
79.2
91.7
100.0
Valid
Frequency
1
61
10
72
Percent
1.4
84.7
13.9
100.0
46
Valid Percent
1.4
84.7
13.9
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
1.4
86.1
100.0
Valid
Frequency
11
26
3
8
12
7
2
3
72
Percent
15.3
36.1
4.2
11.1
16.7
9.7
2.8
4.2
100.0
Valid Percent
15.3
36.1
4.2
11.1
16.7
9.7
2.8
4.2
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
15.3
51.4
55.6
66.7
83.3
93.1
95.8
100.0
Valid
Frequency
1
13
19
20
12
6
1
72
Percent
1.4
18.1
26.4
27.8
16.7
8.3
1.4
100.0
Valid Percent
1.4
18.1
26.4
27.8
16.7
8.3
1.4
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
1.4
19.4
45.8
73.6
90.3
98.6
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Valid Percent
1.4
71.0
Cumulative
Percent
1.4
72.5
26.4
27.5
100.0
95.8
100.0
1.00
2.00
Frequency
1
49
Percent
1.4
68.1
3.00
19
Total
69
System
4.2
72
100.0
Crosstab
Count
Ethnicity categories
did not
answer
Contextcalc
2.00
3.00
Total
1
0
1
Caucasian
35
7
42
Hispanic
1
1
2
African
Asian
4
5
9
Other
5
3
8
Total
3
3
6
Symmetric Measures
Ordinal by Ordinal
N of Valid Cases
Value
.526
68
Gamma
Asymp.
a
Std. Error
.156
Approx. T
2.624
Approx. Sig.
.009
Age
categories
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70+
Total
Total
6
21
18
15
8
1
69
Symmetric Measures
Ordinal by Ordinal
N of Valid Cases
Gamma
Value
.224
69
Asymp.
a
Std. Error
.117
Approx. T
1.846
Approx. Sig.
.065
49
19
68
Crosstab
Count
Total
Total
1
59
9
69
Symmetric Measures
Ordinal by Ordinal
N of Valid Cases
Value
-.441
69
Gamma
Asymp.
a
Std. Error
.219
Approx. T
-1.687
Approx. Sig.
.092
Where are
you involved
in conflcit
intervention?
Total
Total
Symmetric Measures
Ordinal by Ordinal
N of Valid Cases
Gamma
Value
.293
69
Asymp.
a
Std. Error
.129
49
Approx. T
2.258
Approx. Sig.
.024
10
26
2
8
11
7
2
3
69
Crosstab
Count
How many
years have
you been
involved in
conflict work?
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
Total
Total
12
18
20
12
6
1
69
Symmetric Measures
Ordinal by Ordinal
N of Valid Cases
Gamma
Value
.256
69
Asymp.
a
Std. Error
.127
Approx. T
1.956
Approx. Sig.
.050
ctcomgoals
Total
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
50
Total
1
1
1
1
8
12
18
13
14
69
ANOVA
ctcomgoals
ctstrategy
CTgands
CTgands2
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
37.137
161.500
198.638
24.905
311.008
335.913
118.323
732.871
851.194
26.791
162.079
188.870
df
3
65
68
3
65
68
3
63
66
3
65
68
Mean Square
12.379
2.485
F
4.982
Sig.
.004
8.302
4.785
1.735
.169
39.441
11.633
3.390
.023
8.930
2.494
3.581
.018
crcomgoals
Total
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
Total
1
7
2
9
10
7
7
7
9
4
2
65
ANOVA
crcomgoals
crstrategy
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
44.773
385.473
430.246
9.647
180.838
190.485
df
3
61
64
3
62
65
51
Mean Square
14.924
6.319
F
2.362
Sig.
.080
3.216
2.917
1.102
.355
CTgands
Total
8.00
14.00
16.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
23.00
24.00
25.00
26.00
27.00
28.00
Total
1
2
1
2
6
7
4
5
12
11
7
5
4
67
ANOVA
ctcomgoals
ctstrategy
CTgands
CTgands2
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
37.137
161.500
198.638
24.905
311.008
335.913
118.323
732.871
851.194
26.791
162.079
188.870
df
3
65
68
3
65
68
3
63
66
3
65
68
52
Mean Square
12.379
2.485
F
4.982
Sig.
.004
8.302
4.785
1.735
.169
39.441
11.633
3.390
.023
8.930
2.494
3.581
.018
Nominal by
Nominal
Phi
Cramer's V
N of Valid Cases
Value
.521
.301
71
Approx. Sig.
.023
.023
Nominal by
Nominal
Phi
Cramer's V
N of Valid Cases
Value
.497
.287
69
Approx. Sig.
.048
.048
Nominal by
Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Phi
Cramer's V
Value
.471
.272
69
Approx. Sig.
.084
.084
53
Nominal by
Nominal
Phi
Cramer's V
N of Valid Cases
Value
.452
.261
71
Approx. Sig.
.105
.105
Nominal by
Nominal
Phi
Cramer's V
N of Valid Cases
Value
.374
.216
69
Approx. Sig.
.381
.381
Nominal by
Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Phi
Cramer's V
Value
.391
.226
70
Approx. Sig.
.295
.295
54
Nominal by
Nominal
Phi
Cramer's V
N of Valid Cases
Value
.483
.279
69
Approx. Sig.
.065
.065
Nominal by
Nominal
Phi
Cramer's V
N of Valid Cases
Value
.524
.302
68
Approx. Sig.
.028
.028
Nominal by
Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Phi
Cramer's V
Value
.577
.333
69
Approx. Sig.
.006
.006
55
Never
Sometimes
2
2
Sometimes
4
8
Often
Always
0
5
Total
Often
Total
Always
Never
3
10
3
18
12
38
17
12
21
32
70
Symmetric Measures
Ordinal by Ordinal
N of Valid Cases
Gamma
Value
.372
70
Asymp.
Std.
Error(a)
.143
Approx.
T(b)
2.445
Approx. Sig.
.014
Nominal by
Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Phi
Cramer's V
Value
.471
.272
70
Approx. Sig.
.077
.077
56
Symmetric Measures
Nominal by
Nominal
Value
.501
.289
69
Phi
Cramer's V
N of Valid Cases
Approx. Sig.
.044
.044
Never
Sometimes
Often
Always
1
0
0
0
1
Total
Contextcalc
2.00
2
23
20
4
49
3.00
Total
0
0
2
17
19
3
23
22
21
69
Never
Sometimes
Often
Always
0
0
1
0
1
Contextcalc
2.00
5
26
16
2
49
57
3.00
Total
7
12
0
0
19
12
38
17
2
69
Contextcalc
2.00
3.00
Total
Total
49
19
68
Symmetric Measures
Ordinal by Ordinal
N of Valid Cases
Value
.408
68
Gamma
Asymp.
a
Std. Error
.200
Approx. T
1.961
I provide oppurtunity
for healing and
dealing with feelings
Total
Never
Sometimes
Often
Always
Contextcalc
2.00
3.00
2
0
5
6
19
3
22
10
48
19
58
Total
2
11
22
32
67
Approx. Sig.
.050
Symmetric Measures
Nominal by
Nominal
Value
.323
.323
67
Phi
Cramer's V
N of Valid Cases
Approx. Sig.
.072
.072
Contextcalc
2.00
3.00
4
1
10
1
22
5
12
12
48
19
Never
Sometimes
Often
Always
Total
Symmetric Measures
Nominal by
Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Phi
Cramer's V
Value
.367
.367
67
Approx. Sig.
.029
.029
59
Total
5
11
27
24
67
Crosstab
Count
I view work
as short
term.
Contextcalc
2.00
3.00
5
8
28
5
9
3
4
2
46
18
Never
Sometimes
Often
Always
Total
Total
13
33
12
6
64
Symmetric Measures
Nominal by
Nominal
Value
.397
.397
64
Phi
Cramer's V
N of Valid Cases
Approx. Sig.
.018
.018
I have a preset
process I follow
Never
Sometimes
Often
Always
Total
Contextcalc
2.00
3.00
4
3
22
4
18
7
4
5
48
19
Total
Symmetric Measures
Nominal by
Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Phi
Cramer's V
Value
.303
.303
67
Approx. Sig.
.104
.104
60
7
26
25
9
67
Never
Sometimes
1
4
Sometimes
0
7
Often
Always
0
5
Total
Ordinal by Ordinal
N of Valid Cases
Value
.485
70
Gamma
Often
Total
Always
Never
1
6
1
7
3
24
12
22
15
21
12
22
31
70
Asymp.
Std.
Error(a)
.136
Approx.
T(b)
3.306
Approx. Sig.
.001
Never
Sometimes
3
7
Sometimes
7
19
Often
Always
Total
Ordinal by Ordinal
N of Valid Cases
Gamma
Often
Total
Always
Never
1
10
1
2
12
38
17
12
35
18
69
Value
.269
69
Asymp.
Std.
Error(a)
.161
Approx.
T(b)
1.621
61
Approx. Sig.
.105
Crosstab
Count
I use problem
solving to describe
my work.
Never
Sometimes
Often
Always
Total
Contextcalc
2.00
3.00
10
1
23
12
15
3
1
3
49
19
Symmetric Measures
Nominal by
Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Phi
Cramer's V
Value
.347
.347
68
Approx. Sig.
.042
.042
62
Total
11
35
18
4
68
Works Cited
Burgess, Heidi (1997). Transformative Mediation. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from
CRInfo: The Conflict Resolution Information Source Web site:
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/transform/tmall.htm
Burkholder, Krista, Eby, K, and Oelschlager G. (2008). Conflict Transformation: Terms,
Goals, and Strategies. Unpublished Paper, Methods of Social Research, Eastern
Mennonite University, Fall 2008.
Kraybill, Ronald S., Robert A. Evans and Alice Frazer Evens (2001). Peace Skills:
Manual for Community Mediators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lederach, John Paul (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided
societies. Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Lederach, John Paul (2003). The Little Book of Conflict Transformation. Intercourse, PA:
Good Books.
Miall, H., Ramsbotham, O., & Woodhouse, T. (2008). Contemporary Conflict Resolution.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Mitchell, Christopher R. (2002). Beyond Resolution: What Does Conflict Transformation
Actually Transform? Peace and Conflict Studies, 9(1).
Rhodes, Gloria I. (2008). Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation Practice: Is
there a Difference? Unpublished dissertation. Fairfax, Virginia: George Mason
University.
Rubin, Jeffrey Z. (1997). Western Perspectives on Conflict Resolution. In Paul Salem
(Ed.), Conflict Resolution in the Arab World: Selected Essays. Beirut: American
University of Beirut.
63
64