"Problem solving workshops are designed to bring together representatives of conflicting parties in a relatively isolated setting...'preferably [in] an academic context -- where they can engage, free from diplomatic protocol and publicity, in face-to-face communication in the presence and under the guidance of social scientists knowledgeable about group process and conflict theory.'" -- Herbert C. Kelman
|
What are Problem Solving Workshops?
Problem solving workshops are discussions that take place between unofficial representatives of groups or states engaged in violent protracted conflict.[1] Carefully chosen representatives from all sides meet with a third party panel to analyze the fundamental sources of conflict and develop possible solutions. Panelists are typically academic researchers or conflict scholars who arrange for the representatives to gather together for an intensive discussion.[2] The optimal size of workshops is about twelve persons and they typically take between three days and one week to complete.[3] Insofar as the meetings provide unofficial communication channels separate from official negotiations, they are a form of Track II diplomacy. The workshops do not replace official diplomatic activities, but act as a complement to them.
Workshops provide an informal, low-risk, noncommittal forum in which unofficial representatives of the parties can analyze their conflict and engage in problem solving.[4] Meetings are private, and take place in an academic context where adversaries can communicate without the implication that they are recognizing or legitimizing one another.[5] Because participants are not held publicly accountable for what they say during discussions, the meetings do not involve a commitment to any particular outcome.[6] They are informal, discreet, and have a naturally low profile.[7]
Participants exchange ideas, recognize key obstacles, and explore new solutions. The process does not involve negotiation nor does it require disputants to give up their struggle. Rather than bargaining from entrenched positions, participants engage in an academic exercise in which they jointly explore their common problem.[8] Participants should view the workshop not as a struggle to be won, but rather as an opportunity for inventiveness and creativity.[9]
Workshop Participants
Workshops are usually facilitated by a panel of social science scholars who have theoretical knowledge about the causes, dynamics, and effects of conflict.[10] Insofar as they have nothing political to gain or lose from the outcome, they are neutral. In the process of offering their technical expertise, they learn more about social and political processes of conflict.
Party representatives should truly represent all strands of opinions within the adversary groups and provide insight into the party's range of feelings, perceptions, and aspirations about the issues in conflict.[11] Participants should therefore include moderates as well as extremists who might be able to damage or undermine the outcome. Those groups directly involved in the conflict must have a voice in determining which viewpoints are to be represented in the workshop. It is also important that participants from the various sides display roughly equal levels of skill, experience, and knowledge. If there is a great imbalance with respect to the participants' intellectual and analytical capacities, the exercise is far less likely to be a success.[12]
Additional insights into problem solving workshops are offered by Beyond Intractability project participants.
|
Phases of the Workshop
Workshops do not begin with a detailed agenda. Instead, they should be described and run as research seminars that have an open agenda to be shaped by the participants.[13] However, almost all workshops tend to focus on the origins of conflict, its underlying issues, and obstacles to resolution. Other common topics include matters of trust, how to reduce tension, and what confidence building measures or de-escalation tactics would be effective.[14]
In the first phase, each of the participants should explain their view of the conflict to the panelists. Because parties typically avoid direct communication with each other at this point, most exchanges take place between one party and the panel.[15] The participants are invited, in turn, to explain the nature and origins of the conflict and what appear to be the obstacles to resolution.[16] Each side's account typically includes stories of past atrocities and involves a great deal of provocative comment. There may be provocative challenges and indignant rebuttals, making this stage of the workshop especially emotionally charged.[17] However, it is necessary for participants to be able to tell their story so that they can move on to consider the present and the future. Therefore, presentations should be as free from interruption and debate as possible. Eventually participants may become frustrated and feel that they are talking in circles and getting nowhere. At this point, panelists should try to provide some bridge into a second and more productive stage of the workshop.
In the second phase, the parties maintain their separate spheres but begin to join the panel in analysis. They begin to thoroughly discuss the various accounts of the conflict that have been given. This process involves a rigorous analysis of the structure of the dispute and invites participants from all sides to explore the nature of their conflict.[18] Facilitators often ask a series of clarifying questions about points made in the opening statements and construct a list of key issues for further discussion. They also introduce relevant general theories about why conflicts occur or draw parallels to conflicts in other parts of the world. Eventually participants begin to correct what the panelists have to say about conflict theory and something that resembles an academic seminar begins to take place. Together, the panelists and representatives analyze the conflict, explore mutual perspectives, and generate new ideas.[19]
In the third phase, the group becomes somewhat more integrated and representatives from the opposing sides begin to collaborate.[20] Moving toward resolution involves a series of steps in which panelists help the parties work together to solve their joint problem. They invite the parties to explore the central issues of their conflict and search for solutions that do not require any of the parties to compromise their basic interests or needs.[21] Appealing to 'solutions' that the various participants identified in earlier statements, the panelists lead the discussion and explore various possibilities for ending the violent conflict in question. However, the participants typically realize that initial prescriptions must be rejected in virtue of theoretical considerations and likely negative consequences. At this point, the participants have developed a strong understanding of what the obstacles to resolution are.
Once they have come to recognize just how small the area of possible initial agreement is, they must focus on this tiny area and try to expand it.[22] Sometimes, panelists encourage participants to summarize the ideas they have developed into a number of mutually agreeable principles.[23] In some cases, participants may even agree to more concrete proposals for mutually reinforcing actions once they have returned to their own country. For example, they may sketch out a series of de-escalating moves to be presented to decision makers.[24] At the very least, participants should emerge from the workshop with the feeling that they have a deeper understanding of their conflict and some ideas about moving toward resolution. Because a single workshop is unlikely to include all the relevant parties or deal with all the issues, a series of meetings may be necessary. However, even a single workshop can create new opportunities for communication between groups of antagonists.
The Role of Third Party Facilitators
"In the interactive problem solving approach[,] the role of the third-party is to provide the context for the interaction, to set the guidelines and norms for communication, and to serve as a locus of trust." -- Cosima Krueger, summarizing Herbert C. Kelman, available online here.
|
The scholar-practitioners who oversee the sessions play both a facilitative and diagnostic role. They invite participants from all sides to engage in an analysis of their conflict and work together to develop creative ideas for its improvement. Because both sets of participants trust the third party, they are able to proceed with the assurance that their interests will be served and their needs respected.[25] The most important task that consultants have is to listen to the parties and analyze the nature of the issues in conflict as well as the obstacles to resolution. Because the central issues often go beyond those portrayed in the parties' public positions, consultants must listen for hidden agendas and unacknowledged resentments.[26] Once they understand all of the important nuances of the situation, panelists can direct the representatives towards relevant theories about the causes and dynamics of their conflict. For example, one commonly used body of material has to do with the tendency of conflicts to escalate. Exposing parties to this body of knowledge can help them to identify the ways in which they are contributing to escalation. If used constructively, theories about the causes and processes of conflict have the potential to generate new ideas for the participants and stimulate productive discussion.
Third parties also facilitate communication among the conflicting parties so that mutually acceptable solutions can emerge. Panelists try to help the participants establish "a flow of communication" that will enable them to find their own way towards resolution.[27] They also provide a framework in which parties who do not normally communicate can come together to listen to each other. Often the academic context is helpful in providing the context, norms, and interventions necessary for constructive communication. This context suggests an analytic, cooperative approach that calls for direct, face-to-face interaction.[28] Holding meetings at a university may help the parties to think in problem solving terms and focus on research and communication rather than bargaining.[29]
Consultation should be distinguished from other intermediary functions, such as mediation, arbitration, and adjudication.[30] All three of these processes, if successful, result in a settlement or a decision being made. Since participants in problem solving workshops are unofficial, they cannot make decisions or commit any one in the group to a particular course of action. They can, however, work with the other parties and the facilitators to explore multiple options, and may develop one or more suggested approaches or creative ideas which they can present to official decision makers after the workshop concludes.
Why Hold Problem Solving Workshops?
While other forms of third party intervention, such as mediation or arbitration, lead to the settlement of conflict, such settlements may not be stable in the long run. This is because even if a settlement is reached, such settlements often focus solely on material interests and ignore the underlying needs of the adversaries, which remain unmet.[31] While violent conflict is no longer manifest, it is likely to arise again. In problem solving workshops, on the other hand, scholars help disputants to jointly analyze the fundamental sources of conflict, focusing on unmet human needs such as identity and security. Rather than reaching a settlement, based on interests, the two central objectives of problem solving workshops are the analysis of conflict and its ultimate resolution. Therefore, workshops aim to produce new ideas, altered perceptions, and innovative solutions.[32] Ideally, these ideas and proposals help participants develop ideas about how to restructure their societies so that all parties' fundamental needs are met. Some workshops are primarily educational and focus on changing people's perceptions and attitudes. This provides participants with new knowledge and abilities that enable them to function better in their conflict-torn societies. Other workshops are more political, and emphasize transferring the new knowledge to decision-making bodies.[33]
Parties caught in deep conflict often view their conflict as win-lose and are unlikely to collaborate. Adversaries typically interact in a legalistic, accusatory atmosphere where it is difficult for them to learn anything about each other or themselves. They express the grievances of their group, proclaim their rights, and defend their positions. Often they do so in a militant way. There are few attempts to really listen to those from the other side and gain an understanding of their perspective. Such interactions typically enforce already rigid positions and negative perceptions of the other side.[34]
Workshops are designed to create a setting governed by a different set of norms, in which more productive interaction between the adversaries can take place.[35] If parties are to participate in a joint search for a solution, they must move beyond their roles as adversaries and become analysts and partners.[36] The fact that representatives are coming together for a research project allows them to interact in new ways. Analysis gives parties tools to reinterpret their relationship, enlarges their view of the situation, and breaks down their former categories of thought.[37] Workshops also provide a creative intellectual environment in which adversaries must cooperate as partners in the problem solving process. These interactions should enable the parties to discover new ways to influence each other by exploring what the other needs.[38]
Some theorists also stress the idea that problem solving should produce significant changes in the parties' attitudes towards one another.[39] They believe that the ultimate goals of the workshops are deep understanding, mutual respect, jointly acceptable solutions, and improved relationships.[40] In the process of analyzing the conflict, participants come to understand the other side's perspective and become aware of possibilities for future change.[41] However, others point out that each party's fundamental attitudes towards the adversary often remain unchanged during the workshop.[42] In fact, mutually hostile perceptions are often enlarged and intensified during a workshop's early stages. Nevertheless, these attitudes also tend to become better understood. Problem solving should be an exercise in realism, helping parties to better understand one another despite their continued opposition.[43]
Workshops tend to reveal a variety of insights:
- They show the representatives that communication is possible. Parties see that at least some members of the opposing side are committed to a peaceful solution and willing to develop a common vision of the future.[44]
- They provide insight into the fundamental concerns and priorities of the other side and enable adversaries to directly observe and analyze the impact of their own actions on one another. This gives the parties greater awareness of the possibilities for change and potential for influencing the other side through positive incentives.[45]
- Problem solving helps parties to develop a sense of mutual trust and to break down enemy images. They also begin to develop mutual confidence, common perceptions, and shared vocabulary.[46]
- Representatives from the opposing sides realize that neither group needs to abandon its national ideology in order to achieve peace.
- Participants learn about the significance of symbolic acts and gestures. They become more aware of actions that would entail little cost to their own group, yet mean a lot to their opponents.[47] For example, gestures that indicate the recognition of the other group's humanity or legitimacy can be very helpful.
But workshops not only contribute to the transformation and resolution of conflict, but also produce valuable research, analysis, and insights.[48] The new knowledge that emerges from the workshops often deepens understanding about the way the parties' interactions create the conditions for conflict and help to feed escalation. These new ideas can then be transferred to the policy arena and influence individuals' future political activity.[49] Their new knowledge makes representatives particularly well equipped to ask questions, point out implications, and emphasize costs and risks in order to influence decision making procedures back at home.[50] Workshops in this way produce changes in individuals that can act as vehicles for change in the political system. In some cases, workshop participants act as advisors to the decision makers and political leadership within their own communities.[51] In other cases, they themselves are political actors or representatives of political movements. Non-official but highly influential participants are often most effective because they increase the likelihood that what is learned in the workshop will have an impact on the policy process.[52]
In many instances, workshops also prepare the parties for more formal communication processes and supplement official negotiations.[53] They not only reveal potentially negotiable issues, but also contribute ideas to the negotiation process. In the post-negotiation phase, they can facilitate coexistence and cooperation and contribute to reconciliation.[54]
[1] Ronald J. Fisher, "Interactive Conflict Resolution," pp. 239-272 in Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques, eds. I. William Zartman and J. Lewis Rasmussen. (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997), 239.
[2] Christopher Mitchell and Michael Banks, Handbook of Conflict Resolution: The Analytical Problem-solving Approach, (New York: Pinter, 1996), 81.
[3] Ibid, 114.
[4] Fisher, 241.
[5] Herbert C. Kelman, "Interactive Problem-solving: A Social-psychological Approach to Conflict Resolution," pp. 199-215 in Conflict: Readings in Management and Resolution, eds. John Burton and Frank Dukes, (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990), 206.
[6] Ibid, 206.
[7] Mitchell and Banks, 68.
[8] Ibid, 75.
[9] Ibid, 54.
[10] Anthony de Reuck, "A Theory of Conflict Resolution by Problem-solving," in Conflict: Readings in Management and Resolution, eds. John Burton and Frank Dukes, (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990), 183.
[11] Mitchell and Banks, 35.
[12] Ibid, 55.
[13] Ibid., 115.
[14] Ibid., 130.
[15] de Reuck, 185.
[16] Mitchell and Banks, 102.
[17] Ibid., 104.
[18] de Reuck, 183.
[19] Kelman, 201.
[20] de Reuck, 185.
[21] Ibid., 183.
[22] Mitchell and Banks, 113.
[23] Ibid., 130.
[24] Ibid., 136.
[25] Kelman, 207.
[26] Mitchell and Banks, 117.
[27] Ibid., 100.
[28] Kelman, 208.
[29] Mitchell and Banks, 87.
[30] Fisher, 241.
[31] Mitchell and Banks, 3.
[32] Kelman, 202.
[33] Fisher, 240.
[34] Kelman, 206.
[35] Ibid., 207.
[36] de Reuck, 187.
[37] Ibid., 193.
[38] Kelman, 200.
[39] Kelman, 201.
[40] Fisher, 241.
[41] Kelman, 207.
[42] Mitchell and Banks, 113.
[43] Ibid., 113.
[44] Kelman, 212.
[45] Ibid., 213.
[46] de Reuck, 183.
[47] Kelman, 213.
[48] Ibid., 205.
[49] Ibid., 203.
[50] Mitchell and Banks, 145.
[51] Ibid., 204.
[52] Ibid., 205.
[53] Ibid., 213.
[54] Ibid., 214.
Use the following to cite this article:
Maiese, Michelle. "Problem-Solving Workshops." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: August 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/Anal_Prob_Solv/>.
Sources of Additional, In-depth Information on this Topic
Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources
Conflict: Resolution and Provention--Book Summary. Centre for Conflict Resolution, Univ of Cape Town, South Africa.
Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10089/.
This summary of Conflict: Resolution and Provention, by John Burton, gives a good overview of the book. The book offers an historical and theoretical overview of approaches to conflict resolution, emphasizing a problem-solving approach to conflict resolution and the need for conflict prevention (provention).
Analytical Problem Solving.
Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/anps.htm.
Analytical problem solving is an approach to difficult conflicts developed by conflict scholars John Burton, Herbert Kelman, and others which focuses upon systematically analyzing a conflict to determine the degree to which fundamental human needs of the parties are being met. In cases where there are significant unmet needs, analytical problem solving examines options for meeting those needs as a way of resolving the conflict.
Glaser, Tanya and Conflict Research Consortium Staff. "From Confrontation to Cooperation: Resolving Ethnic and Regional Conflict--Book Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium.
Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10501/.
This summary of From Confrontation to Cooperation, by Jay Rothman, provides a good overview of the book, which presents a new conceptual framework for understanding and resolving protracted ethnic conflicts.
Krueger, Cosima. "Informal Mediation by the Scholar/Practitioner--Summary." Conflict Research Consortium.
Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/articlesummary/10309/.
This summary describes Herbert C. Kelman's interactive problem-solving appraoch to conflict resolution. This approach consists primarily of workshops which are intended to supplement and complement official negotiations.
Creative Associates International. "Non-Official Conflict Management Methods: Non-Official Facilitation." , 2002
Available at: Click here for more info.
"Non-Official Facilitation (NOF) encompasses a range of methods of informal, non-directive workshops that bring members of conflicting parties together in face-to-face small-group problem-solving discussions moderated or facilitated by informal panels of outside consultants to help participants understand and resolve their conflicts." This page includes all the pertinent information regarding non-official facilitation as a tool in conflict prevention and resolution. Provides an example from a border dispute between Kenya, Somalia, and Ethiopia.
Glaser, Tanya. "Reality Reconstruction Workshops--Summary." University of Colorado - Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado - Conflict Research Consortium.
Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/example/wehr7488.htm.
This page is a summary of Paul Wehr's article, Reality Reconstruction Workshops. Wehr describes a number of individuals such as Herbert Kelman, who brought disputing parties together at workshops.
Glaser, Tanya. "Structure: Lenses for the Big Picture -- Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium.
Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/articlesummary/10358/.
This is a summary of a chapter in Building Peace by John Paul Lederach, entitled Structure: Lenses for the Big Picture. In this chapter Lederach presents a framework for understanding the structure of armed conflicts. The author analyzes the actors involved on a three level model, and explains a way of understanding the interrelationships between the many issues involved in typical armed conflicts.
Burgess, Heidi, Guy M. Burgess and Tanya Glaser. Transformative Approaches to Conflict. Conflict Research Consortium.
Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/transform/index.html.
This site contains information about a variety of transformative approaches to conflict including transformative mediation, John Paul Lederach's conception of transformative peacemaking and conflict transformation, the analytical problem solving/human needs approach to conflict transformation, research on the transformation of conflicts from intractable to tractable (primarily done at Syracuse University), and other techniques for successfully dealing with
intractable conflicts, particularly dialogue and constructive confrontation.
Offline (Print) Sources
Burton, John W. Conflict: Resolution and Provention. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, Inc., July 1990.
The author suggests that protracted conflict often arises out of unmet human needs. Conflict provention seeks to address the underlying systemic causes of conflict rather than merely dealing with its symptoms. It suggests that the best way to deal with serious social problems is to alter the structures of the social environments that give rise to these problems. Click here for more info.
Burton, John W. "Conflict Resolution as a political philosophy." In Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application. Edited by der Merwe, Hugo van and Dennis J.D. Sandole, eds. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1993.
The author looks at new techniques have that been developed in dispute managment in recent years. Conflict resolution has not received as much attention though. It is capable of dealing with both domestic and international conflicts, as well as in operating in different economic and political systems. But these are not the main tasks of conflict resolution. The major promise of it is conflict provention. Both goals promote conditions for peaceful transformation of the societies toward social harmony.
Click here for more info.
Rothman, Jay. From Confrontation to Cooperation: Resolving Ethnic and Regional Conflict. London: Sage Publications, November 1992.
From Confrontation to Cooperation presents a new conceptual framework for understanding and resolving protracted ethnic conflicts.
Click here for more info.
Mitchell, Christopher R. and Michael A. Banks. Handbook of Conflict Resolution: The Analytical Problem-Solving Approach. London: Printer Pub. Ltd., 1996.
This book seeks to to bridge the gap between the theory and the practice of intervening in violent conflict. The authors describe analytical problem-solving and outline its major goals and benefits. They also describe how to arrange and conduct a problem-solving workshop. Problem-solving workshops are meetings that take place between unofficial representatives of conflicting parties and a third party panel. The overall aim of workshops is to analyze the sources of conflict and invent new solutions.
Fisher, Ronald J. Interactive Conflict Resolution. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, June 1997.
This book examines a number of issues, techniques, and processes connected to the field of conflict resolution. This includes human rights workshops for conflict resolution, the third party consultation model, and interactive problem solving.
Fisher, Ronald J. "Interactive Conflict Resolution." In Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques. Edited by Zartman, I. William and J. Lewis Rasmussen, eds. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997.
Interactive conflict resolution involves problem-solving discussions between unofficial representatives of parties to violent conflict. This chapter outlines the central goals of problem-solving workshops and gives an overview of significant contributions to the theory and practice of analytical problem-solving. It also features an extensive bibliography.
Kelman, Herbert C. "Interactive Problem-solving: A Social-Psychological Approach to Conflict Resolution." In Conflict: Readings in Management and Resolution. Edited by Dukes, E. Frank and John W. Burton, eds. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990.
The author describes problem-solving workshops as a forum for social-psychological analysis of conflict. Such an analysis focuses on the way interactions between the parties contribute to escalation. It also attempts to generate new knowledge and innovative proposals for conflict resolution. This piece describes both the educational and political purposes of problem-solving workshops and outlines the role of third party facilitators. Click here for more info.
Stiefel, Matthias. "Participatory Action Research as a Tool for Peacebuilding: The WSP Experience." In Peacebuilding: A Field Guide. Edited by Reychler, Luc and Thania Paffenholz, eds. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2001.
The author suggests that postwar development must be based on a holistic and in-depth understanding of the community's problems, the available resources, and the respective agendas of the various actors. If external assistance is to contribute effectively to peacebuilding efforts, the operational practice of aid must change. Mattias argues that participatory action research, in which researchers and social actors join forces in collective research, might be used as a rebuilding tool. This strategy promotes better understanding of post-conflict situations, allows for more integrated policy responses, and promotes a democracy in societies emerging from conflict.
Kelman, Herbert C. "The Interactive Problem-Solving Approach." Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to International Conflict , September 1, 1996.
This piece describes the problem-solving approach, which brings together representatives of conflicting parties to analyze their joint problem and discuss solutions.
de Reuck, Anthony. "Theory of Conflict Resolution by Problem-solving, A." In Conflict: Readings in Management and Resolution. Edited by Dukes, E. Frank and John W. Burton, eds. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990.
The problem-solving approach suggests that representatives of the parties in a dispute should meet in the presence of a small panel of skilled consultants to analyze their conflict and move toward resolution. The author outlines the theory behind this approach and suggests that the reframing and redefining of conflict is central to problem-solving and resolution.
Return to Top
Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources
Tillet, Gregory. Conflict Resolution Training for Military Peacekeepers.
Available at: http://www.ciaonet.org/conf/tig01/.
Originally presented at the INCORE Conference on the Training and Preparation of Military and Civilian Peacekeepers, this paper is based on the author's experiences of working with Australian Defense Forces prior to their deployment on peacekeeping operations. He argues that all soldiers embarking on peacekeeping missions should be equipped with a knowledge of basic conflict resolution techniques, and should understand the roles which modern peacekeeping operations expect them to perform. Tillet goes on to outline a standard framework for training in conflict resolution. The conflict resolution training framework introduces participants to the basic principles and practices of conflict resolution, analytical problem solving and application of conflict resolution.
Hicks, Donna and William Weisberg. "PICAR Sri Lanka Problem-Solving Project." Peaceworks, No. 20 , May 1998
Available at: http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/smock20/chap5_20.html.
This brief article describes Harvard University's Program on International Conflict Analysis and Resolution (PICAR) that has been working to foster problem-solving dialogue in an unofficial effort to contribute to peace in Sri Lanka.
Offline (Print) Sources
Babbitt, Eileen F. and Tamra Pearson d'Estrée. "An Israeli-Palestinian Women's Workshop: Application of the Interactive Problem-Solving Approach." In Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to International Conflict. Edited by Hampson, Fen Osler and Pamela Aall, eds. Washington, D.C.: USIP Press, 1996.
Interactive problem-solving workshops bring together unofficial representatives of the conflicting parties for informal meetings to analyze the conflict and generate new approaches to its resolution. This essay describes a workshop, conducted in 1987, that involved politically active women from the Israeli and Palestinian communities. It outlines the development and objectives of this workshop, as well as its agenda and accomplishments.
Broome, Benjamin J. "Designing a Collective Approach to Peace: Interactive Design and Problem-Solving Workshops with Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot Communities in Cyprus." International Negotiation 2:3, 1997.
A series of problem-solving workshops, facilitated by the author utilizing the "interactive management" design process, was held in Cyprus over a nine-month period with a bi-communal group of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Participants addressed peacebuilding efforts in Cyprus during three phases of group work in which they (a) explored the current situation surrounding such efforts, (b) developed a collective vision for the future, and (c) created an integrated set of activities that they would lead over the next two to three years. The process and the products from the group work are described, and personal reflections are offered about the context for the training, cultural considerations, political and practical difficulties, the impact of the workshops, and an evaluation of the training.
Kelman, Herbert C. "Informal Mediation by the Scholar/Practitioner." Mediation in International Relations: Multiple Approaches to Conflict Management , 1992.
Kelman describes his interactive problem solving approach to conflict resolution. This approach consists primarily of workshops which, "try to contribute to creating a political environment conducive to conflict resolution and to transformation of the relationship between the conflicting parties."[65] Such workshops are intended to supplement and complement official negotiations. [online abstract] Click here for more info.
Kelman, Herbert C. "Interactive Problem Solving: An Approach to Conflict Resolution and its Application in the Middle East." PS: Political Science and Politics 31:2, 1998.
This piece describes efforts to apply the interactive problem-solving approach to the conflict in the Middle East. It hightlights the social-psychological assumptions of the approach and the central components of problem-solving workshops. It then goes on to describe the contributions the ongoing series of workshops have made in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The author suggests that these efforts have made a substantial contribution to the peace process.
Return to Top
|
