"'To a hammer all the world is a nail...' To a mediator it's a potential collaborative process..." -- Guy and Heidi Burgess
|
Frames are psychological lenses or assumptions that affect how people see and interpret the world around them. Process or conflict-management frames are the assumptions people make about the right -- or best -- way to approach a dispute. Some people, for example, are avoiders: their primary process frame is withdrawal or conciliation (i.e., "Go along with the other side whenever possible; when it isn't, just leave and get out of the situation"). Others are negotiators or mediators: they try to work out deals. Others are confrontors: they take a more adversarial stance and try to win. Whether one sees negotiation, arbitration, protest, or military action as the best strategy to achieve their goals depends partly on the situation, and partly on one's process or conflict-management frame.
What Exactly are Process / Conflict-Management Frames?
A frame is essentially a lens through which individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to a particular situation. Just as one puts a frame around a picture to crop out irrelevant or unnecessary features, people also use interpretive devices (which the conflict-resolution field calls frames) to crop out what is perceived to be irrelevant or unnecessary information. Frames also affect our judgement of a situation. Just as some people like one picture more than another, frames cause us to prefer one course of action more than another.
Additional insights into process frames are offered by Beyond Intractability project participants.
|
Why Do These Frames Matter?
Certain conflict-resolution processes may be better suited to reach a particular outcome, while competing strategies may lead to unwanted or undesirable outcomes. Because it would take too much time and energy to explore in detail each and every option, conflict-management frames allow people to look at their preferred outcome and eliminate certain processes or procedures from their consideration.
For example, in an environmental dispute over a proposed logging plan that would clear-cut five thousand acres of old growth forest, one environmental group might try negotiation in an attempt to reduce the number of acres to be cut. Another might might see logging as non-negotiable, so they would go to court to try to stop any logging from happening. A third, more radical group, might not trust the court, preferring to take more direct action to stop any logging. They might, for instance, sit in or chain themselves to trees to block the loggers while gaining publicity and, in theory, public support for their views.Through their respective frames, each group would likely eliminate choices that would involve giving up or giving in (in their view) to the opposing parties. Using the concept of framing allows analysts to explain why groups with similar interests and values (such as pro-environmental groups) could come to radically different conclusions about the best course of action when confronting a particular dispute. This perspective on frames is also helpful for evaluating whether and to what extent an individual disputant may become involved in a conflict and the course of action they are likely to pursue to achieve their desired outcome.
Frames as Limits
The most important insight gained from the process/conflict-management framing perspective is that these frames tend to limit an individual's ability to examine alternative options fairly and to determine which are most likely to be effective in particular situations. When one frames the conflict through one particular set of conflict-resolution lens, one tends to ignore, overlook, or criticize competing solutions without giving them the careful evaluation they might merit.
Use the following to cite this article:
Gardner, Robert. "Process Frames." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/process_frames/>.
Sources of Additional, In-depth Information on this Topic
Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources
Treating Framing Problems.
Available at: Click here for more info.
This page lists and defines several framing strategies that can be used to determine what a conflict is about and how it is being addressed.
Offline (Print) Sources
Hocker, Joyce and William Wilmot. "Conflict Tactics." In Interpersonal Conflict. Edited by Hocker, Joyce and William W. Wilmot, eds.
The authors discuss some of the strategic choices available to conflicting parties. Parties are more likely to strategize, that is, plan, in the face of difficult conflicts. Parties may strategize in advance of a conflict. They may revise their strategy during the course of the conflict. And they may engage in retrospective strategizing as they review a past conflict.
Click here for more info.
Schon, Donald A. and Martin Rein. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books, 1994.
This work focuses on the problem of intractable policy controversies. The work concentrates on the importance of frames and the notion that parties to policy controversies see issues, policies, and policy situations in different and conflicting ways that correspond to certain systems of belief and consequent modes of action. The authors outline a theoretical framework for thinking about these issues and employ multiple case studies to illustrate their innovative approach to solving policy disputes. The approach emphasizes the practice of reframing issues as a way toward resolution. Click here for more info.
Putnam, Linda L. and M. Holmer. "Framing, Reframing and Issue Development." In Communication and Negotiation. Edited by Putnam, Linda L. and M. Holmer, eds. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1992.
This chapter offers a review and critique of the theoretical approaches that researchers have employed in studying framing in negotiation. The review offers good background information on the concept of framing and the research that has been conducted on it. After reviewing previous literature on the subject, the authors introduce two alternative models of framing and reframing.
Warfield, Wallace P. . "Public-Policy Conflict Resolution: The nexus between culture and process ." In Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice. Edited by Sandole, Dennis J.D. and Hugo van der Merwe, eds. Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press, 1993.
The author investigates the impact of organizational culture on public-policy disputes. He argues that differences in culture between policy-making organizations and stakeholder groups complicate policy conflicts and awareness of this cultural element is necessary for a more adequate understanding of policy conflict. Click here for more info.
Return to Top
Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources
Kaufman, Sanda and Janet Smith. "Framing and Reframing in Land Use Change Conflicts." Journal of Architectural & Planning Research: Special issue Managing Conflict in Planning and Design , 1998
Available at: http://urban.csuohio.edu/~sanda/papers/frames98.htm.
Proposed changes to community land use frequently give rise to protracted disputes. Cognitive psychology, communication, and decision-making research suggests that frames, which filter people's perception of a problem, can affect conflict processes and outcomes. This paper argues that frames may significantly influence public participation in decisions to change a community's physical space.
Framing Problems.
Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/!overlay_problems.htm.
This page lists and defines potential problems with defining what the conflict is about and how it is being addressed.
Offline (Print) Sources
Gray, Barbara and R. Hanke. "Frame Repertoires and Non-Collaborative Behavior in an Intractable Environmental Conflict." Presented at the Academy of Management, Conflict Management Division, Washington, D.C., August 1, 2001.
Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Frames and Cases. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003.
This edited volume consists of a series of case studies that examine processes used to help resolve environmental conflicts. The work opens with an introductory chapter on how environmental conflicts are framed as well as a discussion of the meaning of the term intractability. The case studies cover natural resource cases, water cases, toxics cases, and growth management cases. The concept and importance of framing are emphasized throughout all of the pieces in the work.
Benford, R. D. "You Could Be The Hundredth Monkey: Collective Action Frames and Vocabularies of Motive within the Nuclear Disarmament Movement." The Sociological Quarterly 34, 1993.
In this article, the author examines collective action as a process through which conflicts can be addressed. He analyzes various vocabularies of motive in the nuclear disarmament movement to discover the competing rationales for taking action on behalf of the movement or its organizations.
Return to Top
|
