OTPIC Officially Retired

As of December 2, 2005, the Online Training Program on Intractable Conflict (OTPIC) has been officially retired, and is no longer open to new registrations.

The successor to OTPIC is a course called Dealing Constructively with Intractable Conflicts (DCIC). The new curriculum is built around one of our major projects, Beyond Intractability, and offers a much more extensive and informative set of learning materials than that available through OTPIC.

usiplogo.gif (1499 bytes)

International Online Training Program On Intractable Conflict

Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, USA

Conflict Mapping

By Paul Wehr

Opening Page | Glossary | Menu Shortcut Page


As conflict emerges, it produces considerable confusion. Interactions between the conflicting parties changes, sometimes radically and abruptly. Levels of unpredictability, uncertainty and emotion rise. Unwise and costly decisions are made from a lack of understanding of what is occurring. Since how a conflict emerges largely determines how costly it will subsequently be, those involved must have the clearest possible understanding of what is going on.


Even the simplest interpersonal conflict has many elements. Conflicts involving multiple parties, large numbers of people, and complex organizations such as governments get to be enormously complicated. Some conflict theorists (Boulding 1988) present general principles for analysis. Others (Deutsch 1973) take a very detailed, microanalytical approach to understanding conflict. Still others (Blalock 1989) do both.  Every conflict has certain basic elements permitting us to produce a roadmap by which a conflict opponent, a third party intervenor, or simply a student of conflict can find their way through a particular conflict (Wehr 1979). The primary items in this roadmap include the following:


Conflict Context: The mapper first gathers information about the history of the conflict and its physical and organizational settings. Conflict does not emerge in a vacuum. Sometimes one conflict is nested within another. The university departmental conflict referred to below, for example, was greatly influenced by a concurrent higher-level conflict between the University president and the faculty.


Parties: Parties in a conflict differ in the directness of their involvement and the importance of its outcome for them. Primary parties are those who oppose one another, are using fighting behavior, and have a direct stake in the outcome of the conflict. Secondary parties have an indirect stake in the outcome. They are often allies or sympathizers with primary parties but are not direct adversaries. Third parties are actors such as mediators and peacekeeping forces which might intervene to facilitate resolution.


Causes and Consequences: It is not always possible to distinguish a cause of a conflict from a consequence. In fact, as a conflict emerges, cause and consequence tend to blend. Hostility might be a consequence of one phase of a conflict and a cause of the next. Perceived goals and interests incompatibility is perhaps the most basic cause of social conflict. Identity defense is also common, particularly in the contemporary world where group awareness and rights have assumed high visibility. Cultural differences and particularly language are sources of separateness and difference. They create a sense of self and self-defense which is probably the primary motive for conflict.


Contrasting beliefs and values are operating vigorously in much social conflict. These range from the negative image one has of one's opponent to one's opinion about a Supreme Being. Disagreement over facts characterizes much conflict and is probably the most readily resolved. Then there is conflict which occurs out of the need one or both parties have simply to fight, no matter about what. The conflict is a goal in itself. It releases tension perhaps. Finally, the explanation for the conflict may be a low capacity for cooperative conflict resolution within the context.


Goals and Interests: There is an important distinction between these two concepts. Goals are the more or less acknowledged objectives of parties in a conflict. They usually can put them into words. Sometimes goals are referred to as positions; specific demands being made by one party or the other. "If you wish to end the conflict, you must do this or that." Interests, on the other hand, are what really motivates the parties, what they really need to achieve: security, recognition, respect, justice and so on (Burton 1990). An important purpose of mapping is to help opposing parties to distinguish their goals/positions from their true interests/needs and bring those goals and interests as close to unity as possible.


Dynamics: A conflict is constantly moving and changing. Even if parties are at stalemate, aspects of the conflict context will be changing. Runaway responses (Coleman 1956 ) of parties to one another are made more visible through conflict mapping. Dynamics such as unrestrained escalation and polarization carry participants away from cooperative resolution toward greater hostility. Perception changes occur within the opposing sides which reinforce the runaway responses: stereotyping opponents, seeing them as the negative mirror-image of oneself, imputing to them increasingly malign motives.


Functions: The functions of a conflict are its purposes, the positive consequences it may be having for the opposing parties. These may be simply tension release or aggressive impulses directed at a more vulnerable party. But a conflict always has some purposes for those involved. In a particularly intense university departmental conflict over tenure, minority faculty both inside and outside the department gained new visibility, solidarity, and alliances with other low-power groups in the university. The department also became a bit more unified as it defended itself against what it felt was a unfair accusation. Knowing the consequences of such functions may reveal ways other than the conflict to produce them and thus move the conflict toward cooperative resolution.


Regulation Potential: Every conflict context contains its own conflict-limiting elements. There may be third parties who could intervene. Internal limiting factors such as the simple wish of the parties to maintain their relationship can be used. External limiting factors such as law and higher authority might be introduced.


Using the conflict map: A conflict mapper can use this mapping guide in numerous ways. It can be used by each party on its own, in an effort to clarify the conflict from their own perspective. Or it can be used jointly, in an effort to understand both sides' view of the conflict. A third party (such as a mediator) could interview the conflict parties with the guide, draft a map, ask the parties to modify it from their perspectives, redraft it, and present it as a first joint step toward cooperative resolution. Alternatively, this could be done by parties on one side who would solicit cooperation from their opponents in creating an accurate conflict map.


Links to Examples of Conflict Mapping:

Gennady I. Chufrin and Harold H. Saunders -- A Public Peace Process
This is a description of the process used in the Dartmouth Conferences--a series of track-two problem solving workshops held between citizens of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. in an effort to improve the international relationship between those two nations.  Part of the process described was "mapping the relationship together," during which the parties worked together to create, essentially, a conflict map of their relationship.
 
Estrada-Hollenbeck -- Understanding Forgiveness
This anecdote describes the importance of narratives to help a third party understand a conflict history and how that history effects current relationships. Such an understanding can assist in conflict analysis as well as in choosing a strategy for intervention.
 
Chester Crocker -- Lessons on Intervention
In this article, Crocker examines factors that determine whether or not international intervention in escalated disputes is effective.  One factor is whether or not adequate information is collected--in other words, whether a usable conflict map is created by the parties intervening in the conflict.
 
Harold Saunders -- Prenegotiation and Circum-negotiation: Arenas of the Peace Process
This is another description of peacemaking processes which emphasizes the importance of mapping relationships and issues and places this process in the context of the entire peacemaking enterprise.
 
William Maley -- Peacemaking Diplomacy: United Nations Good Offices in Afghanistan
This article just discusses conflict assessment in passing; however it concludes that the success of United Nation's good offices requires "highly expert, level-headed assessments of complex political situations"--part of the conflict mapping process.
 
John Paul Lederach -- Building Peace
This is an overview of Lederach's new book on the peacebuilding process.  One tool he describes is what he calls a peace inventory--a comprehensive listing of peacebuilding activities and actors.  This, too, is part of a good conflict map.
Paul Wehr -- Resolving an Environmental Conflict Through Values Mapping
This short article describes a method of mapping values to assist in conflict resolution.
 
Paul Wehr--Power Resources Inventory by U.S. Civil Rights Leaders
This article explains how U.S. civil rights leaders used power mapping to plan their confrontation strategy.

 

Links to Outside Sources of Information

Jan Øberg--Conflict Mitigation in Reconstruction and Development


Links to Related Treatments:

Analysis of Similar Conflicts

Understanding Historical Context

Recognizing Related Disputes

Assisted Scoping


Links to Related Problems:

Framing (all problems)

Scoping (all problems)


Copyright ©1998 Conflict Research Consortium  -- Contact: crc@colorado.edu