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

Integrative (or Win-Win) Reframing

Opening Page | Glossary | Menu Shortcut Page

Often people involved in difficult or intractable conflicts define the problem as a win-lose situation. They assume that anything that they win will cause the other side to lose, and vice versa. With integrative reframing, the parties try to redefine the problem in a win-win way. This can either be done by expanding the resources from which they are drawing (sometimes referred to as "expanding the pie") or redefining what they want so that everyone can have what they want at the same time, even with limited resources.

Often, integrative reframing involves focusing on interests, rather than positions. When done in this way, it is the same as interest-based framing. (Click here for a discussion of interest-based framing) But win-win reframing can also be based on needs, rather than interests. Although fundamental human needs are not negotiable, they are often mutually reinforcing. For example, if both sides seek more security, by agreeing not to threaten each other with violence, the need for security can be met simultaneously by both disputants. The key to integrative reframing in this case is framing the conflict in terms of needs, and then examining how those needs could be met for all sides simultaneously. (Click here to see the related discussion of needs-based framing.)


Links to Examples of Integrative Reframing

Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton -- Seven Strategies for Treating Perception - or Framing Problems
This article highlights some of the principles of integrative reframing as it is used in principled negotiation and laid out in the best-selling book, Getting to Yes.
Paul Wehr -- Self Limiting Conflict: The Gandhian Style
In this article Wehr illustrates how Gandhi reframed conflicts in an integrative way to try to reach mutually-satisfactory resolutions.
Jay Rothman -- Conflict Management Policy Analysis
This article describes a border conflict between Egypt and Israel which was resolved through arbitration.  Rothman goes on to discuss how a more integrative approach might have yielded a more satisfactory result.
Paul Wehr--Gandhian Satyagraha: An Example of Controlled Confrontation
Though Gandhi never used the words "integrative" or "reframing," his dialectical approach to finding the truth was exactly that.


Links to Outside Information on Integrative Reframing:

United States Institute of Peace--Sino-Tibetan co-Existence:   Creating Space for Tibetan Self-Direction

U.S. Institute of Peace--Religion, Nationalism, and Peace in Sudan


Links to Related Solutions

Interest-Based Framing

Fairness-Based Framing

Needs-Based Framing

Joint Reframing/Assisted Reframing

Principled Negotiation


Links to Related Problems

Confusing Interests with Positions

Confusing Material Interests With Fundamental Human Needs

Incompatible Frames

Overly Competitive Approaches to a Conflict

"Into-the-Sea" Framing

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