Advertisement

Journal of the Operational Research Society

, Volume 62, Issue 8, pp 1543–1554 | Cite as

Boundary critique and its implications for conflict prevention

  • G MidgleyEmail author
  • L A Pinzón
Theoretical Paper

Abstract

This paper reviews developments in the theory of boundary critique, which has been used in a number of OR projects to support conflict resolution. The authors argue that this theory (and associated models) is also useful for conflict prevention. It indicates the need to support people in discussing their differences before conflict arises. Potential conflicts can be reframed through dialogue focusing on values, and participative governance can institutionalise fair processes for making decisions in the absence of consensus. Some of the boundary critique models also support people in recognising and countering the systemic conditions that enable stereotyping, stigmatisation and the victimisation of minorities. The paper ends by presenting a new model that was originally developed to inform mediation practice, but also has implications for conflict prevention. This helps explain how different interpretations of a common concern arise, and suggests ways to improve mutual understanding between people and/or reframe the common concern in order to defuse a potential conflict.

Keywords

boundary critique conflict analysis conflict prevention critical systems thinking problem structuring methods systemic intervention 

References

  1. Ackoff RL (1981). Creating the Corporate Future. Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
  2. Andrade L, Plowman DA and Duchon D (2008). Getting past conflict resolution: A complexity view of conflict. Emergence: Complexity and Organization 10: 23–38.Google Scholar
  3. Baker V, Fowles J, Gregory W and Phillips D (2008). Making boundaries malleable: Systemic intervention in a contested setting. Int J Interdiscipl Soc Sci 3 (3): 31–43.Google Scholar
  4. Booth Fowler R (1991). The Dance with Community: The Contemporary Debate in American Political Thought. University Press of Kansas: Lawrence.Google Scholar
  5. Boyd A, Brown M and Midgley G (2004). Systemic intervention for community OR: Developing services with young people (under 16) living on the streets. In: Midgley G and Ochoa-Arias AE (eds). Community Operational Research: OR and Systems Thinking for Community Development. Kluwer/Plenum: New York, pp 203–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braithwaite J and Mugford S (1994). Conditions of successful reintegration ceremonies: Dealing with juvenile offenders. Brit J Criminol 34: 139–171.Google Scholar
  7. Burgess H and Burgess G (1996). Constructive confrontation: A transformative approach to intractable conflicts. Mediation Quarterly 13: 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bush RA and Folger JP (1994). The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict to Empowerment and Recognition. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Churchman CW (1970). Operations research as a profession. Mngt Sci 17: B37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Churchman CW (1979). The Systems Approach and Its Enemies. Basic Books: New York.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen JL and Arato A (1992). Civil Society and Political Theory. MIT Press: Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  12. Collins R (2008). Violence: A Micro-Sociological Theory. Princeton University Press: Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Córdoba J-R and Midgley G (2006). Broadening the boundaries: An application of critical systems thinking to IS planning in Colombia. J Opl Res Soc 57: 1064–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Douglas M (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Ark: London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleischer JM (1996). Directing and administrating a mediation program: The transformative approach. Mediation Quarterly 13: 295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flood RL and Jackson MC (1991). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  17. Folger JP and Bush RAB (1996). Transformative mediation and third-party intervention: Ten hallmarks of a transformative approach to practice. Mediation Quarterly 13: 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foote JL, Gregor JE, Hepi MC, Baker VE, Houston DJ and Midgley G (2007). Systemic problem structuring applied to community involvement in water conservation. J Opl Res Soc 58: 645–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foucault M (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. Gordon C (ed). Harvester Press: Brighton.Google Scholar
  20. Foucault M (1984). What is enlightenment? In: Rabinow P (ed). The Foucault Reader. Penguin: London, pp 32–50.Google Scholar
  21. Garfinkel H (1956). Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. Am J Sociol 61: 420–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilligan J (1996). Violence: Reflections on Our Deadliest Epidemic. Jessica Kingsley Publishers: London.Google Scholar
  23. Girard R (1979). Violence and the Sacred. John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.Google Scholar
  24. Goffman E (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Penguin: Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
  25. Grillo T (1996). Respecting the struggle: Following the parties’ lead. Mediation Quarterly 13: 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Habermas J (1973). Theory and Practice. Beacon Press: Boston.Google Scholar
  27. Habermas J (1976). Communication and the Evolution of Society. English edn, 1979. Heinemann: London.Google Scholar
  28. Hegel GWF (1807). The Phenomenology of Mind. 2nd edn, English edn, 1931. George Allen and Unwin: London.Google Scholar
  29. Herrman MS (1993). On balance: Promoting integrity under conflicted mandates. Mediation Quarterly 11: 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ho CH (1997). A critical process for the evaluation of methodology. PhD thesis, University of Hull.Google Scholar
  31. Jackson MC and Keys P (1984). Towards a system of systems methodologies. J Opl Res Soc 35: 473–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelly M (1994). Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  33. Lederach JP and Kraybill R (1995). The paradox of popular justice: A practitioner's view. In: Merry SE and Milner N (eds). The Possibility of Popular Justice: A Case Study of Community Mediation in the United States. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, pp 357–378.Google Scholar
  34. Mason RO and Mitroff II (1981). Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions. Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
  35. McIntyre-Mills J (2003). Critical Systemic Praxis for Social and Environmental Justice: Participatory Policy Design and Governance for a Global Age. Kluwer/Plenum: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Merry SE (1982). Defining ‘success’ in the neighborhood justice movement. In: Tomasic R and Feeley MM (eds). Neighborhood Justice: Assessment of an Emerging Idea. Longman: New York, pp 172–193.Google Scholar
  37. Midgley G (1992). The sacred and profane in critical systems thinking. Syst Practice 5: 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Midgley G (2000). Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice. Kluwer/Plenum: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Midgley G, Munlo I and Brown M (1998). The theory and practice of boundary critique: Developing housing services for older people. J Opl Res Soc 49: 467–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Midgley G and Shen C-Y (2007). Toward a Buddhist systems methodology 2: An exploratory, questioning approach. Syst Pract Act Res 20: 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ochoa-Arias AE (2004). An interpretive systemic exploration of community action in Venezuela. In: Midgley G and Ochoa-Arias AE (eds). Community Operational Research: OR and Systems Thinking for Community Development. Kluwer/Plenum: New York, pp 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pinzón Salcedo LA (2002). Exploring justice in professional mediation: a systemic intervention in Colombia. PhD thesis, University of Hull.Google Scholar
  43. Pope SG (1996). Inviting fortuitous events in mediation: The role of empowerment and recognition. Mediation Quarterly 13: 287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Romm NRA (2001). Accountability in Social Research: Issues and Debates. Kluwer/Plenum: New York.Google Scholar
  45. Rosenhead J and Mingers J (2001). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  46. Rothman J (1996). Reflexive dialogue as transformation. Mediation Quarterly 13: 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shen C-Y and Midgley G (2007a). Toward a Buddhist systems methodology 1: Comparisons between Buddhism and systems theory. Syst Pract Act Res 20: 167–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shen C-Y and Midgley G (2007b). Toward a Buddhist systems methodology 3: An application in a Taiwanese non-governmental organization. Syst Pract Act Res 20: 211–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shonholtz R (1987). The citizens’ role in justice: Building a primary justice and prevention system at the neighborhood level. Ann Am Acad Polit SS 494: 42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith LT (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books: London.Google Scholar
  51. Stacey RD, Griffin D and Shaw P (2000). Complexity and Management: Fad or Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking? Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  52. Sword LD (2007). Complexity science conflict analysis of power and protest. Emergence: Complexity and Organization 9 (3): 47–61.Google Scholar
  53. Thompson DR and DuBow FL (1995). Organizing for community mediation: The legacy of community boards of San Francisco as a social-movement organization. In: Merry SE and Milner N (eds). The Possibility of Popular Justice: A Case Study of Community Mediation in the United States. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, pp 169–199.Google Scholar
  54. Ulrich W (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy. Haupt: Berne.Google Scholar
  55. Ulrich W (1988). Churchman's ‘process of unfolding’—Its significance for policy analysis and evaluation. Syst Pract 1: 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ulrich W (1996). Critical systems thinking for citizens: A research proposal. Centre for Systems Studies Research Memorandum #10. Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ulrich W (2001). The quest for competence in systemic research and practice. Syst Res Behav Sci 18: 247–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Von Bertalanffy L (1968). General System Theory. Penguin: London.Google Scholar
  59. Wahrhaftig P (1982). An overview of community-oriented citizen dispute resolution programs in the United States. In: Abel RL (ed). The Politics of Informal Justice—Vol. 1: The American Experience. Academic Press: New York, pp 75–97.Google Scholar
  60. Winstanley A, Baker V, Foote J, Gregor J, Gregory W, Hepi M and Midgley G (2005). Water in the Waimea Basin: Community Values and Water Management Options. Report for the Waimea Water Augmentation Committee and Tasman District Council. ESR: Christchurch.Google Scholar
  61. Yolles M (1999). Management Systems: A Viable Approach. Pitman: London.Google Scholar
  62. Yolles M (2001). Viable boundary critique. J Opl Res Soc 52: 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zehr H (1990). Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Herald Press: Scottdale, PA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) Ltd.ChristchurchNew Zealand
  2. 2.University of HullHullUK
  3. 3.Victoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand
  4. 4.University of Queensland, Gatton CampusAustralia
  5. 5.University of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  6. 6.Universidad de Los AndesBogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations