Advertisement

How to Increase Participation in a Conflict Resolution Process: Insights from Discursive Psychology

  • Elizabeth Stokoe
Chapter
Part of the Peace Psychology Book Series book series (PPBS)

Abstract

In this chapter, I will explore the mediation of neighbour and family conflicts through the lens of discursive psychology, focusing particularly on what interaction between mediators and their prospective clients (neighbours, parents) tells us about the nature of dispute and the efficacy of mediation. I will describe a research project, from its inception studying neighbour disputes to its culmination in training mediators to better engage prospective mediation clients. The chapter will start by locating this project in the wider fields of mediation, neighbour and family disputes, as well as discursive and interactional work on conflict in interaction. I will describe the collection of large-scale qualitative datasets, including telephone calls to mediation services, environmental health services, and police interviews with arrested suspects in neighbour and family conflict cases. These data were analysed using conversation analysis, in the discursive psychological tradition pioneered by Edwards (e.g. 2005) and Potter (e.g. Potter & Hepburn, 2007). I will show how mediators fail and succeed to attract potential clients to mediation depending on how mediation is explained, and how resistant clients may be persuaded to mediate. Finally, I describe how research findings about what works to engage clients has underpinned national and international mediation training, using the Conversation Analytic Role-play Method. In sum, the chapter will show how discursive psychological research can have big pay-offs in terms of the impact of its findings in real-life settings that matter for people in conflict.

Keywords

Conflict resolution Conversation analysis Discursive psychology Mediation Peace psychology 

References

  1. Antaki, C. (Ed.). (2011). Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Barlow, A., Hunter, R., Smithson, J., & Ewing, J. (2017). Mapping paths to family justice: Resolving family disputes in neoliberal times. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamin, R. (2010). Selling mediation: The 9 ½ best guerrilla marketing strategies and techniques drawn from neuroscience. Retrieved from http://www.mediate.com/articles/benjamin50.cfm
  4. Boden, D. (1990). The world as it happens: Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Frontiers of social theory: The new synthesis (pp. 185–213). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Charkoudian, L. (2010). Giving police and courts a break: The effect of community mediation on decreasing the use of police and court resources. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 28, 141–155.  https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.20017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edwards, D. (1995). Sacks and psychology. Theory & Psychology, 5, 579–596.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354395054006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards, D. (2005). Moaning, whinging and laughing: The subjective side of complaints. Discourse Studies, 7, 5–29.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605048765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards, D. (2007). Managing subjectivity in talk. In A. Hepburn & S. Wiggins (Eds.), Discursive research in practice: New approaches to psychology and interaction (pp. 31–49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edwards, D., & Fasulo, A. (2006). “To be honest”: Sequential uses of honesty phrases in talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39, 343–376.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards, D., & Stokoe, E. H. (2004). Discursive psychology, focus group interviews, and participants’ categories. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 499–507.  https://doi.org/10.1348/0261510042378209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards, D., & Stokoe, E. (2007). Self-help in calls for help with problem neighbours. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40, 9–32.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701331208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emmison, M. (2013). ‘Epistemic engine’ versus ‘role-play method’: Divergent trajectories in contemporary conversation analysis. Australian Journal of Communication, 40, 5–7.Google Scholar
  13. Gardner, R. (1997). The conversation object Mm: A weak and variable acknowledging token. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30, 131–156.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3002_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Glenn, P., & Susskind, L. (2010). How talk works: Studying negotiation interaction. Negotiation Journal, 26, 117–123.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2010.00260.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldberg, S. B. (2005). The secrets of successful mediators. Negotiation Journal, 21, 365–376.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2005.00069.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldman, R. (1982). Hegemony and managed critique in prime-time television: A critical reading of ‘Mork and Mindy’. Theory & Society, 11, 363–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greatbatch, D., & Dingwall, R. (1997). Argumentative talk in divorce mediation sessions. American Sociological Review, 62, 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heap, J. L. (1990). Applied ethnomethodology: Looking for the local rationality of reading activities. Human Studies, 13, 38–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heritage, J., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). Accounting for the visit: Giving reasons for seeking medical care. In J. Heritage & D. W. Maynard (Eds.), Communication in medical care: Interaction between physicians and patients (pp. 48–85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heritage, J., Robinson, J. D., Elliott, M. N., Beckett, M., & Wilkes, M. (2007). Reducing patients’ unmet concerns in primary care: The difference one word can make. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1429–1433.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0279-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacobs, S., & Aakhus, M. (2002). What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20, 177–203.  https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Llewellyn, N. (2015). Microstructures of economic action: Talk, interaction and the bottom line. British Journal of Sociology, 66, 486–511.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Meagher, L. R. (2013). Research impact on practice: Case study analysis: Report on ESRC grant number RES-189-25-0202 mediating and policing community disputes: Developing new methods for role-play communication skills training. Swindon: ESRC.Google Scholar
  26. Meehan, A. J. (1989). Assessing the ‘police-worthiness’ of citizen’s complaints to the police: Accountability and the negotiation of ‘facts’. In D. T. Helm, W. T. Anderson, A. J. Meehan, & A. W. Rawls (Eds.), The interactional order: New directions in the study of social order (pp. 116–140). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  27. Painter, J. (2012). The politics of the neighbour. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30, 515–533.  https://doi.org/10.1068/d21110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Potter, J. (2002). Two kinds of natural. Discourse Studies, 4, 539–542.  https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040040901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2003). “I’m a bit concerned”: Early actions and psychological constructions in a child protection helpline. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36, 197–240.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3603_01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 161–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sikveland, R. O., & Stokoe, E. (2016). Dealing with resistance in initial intake and inquiry calls to mediation: The power of ‘willing’. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 33, 235–253.  https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stokoe, E. H. (2003). Mothers, single women and sluts: Gender, morality and membership categorization in neighbour disputes. Feminism & Psychology, 13, 317–344.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353503013003006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stokoe, E. (2006). Public intimacy in neighbour relationships and complaints. Sociological Research Online, 11(3). Retrieved from www.socresonline.org.uk/11/3/stokoe.htmlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stokoe, E. (2009). Doing actions with identity categories: Complaints and denials in neighbour disputes. Text and Talk, 29, 75–97.  https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2009.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stokoe, E. (2011). Simulated interaction and communication skills training: The ‘Conversation Analytic Role-play Method’. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Changing institutional practices (pp. 119–139). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stokoe, E. (2013a). Overcoming barriers to mediation in intake calls to services: Research-based strategies for mediators. Negotiation Journal, 29, 289–314.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stokoe, E. (2013b). The (in)authenticity of simulated talk: Comparing role-played and actual conversation and the implications for communication training. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46, 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.780341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stokoe, E. (2014). The Conversation Analytic Role-play Method (CARM): A method for training communication skills as an alternative to simulated role-play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47, 255–265.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.925663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stokoe, E. (2015). Identifying and responding to possible ‘-isms’ in institutional encounters: Alignment, impartiality and the implications for communication training. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34, 427–445.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X15586572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stokoe, E., & Edwards, D. (2007). “Black this, black that”: Racial insults and reported speech in neighbour complaints and police interrogations. Discourse & Society, 18, 337–372.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507075477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stokoe, E., & Edwards, D. (2009). Accomplishing social action with identity categories: Mediating neighbour complaints. In M. Wetherell (Ed.), Theorizing identities and social action (pp. 95–115). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stokoe, E., & Sikveland, R. O. (2016). Formulating solutions in mediation. Journal of Pragmatics, 105, 101–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.08.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stokoe, E., & Sikveland, R. O. (2017). The Conversation Analytic Role-play Method: Simulation, endogenous impact and interactional nudges. In V. Fors, T. O’Dell, & S. Pink (Eds.), Theoretical scholarship and applied practice. Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  48. Stokoe, E., Sikveland, R. O., & Symonds, J. (2016). Calling the GP surgery: Patient burden, patient satisfaction, and implications for training. British Journal of General Practice, 66, e779–e785.  https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X686653CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Stokoe, E. H., & Wallwork, J. (2003). Space invaders: The moral-spatial order in neighbour dispute discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 551–569.  https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322595284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Susskind, L. (2010). Looking at negotiation and dispute resolution through a CA/DA lens. Negotiation Journal, 26, 163–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tracy, K. (1997). Interactional trouble in emergency service requests: A problem of frames. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30, 315–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Trinder, L., Firth, A., & Jenks, C. (2010). ‘So presumably things have moved on since then?’ The management of risk allegations in child contact dispute resolution. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 241, 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Whalen, M. R., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1990). Describing trouble: Practical epistemology in citizen calls to the police. Language in Society, 19, 465–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Loughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations