Jump to content

Talk:Conflict (sociology)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Need to add: -

Approaches -

  • Traditional ie avoid conflict (conflict is bad)
  • Human Resources ie accept conflict (conflict is inevitable)
  • Interactionalist ie promote and manage conflict (conflict is essential)

Talk about: -

  • Fuctional vs Dysunctional conflict (Coning, Dyck)
  • Conflict vs dispute (taxonomy)(Fenn)
  • Integrative vs Distributive solutions (Ury and Fisher, Lax and Sebenius)
  • various models of managing conflict
  • Affective vs Cognitive conflict (Amason)


Parasite 21:21, 10 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

there are far too many red links.

very poor references of discussion. You should have use more framework and states the name of the author, this is not a good source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.157.29 (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

I have no idea what kind of photo would best accompany this article, and it's not clear that anyone else does, so I'm removing the {{Photo requested}} template. If you put it back and have something specific in mind, please comment and be explicit about what you think would help. Tim Pierce 00:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace conflict

[edit]

Is there enough workplace-specific content out there to write a separate article on conflict in the workplace? Or maybe conflict in organizations? Or would there be too much overlap with conflict in general? Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--195.195.187.11 (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Holistic and Systemic Analysis of Conflicts

[edit]
On becoming rational about something that is highly emotional ====
[edit]

There is as yet no comprehensive Theory of Conflict and this lack is demonstrated by this article. Clear definitions of terms would help. Also the fact that conflict is a cultural artifact (i.e.: a culturally constructed communications process bounded by rules and traditional structures [e.g.: "proper" subjects, time and place, ways of addressing, deference and power signals, acceptable forums and means of resolving]) needs addressing. What is conflict and how it is dealt with vary greatly by ethnic and other cultures. There are ways of analyzing conflict that are sociologically and anthropologically sound -- none are here referenced. Myself, i divide all conflicts into two basic/essential types: political (involving power and decision-making) and cultural (involving norms and expectations, roles, perception, etc.), although in reality, of course, all conflict comprises some of each.
The confusion between difference, disagreement, conflict, discord/dispute, and violence is a difficult one to address in USAmerican English (connotations as well as denotations). The need for conflict to escalate to a level of attention in order for conflict resolution to take place needs to be addressed. Conflict is not per se necessarily evil, wrong, bad or unnecessary -- neither is it always necessary.

Finally, as Bateson says, No matter what we're talking about, we're talking about how you and I relate. This is the function of conflict: It is a kind of communication -- its meta-message is bifurcated: this relationship matters AND this subject/situation matters. A better organized article will deal with these issues in a rational way. Let's get to work. 66.212.78.220 (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)d pablo stanfield, Seattle, VI 2010[reply]