Type I and Type II errors in culturally sensitive conflict resolution practice

Abstract

T his article draws on recent, critical work dealing with culture theory, ethnicity, multiculturalism, and intergroup relations. Although based heavily in "theory," it seeks to address the nexus between conflict resolution theory and practice and aims primarily to contribute to the work of practitioners functioning as third parties and intervenors in intercultural and interethnic conflicts and disputes. Two conceptions of culture are proposed and analyzed in some depth: a technical, "experience-distant" sense of the term, crucial for conflict analysis (and also for education and training); and an affectively laden, often politicized, "experience-near" sense of the term, at the root of so much intergroup conflict and, thus, implacably implicated in effective and ethical intercultural practice.

Skill Is Not Enough: Seeking Connectedness and Authority in Mediation

“…After looking into the matter further, they concluded that their 100‐member panel's composition was not merely unresponsive to a reasonable distribution of ethnic representation for its market, but that even if their existing panel had attracted such disputants, there was a high probability that the typically white, middle‐class, highly‐educated mediators would have proven to be insensitive to critical cultural nuances, which would have, in turn, wrong‐footed their most well‐meaning efforts. Writings by Kevin Avruch (2003), Christopher Honeyman and Sandra Cheldelin (2002), and others speak to the same perception.…”

When Time is Not Money: Why Americans May Lose Out at the Negotiation Table

“…Culture has been linked to many outcomes in organizations, including motivation, leadership, teams, human resource management practices (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007), and most pertinent to this discussion, to conflict and negotiation (see Brett, 2000Brett, , 2001Gelfand & Brett, 2004, Gelfand, Fulmer, & Severance, 2010Gunia, Brett, & Gelfand, 2016 for reviews). Culture has long been shown to affect negotiator interests, priorities, strategies (e.g., Adair & Brett, 2005;Adair, Brett, Lempereur, Okumura, Tinsley, & Lytle, 2004;Avruch, 2003;Avruch & Black, 1991;Brett, 2000Brett, , 2001Brett et al, 1998 AQ:3 ), negotiator frames (Gelfand & Christakopoulou, 1999;Gelfand et al, 2002;Gelfand, Nishii, Holcombe, Dyer, Ohbuchi, & Fukumo, 2001), and more recently, negotiator trust (Gunia, Brett, Nandkeolyar, & Kamdar, 2011) and emotions (Adam & Shirako, 2013;Adam, Shirako, & Maddux, 2010), and it interacts with situational conditions to affect negotiation outcomes Gelfand, Brett, Gunia, Imai, Huang, & Hsu, 2013;Gelfand & Realo, 1999). The current paper builds on this previous research on cultural differences in negotiation as well as theoretical perspectives on cultural differences in time and negotiation (e.g., Alon & Brett, 2007;Macduff, 2006) to empirically investigate how perceptions of time differ across culture and how these differences impact negotiation outcomes and behavior.…”

Prioritizing Practice in Ombudsman and ADR Programs

“…ADR programs typically do not have the independence of an ombudsman function or a host organization culture that respects subcultural difference. Yet in my experience, ADR programs willing to make the effort have been able to diminish the impact of culture differences among them and their host organizations (Avruch ). ADR programs can work through these potential conflicts by acknowledging the host organization's values, identifying mutual interests, building informal alliances with strategic leaders, and framing proposals in a way that satisfies important values of the host organization.…”