Download - Cross-Cultural Conflict Resolution in the Schools: Some Practical Intervention Strategies for Counselors

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 2004 • VOLUME 82294

It is clear that acts of violence and terror have now become pervasive in our culture. These are not just violent acts perpetrated by foreign terrorists, or even community gangs, but manifestations of verbal and physical abuse, bullying, extortion, and fights that take

place inside the schools themselves. School violence contin-ues to be an area in which many experts agree that moremust be done to protect children and help them cope withthe effects (Capozzoli & McVey, 2000; Elliott, Hamburg, &Williams, 1998; Goldstein & Conoley, 1997; Hurford,Lindskog, & Mallett, 2000; Sandhu, 2001; Shafii & Shafii,2001). Many children are afraid to go into the restroom orout on the playground because of the level of violence inschool settings (Elliot et al., 1998). According to statisticspublished by the Center for Disease Control and Preven-tion (CDC), in 1993, 28% of shootings happened inside aschool building; 36% of violent events happened outdoorson school property; 35% happened off-campus; and, since1992, the total number of multiple-victim events has in-creased consistently (CDC, 1993). According to a reportfrom the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES;Heaviside, Rowand, & Williams, 1998), approximately 57%of public elementary and secondary schools reported one ormore incidents of violence during the 1996–1997 schoolyear. Finally, urban schools are more prone to violencethan are their suburban or rural counterparts (Flaherty,2001), but regardless of where violence occurs, its pres-ence adversely and significantly affects the amount of learn-ing taking place in a school environment (Sandhu, 2001).

When the public thinks about violence in schools, ingeneral, high visibility cases such as the mass murders at Col-umbine come to mind. However, violence in schools can beconceptualized as any act of intimidation, threats, harassment,robbery, vandalism, physical assault, rape, sexual battery, ormurder that happens on school grounds or buses going toand from school or from a school sponsored event (Capozzoli

& McVey, 2000; Flaherty, 2001; Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention, 1996). Kopka (1997) asserted thatracial epithets, White supremacy symbols, or a hard shove ina school hallway are also considered violent acts. Thetendency for school personnel to use all-encompassingdefinitions for “violent acts” means that parents and counse-lors can expect that children are much more likely to qualifyfor the label “a victim of violence” today (and in the verynear future) than they would have qualified for this desig-nation in the past. Furthermore, given the broadconceptualization of school violence, one might even ex-pect incidences of school violence to be underreported. Fewvictims of school violence have actually reported their vic-timization to the police, and less than half have reportedthe victimization to either the police or school officials(Elliott et al., 1998; R. S. Newman, Murray, & Lussier, 2001).

VIOLENCE IS GROWING: POSSIBLE REASONS

Even though change in defining what is and is not a violentact has “inflated” the number of violent acts, there is evi-dence that violence has increased, and there are a number ofexplanations to account for the increase. In fact, Ketti (2001)maintained that we have many more theories about vio-lence than data to support them. Although no definitivecausative factors can be directly linked to a specific inci-dence of violence, one explanation for violence has beenconceptualized by considering the complex interplay of bio-logical, psychological, and social factors (Ketti, 2001; Shafii& Shafii, 2001). Furthermore, the same authors who calledattention to the complex interplay of these three factors(i.e., Ketti, 2001; Shafii & Shafii, 2001) also believed that alack of conflict resolution training was a significant con-tributor to violence (Ketti, 2001; Shafii & Shafii, 2001).

In addition to the lack of conflict resolution skill that hasreceived the greatest attention in the literature, there are

Jesse A. Brinson, Department of Marriage, Family and Community Counseling, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Jeffrey A. Kottler, Department ofCounseling, California State University, Fullerton; Teresa A. Fisher, Department of Counseling, Adult and Health Education, Northern Illinois University.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jesse A. Brinson, Department of Counseling, College of Urban Affairs, 4505 Maryland Pkwy,Las Vegas, NV 89154-3045 (e-mail: [email protected]).

Cross-Cultural Conflict Resolution in the Schools:Some Practical Intervention Strategies for Counselors

Jesse A. Brinson, Jeffrey A. Kottler, and Teresa A. Fisher

The authors present a context for understanding the increase in school violence as a function of poor conflict resolution skills.They provide counselors with selected cross-cultural approaches for conflict resolution and problem solving. They also discusshow the methods could be implemented in a school setting. A case study is used to demonstrate the approaches in action.

© 2004 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved. pp. 294–301

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 2004 • VOLUME 82 295

C r o s s - C u l t u r a l C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n

other contributors to violence that deserve attention. Thesocial contributors most frequently mentioned are the pro-liferation of gangs, violent images portrayed in the media(particularly television), and the growing use of violent videogames and Internet sites.

Kaufman, Chen, and Choy (1999) cited data from the U.S.Departments of Justice and Education that reveal that thepresence of gangs in schools doubled from 1985 to 1995.Many of these gangs are involved in efforts to harass otherstudents, or, in some cases, engage in illicit activities thatmay or may not lead to violence. Several writers have pointedout that guns have become a “constant companion” of manyadolescent boys in middle school and high school (Durant,Krowchuk, & Kreiter, 1999; Ikeda, Gorwitz, & James, 1997;Malek, Chang, & Davis, 1998). Greenbaum (1997) cited datafrom the Department of Justice that every day in the UnitedStates, thousands of children carry some type of weapon toschool for protection. Even in those cases in which a childcarries a weapon to school to protect himself or herself, thisaction itself has increased the overall chance for some vio-lent act to occur.

In reference to television and its potential impact onschool violence, a number of years ago, a 5-year study bythe American Psychological Association estimated that theaverage child has watched 100,000 acts of violence and 8,000murders from his or her living room (Huston et al., 1992).There should be little wonder about their predilection to-ward violence when they are bombarded, for example, withimages of good triumphing over evil, often in violent ways,and when relatively few versions of power are representedto them in the mass media and toy markets other than theidea of power over rather than power with others (Arnow, 2001).A growing number of prominent lawmakers, citizens, and pro-fessional groups like Action for Children’s Television (ACT),the National Council of Churches, the American MedicalAssociation, the National PTA, and the American Psycho-logical Association have become increasingly outspoken intheir criticism of violence on television (Jason, Hanaway, &Brackshaw, 1999). Finally, well-funded research studies onthe relationship between media-portrayed violence and anti-social behavior in children strongly indicate that television isone contributor to violent or aggressive behavior (AmericanPsychiatric Association, Board of Trustees, 1993). Datacollected up to this point suggest that it would be naïve tobelieve that TV violence is not a contributing factor—especiallyif the children watching violent content are frustrated, angry,or initially prone to violence (Aronson, 2000).

VIOLENCE AS AN ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE CONFLICT

One theory to account for the reasons children resort toviolence as a way to solve problems or to meet their needsis that they lack adequate conflict resolution skills. Sociallearning theory tells us that children learn behavior by ob-serving and imitating those around them (Corey, 2001;Gardner & Resnick, 1996). It is clear that a significant num-ber of children come from families and environments that

can be characterized as less than optimal for developingsocially appropriate problem-solving skills. When people athome, or in their community, appear frustrated or upset, chil-dren see these individuals use poor problem-solving strategies,such as a slap, a shove, screaming, abusive language, or even theuse of a weapon to threaten someone. In community-basedstudies of family violence (U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services, 1994), Native American children reportedseeing family members beaten by other family members atrates slightly higher than African American adolescents(26.6% and 25.2%, respectively) and close to 2 times higherthan the 13.1% reported by White adolescents. Hampton,Jenkins, and Gullotta (1996) reported the results of a sur-vey conducted with 168 children at a Baltimore clinic, 80%of whom were female. The data revealed that 72% knewsomeone who had committed murder and 24% had witnesseda murder. On average, each had been victimized 1.5 times bysome sort of violence, and each had witnessed five separateserious crimes. One out of 5 had had his or her life threat-ened, and 1 in 11 had been raped. Several writers have main-tained that living in an urban environment has become a “warzone” for some urban youth (Garbarino, Kostelny, & Dubrow,1991). Obviously, many children are raised in family systemsand urban environments that do not provide adequate supportfor healthy adolescent growth and development. Familiescharacterized by low levels of cohesion often demonstratehigher levels of conflict and hostilities, which can easily affecthealthy growth and development (Brinson, 1992; Henggeler,Melton, & Smith, 1992; Tolan & Lorion, 1988). In some ur-ban environments, particularly in low-income areas, one findsareas (or neighborhoods) that are gang infested and laden withan inordinate amount of violence.

It is not surprising that many children learn to resolvetheir own problems through similar violent strategies. Imi-tating the behavior of others, many children receive posi-tive reinforcement from their peers when they deal withinterpersonal conflict in a punitive fashion. Given the typeof background many children experience, some of them willresort to violence when their frustration tolerances havebeen exceeded (Shafii & Shafii, 2001) and when they lackthe maturity to understand the total consequences of theiractions (Capozzoli & McVey, 2000). Behaviors associatedwith both victimization and exposure to violence may con-tribute to the perpetuation of violence (Garbarino, 1995).

In the case of minority youth who feel marginalized, theimpact of these factors makes them particularly vulnerableto academic failure, delinquency, and violent activity. Ra-cial minority youth, particularly African Americans, His-panics, and Native Americans, generally represent individu-als with families in the lowest socioeconomic level and livein lower income communities that are more prone to thenegative social ills of society. More affluent families are gen-erally made up of parents with higher levels of educationand have more access to resources for influencing appropri-ate development of children. Simply stated, a negative out-come is more likely when a lack of economic and familyresources is coupled with living in an economically oppressed


B r i n s o n , K o t t l e r, a n d F i s h e r

environment. For these youth, the interaction effect of thesefactors can be overwhelming and frequently leads to atti-tudes and behaviors that are self-destructive. The potentialfor gang violence and other pathological behaviors will natu-rally occur for many of these youth.

Despite the aforementioned risk factors, not all minorityyouth become victims of violence or commit violent acts.Nonetheless, it is important that promising strategies be imple-mented to prevent minority youth from becoming victims ofgang culture and violence. It is important for educators to beaware of key strategies that they can use to deliver successfulconflict resolution techniques as prevention and interven-tion aids. It is particularly important that methods and pro-cedures that are culturally based be considered in responseto conflictual situations. Such cross-cultural conflict reso-lution strategies offer a good start for such an effort. For themost part, these strategies cost little money to implementand have been shown to be effective for teaching individu-als appropriate methods of resolving conflict.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION STRATEGIES

There is increasing interest in creating and improving con-flict resolution approaches in public schools in the UnitedStates (Bodine, Crawford, & Schrumph, 1994; Brinson &Fisher, 1999; Girard & Koch, 1996; LeBoeuf & Delany-Shabazz, 1997). Conflict resolution refers to the process ofcommunication between two or more groups that are re-solving a dispute through the help of a mediator. The me-diator seeks to terminate the conflict and restore social re-lations between the groups to some level of legitimacy(Vaught, 1997). Attempts are made to help people refrainfrom assigning blame and instead to focus on understandingthe origins of the dispute and to find common ground forconsensus (Kottler, 1994).

Lederach (1995) suggested that conflicts are constitutedlargely by the taken-for-granted, common sense understand-ings that people have about their world, including them-selves and the other people who inhabit it. Such commonsense includes knowledge about what is typically viewed asright and wrong; how to proceed; and whom to turn to when,where, and with what expectations. Mediators also hope tohelp people develop a better understanding of each other’spositions, to develop a relationship based on mutual respect,and to encourage parties to reflect on one another’s view-points in such a way that they will be more willing to re-solve their disputes (Winslade & Monk, 2000).

There are a number of conflict resolution paths to followwhen resolving disputes among groups of students. The mostcommon programs used in schools often involve peer media-tion and process curriculum (Bodine et al., 1994; Gilhooley &Scheuch, 2000). The peer mediation approach is a conflict reso-lution program that uses a limited number of trained studentswho mediate school disputes and, it is hoped, disseminate theirexperience to others. The process curriculum approach uses aspecific class time to teach students conflict resolution con-cepts and skills. In one model, for example, students are helped

to define their definitions of the problem, exchange perspec-tives, and then figure out how to solve the problem throughthe use of consensus seeking (Osier & Fox, 2001).

Within each of these approaches, however, a lack of em-phasis on cross-cultural conflict resolution is noticeable. Thisfact, alone, concerns teachers and counselors who frequentlyengage in conflict resolution strategies with children of cul-turally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Many of thesechildren could benefit from approaches that consider thecultural and linguistic aspects of their experience.

As the diversity of the student population increases, so dothe cultural conflicts that are exacerbated by the differencesin language, culture, value system, and socioeconomic statusbetween minority students and their mainstream counter-parts, and between minority subcultures. The consequence ofthese value and behavioral differences often leads to strainedinterpersonal relationships among and between groups.

Given that conflict resolution is an important function ofcounselors working in school settings, it would be helpful tohave a set of strategies for working with culturally diversepopulations. This is especially important when introducingnovel ways of looking at conflict, helping students to respondmore respectfully, clarifying the underlying issues involved,and finding resources that might be useful to the parties (Kottler,2002). A prerequisite to using such problem-solving methodsis learning what techniques and strategies and roles to use inconflict situations and when to use them (Gladding, 1997).

We wish to introduce several cross-cultural conflict reso-lution techniques and strategies that have merit when work-ing with culturally and linguistically diverse students. Weevaluated representative techniques from the United States,Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Western Europe, and the PacificIslands. Although many of these ideas may seem unusual tocounselors operating from a dissimilar cultural and linguisticperspective, we contend that most of the techniques havesignificant therapeutic value for increasing the likelihood ofproblem resolution in cross-cultural problem solving. Eachtechnique or strategy discussed in the article has been evalu-ated within the context of the ethical and legal framework ofthe American School Counselor Association (ASCA; 1998).

THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS

Cross-cultural conflict resolution rests on several philosophi-cal assumptions. Each assumption encompasses the notionthat the counselor must place a professional emphasis oncross-cultural problem solving, with recognition of and re-spect for individual differences and commonalities in hu-man experience. First, when trying to resolve conflicts amongand between groups, it is important for the counselor todefine, understand, and make sense of conflict within thecultural context of the groups involved in the dispute(Lederach, 1995). In this regard, it is important to have anunderstanding of their techniques for resolving disputes.

Second, overreliance on traditional problem-solving tech-niques and strategies when working in cross-cultural situa-tions could increase vulnerability to emotional and behavioral



problems. Huang and Ying (1989) pointed out that those stressfulsituations can occur when traditional conflict resolution strat-egies are used in cross-cultural problem situations.

Third, cross-cultural strategies provide a framework forunderstanding the role that culture has in influencing hu-man behavior and interactions and, consequently, howculture can affect the problem-solving process (Tyler, Lind,& Huo, 2000). Given these assumptions, one can see theneed to be sensitive to the cultural context of the conflict.

SELECTED CROSS-CULTURAL TECHNIQUES AND STRATEGIES

Due to the nature of the conflicts so prevalent in manycountries around the world, many have developed a broadset of techniques and strategies that are helpful when medi-ating disputes within and between groups. Following aredescriptions of a few such methods.

Community Assembly: The Semai Becharaa’

According to the traditions of the African culture of theSemai, disputes between individuals in the community arethe concern and responsibility of every member of that tribe(Robarchek, 1997). As such, anyone who is aware of a con-flict between individuals in the tribe has a duty to bring itto the attention of the headman, or, in the case of a schoolsetting, the counselor. The headman arranges a becharaa’,which is a formal assembly to resolve the dispute. For thebecharaa’, the headman summons the disputants, their kin-dred (or supporters), and any interested spectators to en-gage in a full discussion and debate of the conflict.

The becharaa’ begins with general discussions among ev-eryone present about recent events, activities, or anythingelse other than the dispute that has brought them together.At some point, an elder or influential member of the com-munity will present a long monologue focusing on formalaffirmations of the interdependence of the group and thenecessity of maintaining group unity. Others present mayfollow with similar affirmations. All of this sets the stagefor any specific discussion of the particular conflict.

In the next phase of the becharaa’, one of the disputantswill begin to present his case by explaining his own actionsand why he acted as he did while also explaining why hebelieves his opponent’s actions were wrong. The other dis-putant will then have the opportunity to state his case in asimilar manner. The parties do not argue with each otherdirectly but, instead, direct their remarks to those who haveassembled for the becharaa’. Supporters and other interestedparties can then argue for one side or the other or presentopinions and observations.

The discussion and debate continue until there is nothingleft to say. At that point, the headman comes forward todeliver his judgment. The judgment reflects the implicitconsensus of the group that emerged from the discussion.The headman will lecture one or both of the parties on theirguilt in the matter, instruct them in what the proper behav-ior should have been, and declare that this particular dis-

pute should never be raised again. Sometimes the headmanwill assess a small fine against one or both of the parties andsome of this may be returned to the guilty party as a sym-bol of reconciliation (Ross, 1993). The becharaa’ concludeswith elders or other influential school/community mem-bers who again reaffirm the interdependence of the groupand the need for unity.

Obviously, counselors have neither the authority nor de-sire to intervene in the same decisive way that a headmancould. Nevertheless, there are some intriguing lessons to belearned from this cultural practice. For one thing, there is astrong emphasis on community responsibility for conflicts—they do not belong to the individuals. Second, during theresolution phase, the disputants do not address one anotherbut rather speak to their peers. This sort of collective re-sponsibility emphasizes the systemic nature of interpersonalconflict, that it is not just a dispute between a few individu-als but involves many others in myriad ways.

Qat-Chewing Sessions

Originating in Yemen, East Africa, and the Arabian Penin-sula, this strategy is intended to reduce conflicts between clans.It is a low-risk, nonconfrontational strategy that is structuredaround an eating ritual common to the area. First, each personis expected to chew a plant called the “qat” (also known as“khat” or “kat”). After a few seconds of chewing, the plant givesa slight tingling sensation to the tongue and mouth. The leaderis the only member not allowed to chew the qat and holds theantidote that can eliminate the tingling in the mouth. In orderto get the antidote, however, the members must listen to eachother and reach a resolution regarding the conflict in question.Needless to say, the mouth-tingling experience motivates mem-bers to reach a resolution as quickly as possible. Some partici-pants’ report that the chewing session heightens their abilityto hear one another in ways that were not otherwise possible.Any behaviorist would easily recognize reinforcement prin-ciples at work that are not that different from “forcing” chil-dren to resolve their dispute as a way to escape custody of theschool administrator, a kind of noxious qat of its own.

The object lesson of this method is to get the attention ofthe disputing parties and to help them focus on a mutualresolution. The school counselor may choose an object thatwill make both parties eager to resolve the issue. For ex-ample, withholding sport shoes, beepers, or cell phones maybe enough to encourage students to work out their differ-ences in order to reclaim their prized possessions.

The Role of Poetry

Oral poetry and music poetry have become imaginativeways to resolve conflict and reconcile differences. Poetryin African culture specifies what individuals should do whenconflict arises, to whom they can turn for alliances, andeven the types of actions that can be taken against anotherperson. In Somalia, for example, the central societies haveassimilated 500 poems that can be used in resolving con-flict between opposing groups.



The role of poetry is a powerful resource in schools, pri-marily because many students across various racial/ethnicgroups listen to song lyrics. Rap music can be used, for ex-ample, not only as a way to glorify violence (as in the caseof “gangsta rap”) but also to oppose it.

Dia

According to the concept of Dia in some African cultures,one common way to prevent or settle a feud is the paymentof Dia. This is retribution paid to a group member from theoffender’s group. Dia-paying groups are thus common inAfrican schools where it is emphasized that people must beheld accountable for their behavior that is disrespectful orhurtful to others. The members of a Dia group pledge tosupport each other in collective social responsibility. Theyagree to support one another by assuming the debts andobligations of anyone else in their group.

To apply this approach, school counselors could create ajudicial system run by students. The jury (an elected bodyof students) would make judgments against students or groupsaccused of offenses. Students would have to pay each otherfor damages after some injustice or abuse takes place. Thiswould not be paid in money, of course, but in acts of com-munity service that help the school.

Mythodrama

This is an intervention used to help students uncover someof the specific dynamics relating to intergroup conflict. Theprocedure is adopted from a multilevel conflict manage-ment program used by counselors and psychologists in Swit-zerland (Guggenbuhl, 1992). The major thrust of the inter-vention involves counselors telling a story, myth, or legendthat indirectly portrays the nature of the conflict at hand.For younger children, modified fairy tales are used, and forolder students, “twisted” true stories work best.

Ideally, the stories should paint a picture of what could hap-pen if the conflict does not end. Counselors do not completethe story, but invite students to fantasize the end of the storyor myth. The students are divided into small groups and thecounselors help them describe the contents of their fantasies.This can be done through drawings, paintings, or acting. Re-gardless of the medium, students usually display the concernsand experiences they have in school. Through such discussionsand story enactments, the students acquire an understanding ofhow the conflict is experienced by themselves as well as oth-ers. It is hoped that these insights may lead students to findmutually acceptable solutions to their disagreements.

Go-Between Mediator

The Ifugao people of the Philippines settle matters betweenthemselves by using a go-between mediator or monkalun(Gulliver, 1979). The monkalun is a person of acknowledgedprestige in the community who carries messages betweenthe disputants and also adds his own interpretations andadvice when he meets with each party separately. The dis-

putants retain the ability to define the issues, reach a ver-dict, make offers, and reject or accept them. The go-betweenacts as a facilitating mediator who affects the parties withinfluence, persuasion, and pressures. The monkalun makesthe final decision to resolve the dispute in the end, but theprocess is such that the decision comes from the disputants’interdependent needs. The monkalun convinces both groupsthat the decision was made to create the best outcome forall concerned parties. In a school/community setting, a well-respected administrator, faculty, or staff member can serveas the monkalun.

Case Example

The Mard School District adopted a new alcohol and drugpolicy that stipulated stiffer consequences for students whowere caught using alcohol or drugs on school property orwhile attending an event sponsored by the district. After thepolicy had been used a few times, it was challenged by agroup of Euro-American students from a high socioeconomicbackground and who held leadership positions in their highschool. These students were caught using alcohol, but theybelieved the penalties were too harsh, especially for studentslike themselves who were facing their first infraction. In ad-dition, if these students received the current penalties, sev-eral of the routine activities at the high school (school news-paper, homecoming committee) would suffer as a result.

The racially and economically diverse students who helpeddesign the new policy were outraged. They found it difficultto believe that a few “privileged” kids were now challenginga policy that received strong support from students and ad-ministrators. The students opposing the policy were called“spoiled brats,” “rich nerds,” and other derogatory names. Onseveral occasions, the conflict was prevented from eruptinginto a major fight involving fists and weapons.

To resolve the conflict, the school counselor intervenedand formed two groups of students. One group representedthose who were in favor of the current policy, whereas theother group wanted the policy modified to accommodatefirst-time offenders. The tension was so high between thetwo groups that the counselor appointed a well-respectedstudent advisor to serve as the monkalun.

The monkalun provided an opportunity for the studentsto explain their viewpoints in a calm and uninterruptedmanner. The primary role of the monkalun was to ensurethat both groups understood each other’s issues and con-cerns. He also made it clear that this conflict was not just aproblem that belonged to the students most actively in-volved in the conflict but rather was the responsibility ofthe whole community.

During one of the early sessions, the counselor introducedthe concept of “mythodrama” to ensure that students had anopportunity to process what it means to be treated differ-ently because of one’s socioeconomic status. The studentswere told about two boys who were competing for the samebaseball team position. One was very excited about playing,came from a prominent family in the community, and his



father came to every game as well as contributed financiallyto the team. The other athlete was also very excited, andwhen compared with the first boy, he could run faster, throwfarther, and had a better batting and catching average. Thecoach selected the first athlete to play the starting position.Everyone believed it was because his father was a prestigiousfigure in the community. The better athlete quit the teamfeeling betrayed, rejected, hurt, and angry.

Once the story was told, each group member was instructedto come up with his or her own description of how the storyended. Students were encouraged to draw, paint, or act outthe story endings they had produced. As the students dis-cussed and/or acted out the productions, they acquired a bet-ter understanding of how preferential treatment due to one’sincome status can create deep pain and increase tension insociety and school. This exercise also gave the students achance to hypothesize about potential solutions to reducecurrent tensions regarding the alcohol and drug policy.

After discussing the potential solutions with each group,the monkalun made a decision that benefited each group. Inmaking this decision, the well-respected student advisorfulfilled the traditional role of the monkalun.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION: STRATEGIES AND TRAINING ISSUES

Conflict resolution strategies that incorporate cultural nu-ances fit naturally into the evolving leadership role of coun-selors in schools and elsewhere. Counselors should be trainedto provide such mentoring and leadership, establishing an at-mosphere that is receptive to diverse cultures. Of course, thiswould mean that to prevent and deal with issues of aggres-sion and violence, counselors would have to be a lot morecreative and innovative in their approaches. This may not beas difficult as it sounds, considering how relatively ineffec-tive traditional methods have been in dealing with these is-sues.

Horowitz and Boardman (1994) presented a number of policyrecommendations or strategies to be used in the developmentand implementation of conflict resolution models. Their firstrecommendation was to include different cultural perspectivesin models and applications of conflict management. To meetthe needs of different groups, culturally relevant programs shouldbe developed along with the expansion of current constructiveconflict management interventions.

In the area of conflict management, the values and cul-tural perspectives of Western industrial or postindustrialsocieties have been emphasized (Cordell, 1994). Accordingto Horowitz and Boardman (1994), “The traditional prac-tices of constructive conflict management usually occuramong individuals and groups who are empowered (e.g.,middle class, organizations, organized states, etc.)” (p. 47).Many models of conflict resolution reflect democratic tradi-tions, such as majority rule, and dictate logical and rationalsequences of events as necessary components of successfulnegotiations (Avruch & Black, 1991). Other models are neededto fully understand and address the conflict and problem reso-lution styles of many people who may focus on other factors

of the conflict because of cultural differences or other as-cribed characteristics (Rubin, 1994). The conflict resolu-tion procedure in such models can include elements such asrelationship-oriented goals and individual actions, but also sys-temic, collective, and community responsibility dimensions.

The second recommendation proposed by Horowitz andBoardman (1994) was to emphasize longer prenegotiationand negotiation time. These authors believed that negotia-tions are often not successful because participants becomefrustrated with the process when the quick results that theyexpect are not realized. Constructive conflict managementskills, which allow for both longer prenegotiation and nego-tiation time, can be used with complex or emotionallycharged conflicts that require a patient and often painstak-ing building of trust to uncover the underlying interests,emotions, and relational issues of the participants.

The third recommendation outlined by Horowitz andBoardman (1994) was to institutionalize constructive con-flict management in schools and organizations. Conflict man-agement should be made part of a continuing core curriculumin schools, with emphasis on diversity issues and perspectivetaking. Constructive conflict management skills need to betaught and practiced, as with any other skill. Community-based and business programs should also be implemented totrain individuals in constructive conflict management to en-able better coping with parent–child conflicts and problemsarising from increased diversity in the workplace.

One other area that is so much a part of conflict resolutionstrategies in other cultures but is so often neglected in ourown is the relationship between preventing school violenceand the broader subject of character development. By placinga greater attention on values and virtues associated with re-sponsible problem solving, counselors can help foster a spiritof compassion, forgiveness, self-responsibility, and mutualrespect. Violence prevention, peer mediation, and conflictresolution strategies can thus be included in the school cur-ricula to promote these values and prevent violent incidentsbefore they occur (Peterson & Skiba, 2001).

NOTEWORTHY FEATURES OF CONSTRUCTIVE CONFLICT SOCIETIESTO BE APPLIED IN TRAINING

The conflict management styles of low conflict societies em-phasize strong norms against physical violence and involvecooperative processes to address disputes among communitymembers. In such cultures, conflict between members, espe-cially conflicts that involve potential violence, are immedi-ately addressed by the community. Norms are establishedand enforced in such a way that violence and aggression arenot tolerated. When such flare-ups do arise, they are handleddecisively rather than allowed to fester.

Programs such as those developed by Andy Horne (seeD. A. Newman & Horne, 2004, in this special section) applysimilar principles to developing a school culture in whicheveryone is responsible for making sure that students remainsafe and respected. Any incidents of verbal or physical abuseare addressed not just by the administration and the school



staff but by the students. In addition, prevention groups canbe used to deal with problems of festering conflict and vio-lence before they occur (Kulic, Dagley, & Horne, 2001).

According to Ross (1993), low-conflict societies have sev-eral characteristics that are important to understand when re-solving conflicts. First of all, members of these cultures have astrong identification with the community identity; they arecommitted to making sure the environment remains safe andsecure, not unlike what happens in some community neighbor-hoods. Second, collective methods are favored for conflict reso-lution in which systemic influences and factors are addressed.Third, violence and aggression are not permitted to escalatebecause the disputants are required to address the communityrather than one another. Throughout every phase of the pro-cess, a strong emphasis is placed on community harmony.

IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNSELING

Counselors can apply these characteristics of low-conflictsocieties in school settings as they work with administra-tors, teachers, and students to establish norms and proce-dures to address conflicts within the school community. Byborrowing strategies from other cultures that are more com-munity based, new, healthier norms can be established inschools that do not tolerate—much less reinforce—verbaland physical violence toward others. We have enough chal-lenges in the world dealing with threats of violence withouthaving to endure even more from within our schools.

In conclusion, there are a few issues to keep in mind whenapplying conflict resolution techniques to reduce school vio-lence. Perhaps most important, it is critical that counselorsredefine their roles as systemic change agents whose responsi-bility goes far beyond traditional tasks related to educationalassessment, scheduling, career development, and emotionaladjustment issues. As long as violence and aggression are al-lowed to fester in schools, learning is compromised; studentscare little about their studies when they fear for their safety.

When attempting to resolve a conflict, the counselor can usecreative strategies to expedite the process. Find common groundbetween the conflicted parties. Help them to hear and un-derstand one another’s viewpoints. Recognize the ways thatconflict and violence are embedded in a particular cultural con-text, perhaps one in which fighting and intimidation are thepreferred strategies for meeting one’s needs. Identify and workwithin the different communication styles of the conflicted stu-dents. Stop them from blaming one another and pointing fingersat whose fault it is; refocus attention on mutual respect, under-standing, and shared goals. Use counseling and group leadershipskills to bring others with constructive influence into the reso-lution. Spread around responsibility so that everyone has a vestedinterest in working things out. When needed, step in to enforceboundaries of respect and caring. Look at the underlying mean-ing of this particular conflict and what it says about how stu-dents may be feeling helpless, frustrated, or powerless. Borrowstrategies and structures from low-conflict cultures to interveneon a systemic level and enforce healthy norms. Be as flexible aspossible, making adjustments to the situation as needed.

Beyond the specific conflict resolution strategies mentionedin this article, our intent is to help counselors to think morecreatively, proactively, and decisively about what can be doneto prevent and address violence in schools. No matter whichmethods are selected, and which structures are implemented,the most important thing is to make this a greater priorityin our work as professional counselors.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association, Board of Trustees. (1993). AmericanPsychiatric Association position statement on TV violence. Washington,DC: American Psychiatric Association.

American School Counselor Association. (1998). The school counselor andcomprehensive counseling [Position statement]. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Arnow, J. (2001). The school in a multicultural society. In M. Shafii & S.L. Shafii (Eds.), School violence: Assessment, management, prevention(pp. 291–302). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Aronson, E. (2000). Nobody left to hate. New York: Worth.Avruch, K., & Black, P. W. (1991). The cultural question and conflict

resolution, Peace and Change, 16, 22–45.Bodine, J., Crawford, D., & Schrumph, F. (1994). Creating the peaceable

school. Champaign, IL: Research Press.Brinson, J. A. (1992). A comparison of the family environments of Black

male and female adolescent alcohol users. Family Therapy, 19, 179–186.Brinson, J. A., & Fisher, T. A. (1999). The Hooponopono group: A conflict

resolution model for school counselors. Journal for Specialists in GroupWork, 24, 369–381.

Capozzoli, T. K., & McVey, S. (2000). Kids killing kids. New York: SaintLucie Press.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1993). Youth risk behaviorsurveillance—United States, 1993 (MMWR, Vol. 44, No. SS-1). Atlanta,GA: Author.

Cordell, K. M. (1994). An analysis of cultural difference and societalconflict: The role of multicultural education. International Journal ofGroup Tensions, 24, 47–68.

Corey, G. (2001). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Durant, R. H., Krowchuk, C. P., & Kreiter, S. (1999). Weapon carrying onschool property among middle school students. Arch Pediatric Adoles-cent Medicine, 153, 21–26.

Elliott, D. S., Hamburg, B. A., & Williams, K. R. (1998). Violence inAmerican schools: A new perspective. New York: Cambridge.

Flaherty, L. T. (2001). School violence and the school environment. In M.Shaffi & L. S. Shafii (Eds.), School violence: Assessment, management, preven-tion (pp. 25–52). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Garbarino, J. (1995). Raising children in a socially toxic environment. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Garbarino, J., Kostelny, K., & Dubrow, N. (1991). No place to be a child.Boston: Lexington Books.

Gardner, S. E., & Resnick, H. (1996). Violence among youth: Origins and aframework for prevention. In R. L. Hampton, P. Jenkins, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.),Preventing violence in America (pp. 157–178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gilhooley, J., & Scheuch, N. S. (2000). Using peer mediation in classroomsand schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Girard, K., & Koch, S. J. (1996). Conflict resolution in the schools: Amanual for educators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gladding, S. T. (1997). Stories and the art of counseling. Journal of Hu-manistic Education and Development, 36, 68–73.

Goldstein, A. P., & Conoley, J. C. (1997). School violence intervention: Apractical handbook. New York: Guilford.

Greenbaum, S. (1997). Kids and guns: From playgrounds to battleground.Journal of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 3, 3–10.

Guggenbuhl, A. (1992). Das mythodrama—ein gruppenpsychotherapeutischesModelldur die Arbeit mit Kindern und Jugendlichen [Mythodrama—A grouppsychotherapy model for work with children and adolescents]. Praxis derKinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 41, 297–303.



Gulliver, P. H. (1979). Fundamentals of age-group systems. AmericanAnthropologist, 81, 693–694.

Hampton, R. L., Jenkins, P., & Gullotta, T. P. (1996). Preventing violence inAmerica. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., & Williams, C. (1998). Violence and disciplineproblems in U.S. public schools: 1996-97 (NCES 98-030). Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for EducationStatistics.

Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., & Smith, L. A. (1992). Family preserva-tion using multi-systemic therapy: An effective alternative to incar-cerating serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting & ClinicalPsychology, 60, 953–961.

Horowitz, S. V., & Boardman, S. K. (1994). The role of mediation andconflict resolution in creating safe learning environments. Thresholdsin Education, 21, 43–50.

Huang, L., & Ying, Y. (1989). Chinese American children and adolescents. InJ. T. Gibbs & L. N. Huang (Eds.), Children of color: Psychological interven-tions with minority youth (pp. 30–66). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hurford, D. P., Lindskog, C. O., & Mallett, S. L. (2000). School violence:Issues and strategies for prevention. In D. S. Sandhu (Ed.), Faces ofviolence: Psychological correlates, concepts and intervention strategies (pp.23–42). New York: Nova Science.

Huston, A. C., Donnerstein, E., Fairchild, H., Feshbach, N. D., Katz, P. A.,Murry, J. P., et al. (1992). Big world, small screen: The role of television inAmerican society. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Ikeda, R. M., Gorwitz, R., & James, S. P. (1997). Trends in fatal firearm-related injuries, United States. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,13, 396–400.

Jason, L. A., Hanaway, L. K., & Brackshaw, E. (1999). Television violence andchildren: Problems and solutions. In T. P. Gullotta & S. J. McElhaney (Eds.),Violence in homes and communities (pp. 133–156). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.

Kaufman, K., Chen, X., & Choy, S. P. (1999). Indicators of school crimeand safety (NC-ES 98-251/NCJ-172215). Washington, DC: U.S. De-partments of Education and Justice.

Ketti, P. (2001). Biological & social causes of school violence. In M. Shafii& S. L. Shafii (Eds.), School violence: Assessment, management, preven-tion (pp. 53–72). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Kopka, D. L. (1997). School violence. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.Kottler, J. A. (1994). Beyond blame: A new way of resolving conflicts in

relationships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Kottler, J. A. (2002). Students who drive you crazy. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.Kulic, K. R., Dagley, J. C., & Horne, A. M. (2001). Prevention groups with children

and adolescents. Journal For Specialists in Group Work, 26, 211–218.LeBoeuf, D., & Delany-Shabazz, R. V. (1997). Conflict resolution (Fact sheet

No. 55). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Lederach, J. P. (1995) Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation acrosscultures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Malek, M. K., Chang, B. H., & Davis, T. C. (1998). Self-reported character-ization of seventh-grade students’ fights. Journal of Adolescent Health,23, 103–109.

Newman, D. A., & Horne, A. M. (2004). Bully Busters: Apsychoeducational intervention for reducing bullying behavior inmiddle school students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82,259–267.

Newman, R. S., Murray, B., & Lussier, C. (2001). Journal of EducationalPsychology, 93, 398–410.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1996). Youthviolence: A community-based response. One city’s success story. Washing-ton, DC. U.S. Department of Justice.

Osier, J. L., & Fox, H. P. (2001). Settle conflicts right now? Thousand Oaks,CA: Corwin Press.

Peterson, R. L., & Skiba, R. (2001, July/August). Creating school cli-mates that prevent school violence. The Social Studies, 167–175.

Robarchek, C. A. (1997). A community of interests: Semai conflict resolu-tion. In D. P. Fry & K. Bjorkqvist (Eds.), Cultural variation in conflictresolution: Alternatives to violence (pp. 51–58). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ross, R. (1993). The making of apartheid 1948-1961: Conflict and com-promise. African Affairs, 92, 139–140.

Rubin, J. Z. (1994). Models of conflict management. Journal of SocialIssues, 50, 33–45.

Sandhu, D. S. (2001). Faces of violence: Psychological correlates, concepts,and intervention strategies. New York: Nova Science.

Shafii, M., & Shafii, S. L. (2001). School violence: Assessment, manage-ment, prevention. Washington, DC. American Psychiatric Press.

Tolan, P. H., & Lorion, R. P. (1988). Multivariate approaches to theidentification of delinquency proneness in males. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 16, 547–561.

Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., & Huo, Y. J. (2000). Cultural values and authorityrelations: The psychology of conflict resolution across cultures. Psy-chology, Public Policy, & Law, 6, 1138–1163.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1994). For a healthnation: Returns on investments in public health. Washington, DC: Author.

Vaught, C. C. (1997). A national survey of future need for school counselors.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED414554)

Winslade, J., & Monk, G. (2000). Narrative mediation: A new approach toconflict resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barsky, A. E., (2000). Conflict resolution for the helping professional.Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Black, L. (1996). Families of African origin: An overview. In M.McGoldrick, J. Giordano, & K. Pearce (Eds.), Ethnicity and familytherapy (pp. 57–65). New York: Guilford Press.

Coleman, H. L. K. (1995). Cultural factors and the counseling process:Implications for school counselors. The School Counselor, 42, 180–185.

D’Andrea, M., & Daniels, J. (1996). Promoting peace in our schools:Developmental, preventive, and multicultural considerations. TheSchool Counselor, 44, 55–63.

Ferrara, M. L. (1992). Group counseling with juvenile delinquents: Thelimit and lead approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gysbers, N. C. (1996). Meeting the career needs of children and adoles-cents. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 21, 87–98.

Hovland, J., Peterson, T., & Smaby, M. (1996). School counselors asconflict resolution consultants: Practicing what we teach. The SchoolCounselor, 44, 71–77.

Keys, S. G., Bemak, F., & Bauer, L. M. (1998). Transforming school coun-seling to serve the mental health needs of at-risk youth. Journal ofCounseling & Development, 76, 381–388.

Libsch, M., & Freedman, D. P. (1995). Perceptions of high school coun-seling activities: Response differences according to college plans.NASSP-Bulletin, 79, 51–59.

McCord, J. (1990). Problem behaviors. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott(Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 414–430). Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Paisley, P. O., & Borders, L. D. (1995). School counseling: An evolvingspecialty. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, 150–153.

Ridley, C. R., & Lingle, D. W. (1996). Cultural empathy in multiculturalcounseling: A multidimensional process model. In P. B. Pedersen, J. G.Draguns, W. J. Lonner, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures(pp. 21–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Smith, P. K., Boulton, M. J., & Cowie, H. (1993). The impact of coopera-tive group work on ethnic relations in middle school. School Psychol-ogy International, 14, 21–42.

Swartz-Kulstad, J. L., & Martin, W. E., Jr. (1999). Impact of culture andcontext on psychosocial adaptation: The cultural and contextual guideprocess. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 281–293.

Tatum, B. L. (2000). Crime, violence and minority youth. Brookfield, VT:Ashgate.

Welsh, W. (2001). United States. In A. M. Hoffman & R. W. Summers (Eds.),Teen violence: A global view (pp. 183–199). Westport, CT: GreenwoodGroup.

Download - Cross-Cultural Conflict Resolution in the Schools: Some Practical Intervention Strategies for Counselors

Top Related