COMM 512, Seminar in Communication and Conflict
Alan Sillars
Office: LA 345
Office hours: Tuesday 2:10-4, Thursday 2:10-3 or by appointment (use email please)
email:
Course Description
Conflict is a ubiquitous feature of personal, professional and public life that can be a disruptive force, but also a source of innovation, improved adjustment, and better decision-making. Communication processes lie at the heart of conflicts and influence how they are managed, for better or worse. There is a vibrant literature on communication processes in conflict that transcends narrow specializations and levels of analysis (e.g., interpersonal, organizational, intercultural).
This graduate seminar will examine the intricacies of human conflict with special attention to communication processes that escalate, manage, and mediate disputes. Topics will include basic assumptions and perspectives on conflict, conflict styles, communication strategies and patterns, subjective and discursive framing processes, conflict management/mediation, and special contexts. The greatest focus will be on interpersonal and workgroup conflict, but we will also touch on community, environmental, and political conflict. Although each of these contexts has distinctive characteristics, there are also basic processes and elements common to all. One goal for the seminar is to encourage integrative thinking about the basic properties of human conflict that affect and are affected by communication. Although this is primarily a theory/research course dealing with basic processes of conflict, there will be a number of opportunities to consider implications for conflict management and intervention.
Course Requirements
Grades will be assigned based on the following assignments.
Class Participation (30%): Most of the learning will take place through reading and discussion, so it is crucial that everyone keep up with the readings and come to class prepared to discuss them. Bring notes and come ready to ask questions and raise issues. I hope that we will have lively, informed discussions. The key is to have discussion that is informed by the readings and serve to clarify, critique, and extend them, rather than discussion that is based mostly on personal experiences.
Reaction Papers and Leading Discussions (30%): On three occasions during the semester, you will serve as discussion leader and submit a reaction paper. These papers should be about 5-6 pages and synthesize and respond to the readings. Each paper should identify and discuss 2-3 key ideas in the readings. When discussing each idea, you may: 1) compare and contrast perspectives of different authors; 2) discuss potential implications for research, theory or application; or 3) critique the idea and suggest an alternative.
Also construct several questions for the class to discuss. Be prepared to lead discussion of these questions and to talk about your written ideas during the seminar.Discussion leaders for a given day shouldemail copies of the questions to members of the seminar a few days in advance. (It’s best if all discussion leaders on a given day create a single list of questions.) Reaction papers should be turned in on the same day that you serve as discussion leader, since the papers are designed to help stimulate better discussion.
I’ll grade the thought papers “plus,” “check,” or “minus.” You have the option of rewriting. Papers should be well edited, thoughtful, and show knowledge of the assigned readings. You are not expected to go beyond the assigned readings to support your ideas.
Research Project(40%): The major research paper can be done alone or in teams so long as the size of the team corresponds to the ambitiousness of the project. I suggest fourpossibilities, although I will consider other ideas as well. The first is to propose a research project that is grounded in the literature, promises to contribute to it and is feasible. This is a good way to set up a research project that you plan to do later (such as a thesis). The second option is to write a synthetic/critical review of the literature that leads to a broader set of research questions and/or hypotheses, without proposing a specific study. Third, you can conduct a conflict case study (e.g., a “frame analysis”) using public documents. Fourth, if you are already working on a relevant project or have other access to data, you can work on a research report.
As with any graduate-level paper, the research paper for this seminar should reflect original work and be supported by primary sources from academic journals and books. The topic of the paper should fit within the scope of the seminar. A one-page proposal is due at the beginning of week three. Please talk with me at any time that I can be of assistance in recommending sources or discussing the direction of your paper.
Please consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5thor 6thedition) when writing papers.
Reading Schedule
Aug. 29: Introduction and Overview
Sept. 5: Basic Assumptions and Distinctions
Sillars, A. L. (2009). Interpersonal conflict. In C. Berger, M. Roloff, & D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.). Handbook of communication science (2nd ed.) (pp. 273-289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Putnam, L. L. (2001). The language of opposition. In W. F. Eadie and P. E. Nelson (Eds.), The language of conflict and resolution (pp. 10-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes (excerpt from chapter 13, Factors influencing the resolution of conflict pp. 351-365). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Wilmot, W. W. & Hocker, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal conflict (6th ed.) (chapter 3, Interests and goals, pp. 63-84). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sept. 12: Communication Styles, Tactics and Patterns
Canary, D. J., Cupach, W. R., & Messman, S. J. (1995). Relationship conflict (chapter 2, Methods for studying conflict in close relationships). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1973). The fifth achievement. In F. E. Jandt (Ed.), Conflict resolution through communication (pp. 88-102). New York: Harper & Row.
Rausch, H. L., Barry, W. A., Hertel., R. K., & Swain, M. A. (1974). Communication, conflict, and marriage (chapter 6, Couples, stages, and scenes; chapter 7, Coping with conflict: Avoidance, chapter 8, Coping with conflict: Engagement). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Roloff, M. E., & Ifert, D. E. (2000). Conflict management through avoidance: Withholding complaints, suppressing arguments, and declaring topics taboo. In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 151-163). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sept. 19: Sense-Making in Conflict
Thomas, K.W. & Pondy, L. R. (1977). Toward an “intent” model of conflict management among principal parties. Human Relations, 30, 1089-1102.
Schutz, A. (1999). It was your fault! Self-serving biases in autobiographical accounts of conflicts in married couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 193-208.
Sillars, A. (2011). Motivated misunderstanding in family conflict discussions. In J.L. Smith, W. Ickes, J. Hall, & S. Hodges (Eds.), Managing interpersonal sensitivity: Knowing when-and when not—to understand others (pp. 193-213). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Wallenfelsz, K. P., & Dale Hample, D. (2010). The role of taking conflict personally in imagined interactions about conflict. Southern Communication Journal, 75, 471–487.
Sept. 26: Conflict Frames
Drake, L.E., & Donohue, W.A. (1996). Communicative framing theory in conflict resolution, Communication Research, 23, 297-322.
Rogan, R.G. (2011). A terrorist’s messages to the world: A frame analysis of Osama bin Laden’s declarations of war against the United States. In W.A. Donohue, R.G., Rogan, & S. Kauffman (Eds), Framing matters: Perspectives on negotiation research and practice in communication (pp. 210-233). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Brummans, B., Putnam, L., Gray, L., Hanke, Lewicki, R., Wiethoff, C. (2008). Making sense of intractable multipary conflict: A study of framing in four environmental disputes. Communication Monographs, 75, 25-51.
Oct. 3: Media Framing of Conflict
Putnam, L. L., & Shoemaker, M. (2007). Changes in conflict framing in the news coverage of an environmental conflict. Journal of Dispute Resolution (1), 167-175. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from
McLeod, D. M. (2007). News coverage and social protest: How the media's protest paradigm exacerbates social conflict. Journal of Dispute Resolution (1),185-194. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from
Edy, J. A., & Meirick, P. C. (2007). Wanted, dead or alive: Media frames, frame adoption, and support for the war in Afghanistan. Journal of Communication, 57, 119-141.
Kempf, W., & Thiel, S. (2012). On the interaction between media frames and individual frames of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Conflict and communication online, 11 (2). Retrieved April 22, 2013 from
Oct. 10: Workgroup Conflict
Jandt, F., & Gillette, P. (1985). Win-win negotiating: Turning conflicts into agreements. (Chapter 4, “Why conflict is inevitable within organizations”)
Garner, J. T., & Poole, M. S. (2013). Perspectives on workgroup conflict and communication. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2006). Take this job and…: Quitting and other forms of resistance to workplace bullying. Communication Monographs, 73, 406-433.
Friedman, R. A., & Currall, S. C. (2003). Conflict escalation: Dispute exacerbating elements of e-mail. Human Relations, 56, 1325-1347.
Oct. 17: Conflict in Personal Relationships and Families
Caughlin, J.P., Vangelisti, A.L., & Mikucki-Enyart, S. (2013). Conflict in dating and marital relationships. In J.G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, C. W., Roloff, M. E., & Malis, R. S. (2007). Understanding interpersonal conflicts that are difficult to resolve: A review of literature and presentation of an integrated model. In C. S. Beck (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 31 (pp. 118-171). New York: Erlbaum. (READ ONLY UP TO PAGE 136)
Koerner, A. (2013). Family conflict. In J.G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Afifi, T. D., & Joseph, A. (2009). The standards for openness hypothesis: A gendered explanation for why avoidance is so dissatisfying. In T. D. Afifi, & W. A. Afifi (Eds.), Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions: Theories and applications. New York: Routledge.
Oct. 24: Cultural Conflict Styles
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187–225.
Lebra, T. S. (1984). Nonconfrontational strategies for management of interpersonal conflicts. In Krauss, E. S., Rohlen, T. P., & Steinhoff, P. G. (1984). Conflict in Japan (pp. 16-38). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
von Glinow, M. A., Shapiro, D. L., & Brett, J. M. (2004).Can we talk, and should we? Managing emotional conflict in multicultural teams. Academy of Management Review, 29, 578–592
Ayoko, O. B., Härtel, C. E. J., & Callan, V. J. (2002). Resolving the puzzle of productive and destructive conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups: A communication accommodation theory approach. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 165-195.
Oct. 31: Individual meetings (in lieu of class, I will make appointments with each seminar participant to discuss progress on the research paper)
Nov. 7: Conflict Management – Integrative/Interest-based Bargaining and Consensus Building
Nimet Beriker-Atiyas, N., & Demirel-Pegg, T. (2001). An analysis of integrative outcomes in the Dayton peace negotiations. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 359-378.
Glaser, T. (n.d.). Book summary: Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Conflict Research Consortium. Retrieved August 24, 2013 from
Jandt, F., & Gillette, P. (1985). Win-win negotiating: Turning conflicts into agreements (Chapter 9, “Getting past ‘yes’: Or the theoretically perfect resolution to any conflict”).
Burgess, H., & Spangler, B. (n.d.). Consensus building. In G. Burgess & H. Burgess (Eds.), Beyond intractability. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Retrieved August 24, 2013 from
Peterson, T. R., & Franks, R. R. (2006). Environmental conflict communication. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 410-450). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nov. 14: Conflict Management -- Intractable and Crisis Conflict
Littlejohn, S. W., & Cole, K. L. (2013). Moral conflict and transcendent communication. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ury, W., & Smoke, R. (1991). Anatomy of a crisis. In J. W. Breslin and J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Negotiation theory and practice (pp. 47-54). Cambridge: The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
St-Yves, M., & Collins, P. (Eds.) (2012). The psychology of crisis intervention for law enforcement officers. Carswell: Toronto, Ontario.
READ THE FORWARD (BY TANGUAY), PP. 23-50 (BY ST-YVES AND JEAN-PIERRE VEYRAT), AND PP. 59-67 (BY ROGAN)
Pruitt, D. G. (2007). Social conflict: Some basic principles. Journal of Dispute Resolution (1), 151-156. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from
Nov. 21: NCA convention (no class)
Nov. 28: Thanksgiving
December 6: Conflict Management -- Intervention
Donohue, W. A. (2006). Managing interpersonal conflict: The mediation promise. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 211-233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bush, R. A., & Folger, J. P. (2005). The promise of mediation (Revised edition) (chapter 2, “A transformative view of conflict and mediation”). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ury, W. L., Brett, J. M., & Goldberg, S. B. (1988). Getting disputes resolved (chapter 1, “Three approaches to resolving disputes,” and chapter 3, “Designing an effective dispute resolution system”). San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
December 13: Research Reports (no additional readings)