CREATIVE STRATEGIES FOR CONFLICT MANAGEMENT & COMMUNITY BUILDING

AuthorHouse

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................viiiACKNOWLEDGEMENT...............................................................................................xFOREWORD......................................................................................................xiiPREFACE.......................................................................................................xii0.1 The Basic Issues..........................................................................................10.2 In Search of a Model of Conflict Management...............................................................4Chapter 1 THE BACKGROUND AND KEY CONCEPTS IN MINIMIZING CONFLICTS............................................6Chapter 2 TOWARDS MINIMIZING CONFLICTS.......................................................................33Chapter 3 A PARADIGM SHIFT: FROM NEEDS TO ASSET..............................................................73Chapter 4 ASSET MAPPING THEORY AND COMMUNITY BUILDING........................................................89Chapter 5 PROCEDURE FOR MAPPING AND MOBILIZING ASSETS NECESSARY FOR MINIMIZING CONFLICTS.....................128Chapter 6 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS: TOWARDS A MORE COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY........................................235BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................260INDEX.........................................................................................................260

Chapter One

1.0 Introduction

This chapter clarifies the key concepts used in this book, as the basic communication strategies for minimizing conflicts in organizations. These concepts include Collaborative Communications, Asset Mapping and Asset Mobilization. An attempt is made first and foremost, to understand the meaning of Communication and Collaboration. This is followed by clearly delineating the difference between Asset Mapping and Asset Mobilization.

The chapter also provides the background of the relationships of Ethnic Communities in the Nigerian State which has greatly affected unity and collaboration among Ethnic Communities found in the Nigerian Church, which serves as a case for the study of conflict. The background information is important for two reasons. Firstly, it serves as a preface to the subsequent discussions on the theoretical framework for understanding the various assets that can be found among Ethnic Communities which when discovered and mobilized can be a veritable tool in minimizing conflicts and the building of a more Collaborative Community in the Nigerian Church. Secondly and more importantly, it places the study in its' appropriate context.

1.1 What is Communication?

The English word 'Communication' comes from the Latin 'Communicare', which means to 'impart, share or participate'. But the term 'Communicare' derives its original root meaning, from another Latin word 'Communis', which means 'to make common'. It entered the English language in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In fact, 'communication' has the same original root meaning (Communis) with other English terms as 'community' and 'communism'

From the perspective of its root meaning, the purpose of communication is to make something common, or to share meanings, perceptions, worldviews or knowledge. In this context therefore, sharing implies an equitable division of what is being shared, which is why communication seems naturally associated with a balanced and two-way flow of information." If one has some information which has not been shared to another person, communication has not taken place until that information is shared. Yet, communication process is not complete by that single act alone. It requires the second level. What one has communicated has to be understood the way one intends it to mean, otherwise the information in question has not been properly shared. In this context notes Baker (2000), 'communication is the process of creating shared understanding' (p.12). It is also from this perspective that the American Heritage Dictionary defines communication 'as the process of sharing information of thoughts.'

Over the years, scholars of communication sciences have understood communication in different senses. We will classify their approaches into three major categories. These approaches include:

1) The Process Approach.

2) The Symbolic Approach.

3) The Interaction Approach.

1.1.1 The Process Approach

Scholars (Mambert, 1971; Habermas, 1984; DeVito, 1986), who see communication as a human process, agree that communication is something in human life which can not be avoided. Communication, they argue has neither beginning nor end. It is something which we do continuously, every time, consciously or unconsciously, verbally or non-verbally. Scholars of this tradition equally agree that as a human process, human communication is always done with a purpose and a context. Human communication is referred to as 'a process', to emphasize that it is always changing and at all times, in motion. It is a series of actions, which involves the sender, the message, and the recipient. The message is a signal or combination of signals that serves as a stimulus for a receiver. The message has to go through a channel, which is the vehicle or medium through which signals are sent (Lasswell, 1948; Shannon and Weaver, 1963; Roger & Shoemaker, 1971; Rogers & Kincaid, 1981).

Looking at communication from the perspective of Process approach underscores the basic fact that communication is a fundamental and universal process. It comes in different forms and is all around us whether we observe it or not. It can be as simple as a smile, as intriguing as a mysterious question, or as complex as an entire conversation (Stout, 2006).

1.1.2 The Symbolic Approach

The Symbolic approach scholars (Knuf, 1993; Carey, 1989; Chang, 1997) on the other hand, argue that communication is all about the construction and use of language, signs and symbols to achieve meaning. They link communication to culture by arguing that every one communicates or shares information from one's own point of view, which is influenced by one's socio-cultural experiences. In this context Graene and Dimbeby (2003) agree that "our readings of messages reflect our cultural and personal beliefs, biases and expectations. No two people will make an identical interpretation of the same text" (p.3). It is however possible to integrate the symbolic approach with the process approach by saying that signification works as a process and signs are visible part of that process.

Symbolic approach scholars (Katriel & Philipsen, 1981; Philipsen, 1992) also agree that communication is the social process by which people in a specific way, construct meaning using their own cultural symbolic behavior. Thus human beings in order to make meaning of their environment use the communication process to establish the connections with others on which their very survival depends. Messages are formed in the mind of one individual and interpreted in the mind of another. Yet the formation and interpretation of messages are affected by the groups to which the individuals belong.

The Symbolic approach to communication helps us to draw the conclusion that communication is the tool that makes societies possible. There would be no communities without communication and vice versa. Nonverbal communication occupies a great role in human communication as well as verbal communication. Communication seems to flow through the social system like blood through the individual cardio-vascular system. People make relationship between each other also by communication. Thus, a complete understanding of human communication must also take into account both human psychology and human social interaction.

1.1.3 The Interaction Approach

Scholars who take the interaction perspective argue that all communication is based on meaning and interaction. The social interaction approach is a collection of many theories (Mead 1996, Bateson, 1953, Sullivan, 1964, Goffman 1959, 1967, 1983). Commenting on the interaction perspective to communication Augustine Savarimuthu notes:

Social psychology of communication maintains that social reality is a dialogical process, an inter-subjective phenomenon constructed in conversation among people. The self and social bonds are social constructions, created so in and through interaction ... communication research should therefore begin with the lived experiences of people as revealed in their communication acts (Savarimuthu, 2006:281).

Communication from the interaction perspective gives the contribution that interaction and relationship building is not possible without communication. People share ideas, interpret their real life situation and improve their self within interaction with the basic tool of communication. We will add here that every human interaction, positive or negative, is a communicative act. Interaction and communication are linked and touches every sphere of human lives. When communication breaks down; marriages break up; wars start between countries; conflicts begin between groups and companies, etc.

To offer a working definition of communication in this thesis, it is necessary to integrate the three different perspectives already mentioned. In a word, our definition of communication is comprehensive. Communication, is therefore defined here "as a process of interaction between two or more persons in which the meaning of a situation is established." This definition helps us to return to the origin function of communication which is to establish a common ground in interaction and share meaning. Communication therefore understood from the spectacle of a human process, the sharing of symbolic meaning and interaction means that poor communication will inevitably lead to a negative outcome in human interaction; whereas effective communication will undoubtedly lead to a positive outcome in human interaction. Besides, communication is a phenomenon which touches all that we are and all that we want to do (White, 2005). It is indeed an elemental necessity that constitutes our inter-subjectivity and in which a community is instituted and perfects itself (Lonergan, 1963:363). The Church understands communication in this sense when it underscores:

Communication is meant to help build relationships, and fashion a new language which permits people to know themselves better and understand one another more easily. By this people are led to mutual understanding and shared ambition, and this in turn inclines them to justice and peace, to good will and active charity, to mutual help, to love and, in the end, to communion. The tools of communication provide some of the most effective means for the cultivation of that charity among people, which is at once the cause, and expression of fellowship.

Communication is therefore the means by which relationships are formed and developed. Faulty communication engenders misunderstanding, which may lead to conflict, and conflict itself is often referred to as a breakdown of communication. Breakdown in communication (distortion of facts, inaccurate rumors) by extension is a breakdown of interactions and relationships between persons and groups who are engaged in conflict. It is the assumption of this thesis that a model of Collaborative Communication when adequately employed will certainly play a positive role in minimizing ethnic conflict and the building of a healthy and collaborative community in the Nigerian Church.

1.2 What is Collaboration?

To define the concept of Collaborative Communication as used in this research, it is important first and foremost, to have a clear understanding of the of meaning of term, Collaboration.

In practical usage, the term "collaboration", is commonly interchanged with other terms like "cooperation" and "coordination". In most scholarly writings, however, cooperation, coordination and collaboration have distinct meanings (Mattessich, Close and Monsey, 2001:60). Many scholars define collaboration as "the most intense way of working together while still retaining the separate identities of the individuals or organizations involved (Winer and Karen 1994:23). A definition proposed by Schrage (1990) notes:

Collaboration is the process of shared creation: two or more individuals with complementary skills interacting to create a shared understanding that none had previously possessed or could have come to on their own. Collaboration creates a shared meaning about a process, a product, or an event. In this sense, there is nothing routine about it. Something is there that wasn't there before. Collaboration can occur by mail, over the phone lines, and in person. But the true medium of collaboration is other people. Real innovation comes from the social matrix ... [and] is a relationship with a dynamic fundamentally different from ordinary communication (pp40-41).

Similarly, John-Steiner, Weber, and Minnis (1998) noted:

The principles in a true collaboration represent complementary domains of expertise. As collaborators, not only do they plan, decide, and act jointly; they also think together, combining independent conceptual schemes to create original frameworks. Also, in a true collaboration, there is a commitment to shared resources, power, and talent: no individual's point of view dominates, authority for decisions and actions resides in the group, and work products reflect a blending of all participants' contributions ... (Minnis, John-Steiner, and Weber 1994, C-2 cited in John-Steiner, Weber and Minnis 1998: 776).

We shall however adopt a working definition of collaboration as "a mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship entered into by two or more organizations to achieve common goals" (Mattessich, Close and Monsey, 2001:60). The relationship in this context includes a commitment to mutual relationships and goals; a jointly developed structure and shared responsibility; mutual authority and accountability for success; and sharing of resources and rewards.

One distinguishing characteristic of collaboration is that it is a process that gets people to work together in new ways. The process does not end but spawns new collaborative ventures. Collaboration becomes a continuing phenomenon with a wide range of results that empower people and systems to change. True collaboration requires shared responsibility; shared mutual authority, shared accountability and more importantly doing things more effectively than was done before (Mattessich, Close and Monsey, 2001).

1.2.1 The Theoretical Foundation of Collaboration

Throughout history, progress and even survival, have always depended on collaboration. When environmental conditions, competition, or other circumstances have made life more difficult or resources scarce, great civilizations and movements have been developed by people uniting together for a common purpose. Greatness and progress have often accompanied a unified effort through adversity.

Scholars are yet to develop a theory of collaboration. But certainly there are arguments as to why people collaborate or come together for a common mission (Meszaros, 1993:21). Many individuals and groups recommend working together to form strong problem-solving collaborative relationships to improve the present status and future well-being of children, families, and the communities in which they live (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1992, 1995; Dryfoos, 1990, 1994; Lerner & Simon, 1998).

Thus the first underlying factor behind any collaborative effort is to pool resources together and address societal problems in a better way (Drucker 1999; John-Steiner 1992, 1998; Moran and John-Steiner 2003; Gray 1989). Those who belong to this camp argue that too many problems in the society require collaborative efforts for them to be properly addressed. Thus such problems as hunger, homelessness, pollution, budget deficit, urban decay, HIV/AIDs, terrorism, crime etc are interrelated. No one person or group alone can confront the problems of society. "Bringing together diverse stakeholders, melding their resources, and stretching their minds to embrace new ideas and a new language are essential to resolving these problems over time." (Winer and Karen, 1994: 25). Collaboration can reduce individual expenses in planning, research, training, and other activities. Throughout the life of a project, if overhead expenses are shared, duplication always leads to cost savings. "Collaboration results in easier, faster and more coherent access to services and benefits and in greater effects on systems. Working together is not a substitute for adequate funding, although the synergistic efforts of the collaborating partners often result in creative ways to overcome the obstacles" (McKnight, 1991: 21). Chris Huxham (1996) who was actively involved in collaboration research and practice on an international level for the past decade sums up this belief in the efficacy of collaboration when he wrote:

The rests of the belief that really important problem issues facing society-poverty, conflict, crime and so on-cannot be tackled by any single organization acting alone. These issues have ramifications for so many aspects of society that they are inherently multi-organizational. Collaboration is thus essential if there is to be any hope of alleviating these problems (1996:4). (Continues...)

Excerpted from CREATIVE STRATEGIES FOR CONFLICT MANAGEMENT & COMMUNITY BUILDINGby CHRISTIAN NDUBUEZE ANYANWU Copyright © 2009 by Christian Ndubueze Anyanwu. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.