Project on Complexity and Conflict

Our previous work has argued that the abilities to understand the dynamical nature of some conflicts, reframe our understanding of their dynamics through multiple paradigms, and intervene in a manner that is mindful, reflective, and adaptive, and are critical to our capacities to work constructively in situations of intractable conflict. These assertions beg empirical research on three basic questions: 1) Do such competencies significantly affect interveners’ capacities to bring about constructive change in intractable systems; 2) If so, what are the developmental and social conditions that enhance one’s capacities to the see the system, reframe, and read feedback; and 3) Are the dynamical principles of strong attractors (catastrophe, dimensional collapse, and imbalanced, multi-level feedback) verifiable as central to intractability?

Research on questions of reframing and meta-framing will need to build on previous research on the relationship between integrative complexity and approaches to conflict (see Conway, Suedfeld et al. 2001), but must incorporate other contemporary research on cognitive complexity (Suedfeld & Cohen, 1992; Kegan 1994; Woike and Matic 2004), social identity complexity (Roccas and Brewer 2002), tolerance of ambiguity (Golec & Federico, 2004; Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003) emotional resilience (Zaccaro, 2004 ), behavioral complexity (Hooijberg & Schneider, 2001), and temporal scope (Zaccaro, 2004). Past research on these constructs has identified important conditions, processes, and outcomes which are relevant to reading and shaping complex systems, but have yet to be put forth in a comprehensive manner that captures the interrelationships of these different constructs as they contribute to a more adaptive orientation to conflict.

Research on the dynamical principles of intractability and transformation has a strong conceptual foundation (see Coleman, Vallacher et al. in press; Nowak & Vallacher, 1998; Vallacher, Nowak et al. in press), but only preliminary empirical support (see Bui-Wrzosinska 2005). However, this agenda can benefit from the tools and methodologies currently employed in the many dynamical studies of other, related social-psychological phenomena (see Vallacher, Read, et. al., 2002). Once a more comprehensive understanding of the social-psychological dimensions which determine our capacities to reframe conflict is achieved, and the dynamical nature of intractability sufficiently verified, then we can begin to test the practical implications for metaframing on affecting sustained, constructive change with enduring conflicts in the field.