Editorial

Citation

Posthuma, R.A. (2013), "Editorial", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 24 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma.2013.34424aaa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal of Conflict Management, Volume 24, Issue 1

Introduction

This special issue contains several articles that focus on the use of third parties in conflict management. This research is important because in many situations parties in conflict could benefit from the help of a third party (e.g. mediator, facilitator, fact finder, arbitrator, ombudsman, advocate). Often, third parties can facilitate the resolution of conflict in ways that the parties themselves cannot. Yet, too often conflicting parties resort to unnecessarily costly and formal conflict processes such as lawsuits and litigation, even though there may be better methods to resolve their disputes. More research is needed to understand how third parties and alternative dispute resolution procedures can facilitate the management of conflict. Therefore, this special issue is focused on third parties in conflict. There are three empirical studies, a theory model, and a practitioner comment in this special issue. Each is summarized briefly below.

Overview of studies

In the first study Houghton, Elkin, and Stevenson examined perceptions of the acceptability of arbitrators. This is an important research topic since in most situations, the parties must adhere to some kind of agreement about who the arbitrator will be or how the arbitrator will be chosen. This research builds upon prior work that showed that both distributive and procedural justice are important in predicting the acceptability of arbitrators (Posthuma et al., 2000). Using a sample of 109 union advocates, this study found that distributive justice, procedural justice, and the experience and education of the arbitrator was also important in predicting acceptability. The race and gender of the arbitrator were relatively less important.

In the second study, Poitras examined perceptions of trust, impartiality, and empathy of mediators. This is important research since the effectiveness of mediators in helping parties to resolve disputes often depends on whether the parties believe that the mediator is trustworthy, impartial, and empathetic (Posthuma et al., 2002). Using a sample of 251 parties involved in employment disputes in Canada, the study found that the parties’ perceptions of impartiality and empathy predicted trust in the mediator. The study also found that mediators using a caucus could help parties to reach agreements faster, but using caucuses did not increase the number of agreements.

In the third study, Ó Dochartaigh and Svensson examined how an intermediary successfully intervened through back channel communications in the conflict between the Irish Republican Army and the British government in Northern Ireland. This is important research because third party intermediaries and back channel communications can play a potentially helpful role in resolving conflicts in many settings (Rubin et al., 1994). This study examined archival papers that described historical events. The study shows how the intermediary was used to gather information and also how the parties traded on asymmetries of information. It also shows how the intermediary gained power by being a valuable source of information and then used that power to threaten the parties that he would withdraw if they did not move toward settlement.

In the fourth study, Harrison, Hopeck, Desrayaud, and Imboden examined the factors that predict students’ likelihood of using an ombudsman process. This research is important because it can help institutions design ombudsman processes in ways that will encourage students to use them. This study presented 806 students with alternative conflict scenarios and alternative designs of ombudsman processes and asked them how likely they would use those processes. The study found that the more serious the conflict and the more the process seemed that it would be procedurally fair (i.e. anticipatory procedural justice), the more likely they would use the ombudsman process (Shapiro and Kirkman, 2001).

In the fifth study, Farmer and Miller propose a theoretical model that offers explanations for the relationships between employees’ perceptions of their advocates and dispute resolution processes in the workplace. This research is important because employees often rely on advocates to represent them and these advocates can have a profound influence on how employees perceive their conflict. This model draws on much of the prior literature on organizational justice (Tyler, 1997). It can provide helpful direction for future research in this field.

Lastly, Gross, Hogler, and Henle offer a practitioner comment that is based on Weber’s conceptualization of formal and substantive rationality (Weber, 1968). The authors propose that Weber’s work could serve as a foundation for future research on topics such as organizational justice and legitimacy.

Summary

These papers offer a broad range of perspectives on third parties in conflict management. The studies draw on scholarship from several countries, different disciplines, and different research methods. Although different in many ways, these studies all provide new insights and important directions for future research on third parties in conflict management. For example, several studies show how organizational justice theories (distributive, procedural, interactional, and informational) can be extended and applied in the context of third party dispute resolution. Other studies show how the inter-relationships between disputing parties and third parties such as mediators, intermediaries, and advocates are important in studying conflict management.

Richard A. Posthuma