Conflicts in Schools: How might these be conceptualised?
Patrick Easen and Beth Ashforth
Northumbria University, UK
Introduction
Why do we find it so difficult to cope with people arguing or not appearing to get along when working
together? Is cohesiveness in classrooms and schools the same as harmoniousness? Is the latter achievable or
even desirable? What is it that impels us to want a 'smooth-running' classroom or school even when we know
in our heads that differences of ideas and perspectives can be stimulating and productive? Questions such as
these are uncomfortable ones. Conflict manifests itself in various aspects of school life. It may be between
teachers, between teachers and pupils or between pupils. It is tempting to view such conflicts as negative and
damaging experiences - things to be avoided at best, managed at worst. Certainly, conflict exists and
probably will continue to do so. We consider that, although there are no easy answers to handling or
resolving conflicts, many of us seem to work with a limited understanding of it as phenomena. In the school
context, literature tends to use terms such as ‘difficult classroom behaviour’ (Miller, 2002), ‘aggression’
(Turner, 1998) and ‘violence’ (Chen, 2003) and yet we would argue that often underlying such behaviour is a
conflictual situation that, because of the language used, may be unrecognised and unresolved. In effect, the
conceptualisation needs to be refined to enable a more complete analysis of the presenting situation. This
paper seeks to address this by drawing on the wider background of conflict studies to present some
perspectives on how conflict has been conceptualised and the implications these have for how conflictual
situations may be handled in schools. We begin by describing points where conflict research appears to be
counterintuitive. By locating ‘conflict’ as a concept in the wider context of theoretical frameworks on
organisational life, we are able to outline the two main views of conflict as subjective and as objective. Each
has very different implications for how conflicts may be resolved and these may raise dilemmas of an
organisational and personal nature. Finally, we offer some key issues for understanding conflicts.
The counterintuitive nature of conflict research
We want to begin by referring briefly to the wider background of conflict studies. Not surprisingly, the
literature on conflict is both wide and diverse. It ranges across levels of conflict (from the individual to the
international) and across academic disciplines. Nevertheless, perhaps one of the most important messages to
emerge from this vast field is that the research would appear to be counter-intuitive on several points. Thus,
for example, the claim that conflict is not only an important and pervasive aspect of life but also something
that should be enjoyed (Deutsch, 1987, Burton, 1972) seems to fly in the face of experience for many of
those working in or with schools. For them, the analogy of disease might more readily spring to mind. Three
points that emerge have particular relevance for schools:
1 Conflict is not necessarily deviant or pathological behaviour (Laue, 1987) but more likely to be
endemic during change and, some would argue, in schools (Greenfield and Ribbins, 1993);
2 Conflict is less likely to be the result of an individual problem of a particular member of the
organization than a structural problem embedded in the context of a conflictual relationship in the
organization;
3 Conflict per se is neither a “bad thing” nor, indeed, a “good thing” - it is neutral. Rather it is the
way that conflict is perceived, defined and handled that has the potential for generating either
positive or negative effects.
If this is so then clearly the implications for the thinking and action of people working in schools are
enormous.
Perspectives on schools and their conceptualisation of the role of conflict
It is worth considering, at this stage, how schools are normally presented to us. Despite the existence of
several different theoretical perspectives for analysing and interpreting schools, many writers do not adopt a
multi-perspective approach to the analysis of organizational life. Furthermore, conflict would appear to be a
major concern of only a minority of these analytical frameworks. These being, in Bush’s (1988) terminology,
7
“political models” in which “conflict is regarded as a normal and not necessarily undesirable feature in all
institutions” (Bush, 1988, p45) and ‘subjective models” where “one possible outcome of the different
meanings placed on events may be conflict between participants” (ibid, p55). A major distinction, for Bush
(1988), however, is that conflict is not seen as a norm in subjective models.
Perhaps, however, the most important point concerning an understanding of the role of conflict in
organizational life is that each of the theoretical perspectives that seek to explain it has a different organising
concept. “Political” perspectives are, in essence, concerned with “power” whilst “subjective” perspectives
are concerned with “meanings”. Accordingly, implications for understanding and handling conflict in the
organizational setting differ. Even so it would appear that, even in those cases where a theoretical framework
embracing conflict is used, insufficient analysis is made of its role.
The personal experience of conflict
Having said this, there is a relationship between what we might call the “internal conflict” experienced by a
person and what might be termed the “external conflict” that may be experienced in relationships and
organizations. A further level of analysis, then, concerning the place of conflict in schools relates to the
individual. Schools are made up of individuals who act and interact. Conflict may be an individual
experience as well as a social experience. Indeed the importance of the psychological dimensions of conflict
were recognized in the UNESCO Charter which declared that:
Since wars begin in the minds of men (sic), it is in the minds of men that the defences of
peace must be constructed.
As Abdennur (1987) reminds us, personal, inner conflict can take many forms such as when to speak out in
difficult situations or when ideas clash to produce cognitive dissonance. Personal conflict, no matter what its
origins, is a common experience and may be in symbiotic relationship with social (or interpersonal) conflict.
Thus anxieties may be created for an individual from, say, inconsistent demands or extra-organizational
pressures (Nias, 1989). The individual, then, tends
to vent these anxieties in order to maintain equilibrium. Organizational conflicts... provide
defensible excuses for displacing those anxieties against suitable targets (Pondy, 1972,
p362).
In that sense interpersonal conflict is as much an expressive act as a means of instrumental gain. This
interaction between the individual and the wider social processes of the organization seems crucial. Beliefssystems, values and self-concept are both socially constructed and socially deconstructed even though they
are made manifest in the individual. The experience of conflict by individuals as they engage in their
particular activities, then, may serve to suffuse the imbroglio that is the organization in those organizational
perspectives that countenance conflict and be of pathological concern in those organizational perspectives
that do not.
Individual anxiety and schools
Taking this linkage of the individual and the organisation one stage further, Isabel Menzies, a Kleinian
analyst, suggests
In developing a structure, culture and mode of functioning a social organisation is
influenced by a number of interacting factors, crucial among which are its primary tasks,
including such environmental relationships and pressures as that involves; the technologies
available for performing the task; and the needs of the members of the organisation for
social and psychological satisfaction, and, above all, for support in the task of dealing with
anxiety. In my opinion, the influence of the primary task and technology can easily be
exaggerated. Indeed, I would prefer to regard them as limiting factors i.e. the need to
ensure viability through the efficient performance of the primary task and the types of
technology available to do this set limits to possible organisation. Within these limits, the
culture, structure and mode of functioning are determined by the psychological needs of the
members (Menzies, 1970, p20).
8
On the basis of her analysis Menzies puts forward two linked propositions:
That the success and viability of a social institution are intimately concerned with the
techniques it uses to contain anxiety... and that an understanding of this aspect of the
functioning of a social institution is an important diagnostic and therapeutic tool in
facilitating social change” (ibid, p39).
It would not, therefore, be unreasonable to suggest that during actual or potential changes of working
practices in an organization there may be concomitant changes also in the existing relationships and
structures which run counter to existing processes of containing or avoiding anxiety on the part of
individuals.
Defining conflict
As has already been noted, different theoretical perspectives on schools entail different roles for conflict and,
by implication, different definitions of it. Definitions of concepts are important because of their implications
for action. Furthermore, whilst the research literature on schools contains little explicitly concerned with
‘conflict’, there is a considerable body of work on ‘misbehaviour’, ‘bullying’ and other symptoms of
problems in the setting that surrounds these specific things (e.g. Chen, 2003, Miller, 2002, Turner, 1998).
However, without an explicit way of locating these in the context of conflict approaches to their resolution
may be incomplete. One of the most useful ways of making sense of the vast field of conflict studies is that of
Groom (1988) who identifies three approaches to conflict: “those of the ‘strategist’, the ‘conflict researcher’
and the ‘peace researcher’” (Groom, 1988, p97). Essentially the “strategist” is concerned with violent
coercive activity. (S)he considers relationships to be predominantly coercive, although this may not
necessarily be active but be latent. Accordingly the ‘strategist’ seeks ways either to enhance or to protect
interests through the use of power. As (s)he regards the nature of relationships as likely to be hierarchical and
unequal, stability comes through achieving a balance of forces using threats of sanctions. Peace for the
“strategist”, then, is no more than the absence of overt violence. The “peace researcher”, on the other hand,
believes this to constitute “negative peace”. (S)he claims that “positive peace” is possible in a “just society”.
For the “peace researcher” conflicts may exist in relationships because of incompatible interests built into the
deep-rooted structure of societies. Accordingly, (s)he seeks ways to change the power relationships so that
the onerous structure breaks down. The “conflict researcher”, meanwhile, is concerned with the extent to
which transactions are acceptable to the parties involved. (S)he believes social order to exist through
transactions in which behaviour is based on criteria fully understood and consented to by those involved.
Problems only arise, according to the “conflict researcher”, when there is a breakdown or an absence of an
acceptable conflict-handling mechanism. Accordingly, (s)he seeks ways of establishing or re-establishing
such mechanisms.
Each approach works with different assumptions and seeks different goals. Perhaps the most important
distinction is whether conflict is considered to be subjective (even though it may appear to the participants to
be objective) or objective. The former is the stance of the conflict researcher and the latter that of the stance
of both strategists and peace researchers. In broad terms, then, this distinction may be related back to the
organizational perspectives discussed earlier. Both the strategist and the peace researcher are concerned with
“power” and its use in what they deem to be real clashes of interest; although, for the peace researcher
“structural violence” may prevent some participants from being aware of or fully realizing what those
interests are. Groom, although claiming that the term “structural violence” is both inelegant and an apparent
contradiction, defines it as:
a situation in which overt violence is absent but in which structural factors have virtually
the same compelling control over behaviour as the overt threat or use of force. In a society
prone to structural violence an actor or group is prevented, by structural constraints, from
developing its talents or interests in a normal manner, or even from realizing that such
developments are possible (Groom, 1988, p111).
Indeed, the wider definition of violence with which the peace researcher operates compared to that of the
strategist is conveyed clearly in the model offered by Hicks (1988) for defining peace (see Figure 1).
Despite this, it is their emphasis on power that suggests that both the strategist and the peace researcher may
be located within the “political model” of schools. The conflict researcher, believing actors to have neither
9
single nor immutable values, is concerned with “meaning”. Consequently conflicts are subjective in structure
if not in perception, a position that may be located within “subjective” models. One might argue that
“interests”, rather like “needs”, are problematic and that, often, at best there may be an inter-subjective
consensus on “interests”. In short, we may be left with, in effect, a subjective definition of conflict.
Nevertheless, the current disparate theoretical perspectives of those who seek to define conflict would
suggest that a general theory of conflict is a long way off, if not impossible.
Violence
DIRECT
VIOLENCE
Personal e.g. assault,
terrorism, war,
INDIRECT
VIOLENCE
Structural e.g. poverty,
hunger, discrimination, apartheid
Absence of personal
violence or
NEGATIVE PEACE
Absence of structural
violence or
POSITIVE PEACE
Peace
Figure 1: Hick’s (1988) model for defining peace
A subjective view of conflict
For researchers who regard conflict as essentially perceptual, meaning is central to conflict resolution
strategies. For them efforts are directed at altering the meanings held by conflict participants. There does
appear, anyway, to be a social psychological process at work during conflicts where perceptions lead to
antagonistic behaviour between parties or groups that then reinforces those perceptions (Hewstone and
Brown, 1986). In effect, this is the vicious circle frequently associated with conflict. This type of
development being characterized by the intrusion of personalities upon issues and a self-fulfilling prophecy
of conflict being expected, prepared for and encountered.
Those working in this perspective seek to transform conflicts into a more constructive process through
approaches such as attempting to “co-create a common vision” (Crum, 1987, p185), “principled negotiation”
(Fisher and Ury, 1982, p11), “fractionation” (Fisher, 1969) and “integrative” agreements (Pruitt, 1987, p67).
According to such researchers, the heart of the dilemma is that although people may be in the same situation
they see it very differently (De Bono, 1985). The implication for schools of this being that those involved
contest and negotiate definitions of the situation (Gronn, 1986). In short, since “... conflict lies not in
objective reality, but in people’s heads” (Fisher and Ury, 1982, p23) conflict resolution is a learning process
necessary to break the cycle of “autistic hostility” (Deutsch, 1987). As such it may well involve what might
be described as “perspective transformation” (Mezirow, 1977).
An objective view of conflict
Researchers who consider conflict as essentially a political power struggle based upon objective differences
range from those concerned with the more obvious signs of conflict to those who focus on the wider context
of the parties and the structures embedded within it. The latter embrace the concept of ‘structural violence”
10
described earlier with its emphasis on constraining structural factors. Such factors produce, for example,
internalised notions of what is expected or deemed proper in a particular situation. It is here that control of
symbols and language matter, for these both have power and cloak power (Greenfield and Ribbins. 1993,
Rapoport, 1974).
In particular, this is the domain of the peace researcher. For them, unpeacefulness “… exists whenever an
individual’s potential development, mental or physical, is held back by the conditions of the relationship”
(Galtung, 1969, p167). It is possible, therefore, for parties to be involved in a conflict without having
perceived it (Nardin, 1980). Consequently conflict resolution may involve making “the conflict more visible
and understood” (Dugan, 1987, p58). Unless this is done those involved may be unaware of the real cause of
their problems and, therefore, unable to perceive the existence of a conflictual situation. Consequently, the
concept of “awareness” is added to that of “power” in any analysis of a conflictual relationship from this
perspective.
“Power”, however, is a central concept within the “political” model of schools and, as such, for those with an
objective view of conflict, is the means of achieving conflict resolution. Resolution, therefore, may well
involve a redistribution of power between parties. A number of attempts have been made to identify models
whose use may reveal the nature and structure of particular conflicts. Curle and Dugan’s six-cell matrix, for
example, represents one way of looking at relationships and analysing the implications both for the types of
conflicts which may arise and ways of approaching their resolution.
Curle and Dugan’s model uses the concepts of “conflict”, “balance” (i.e. how power is distributed within the
relationship and “awareness” (i.e. perception of the conflict and its causes). Within this, they then locate
various strategies “where their use is most appropriate” (ibid p23)
THE CONDITIONS OF THE RELATIONSHIP
CONFLICT-RIDDEN
RELATIONSHIPS
Lower awareness
of conflict
Higher awareness
of conflict
(3) Techniques of
conciliation and
bargaining applied to
end the open conflict,
agree (upon) a
settlement and permit
development
Balanced
THE DIVISION
OF POWER
WITHIN THE
Unbalanced
RELATIONSHIP
(1) Various forms of
education to increase
awareness to the point
of confrontation
CONFLICT-FREE
RELATIONSHIPS
(4) Development and
restructuring of the
formerly unpeaceful
relations
(2) Various
techniques of
confrontation
aimed at reducing the
imbalance and
enabling the
underdogs to
negotiate
(conciliation and
bargaining) on a
basis of greater
equality
Figure 2: Curle and Dugan’s (1982) analytical concepts
For Curle and Dugan, conflict cannot be eradicated from a relationship, something they consider both
impossible and undesirable. Instead “relationships (should) be developed in such a way that conflict is not
endemic to the relationship” (Curle and Dugan, 1982, p25).
11
Resolving conflict as organizational and personal dilemmas
The basis of strategies for resolving conflict has already been mentioned in the discussion of perspectives on
schools and on conflicts. Invariably they are presented as mutually exclusive possibilities: the “principled
negotiation” of Fisher and Ury (1982), for example with its emphasis on “perception”, “emotion” and
“communication”, sits uneasily with the machiavellian techniques offered by Zimbardo (1972). Even the
former’s tactics for “negotiation jujitsu” which are to be used when the other side will not cooperate, are
concerned with a process of learning “... ask questions ... questions do not criticize, they educate” (Fisher and
Ury 1982, p117). The advice from Zimbardo (1972) in similar situations stands in sharp contrast when he
suggests “... your only concern is to find the weak points of the target person and learn what conditions to
manipulate,” (Zimbardo, 1972, p92) even if this means use of the ‘stigmatised persuader” who will evoke
emotions such as guilt and sympathy. No means of manoeuvring and influencing is excluded to secure a
power advantage.
These basic strategies for conflict resolution are variously labelled but the essential difference concerns their
goals and means. Inevitably, there are tensions between the tactics involved in the strategic manipulation of
power and the tactics of a “human relations” or “meaning” approach to conflict. Walton (1972) suggests that
these create five dilemmas for those seeking to resolve conflict:
1. Whether to overstate (the “power” approach) or de-emphasize (the “meaning” approach) differences
between the parties involved in the conflict;
2. Whether to increase the other party’s dependence on ourselves (the “power” approach) or to
communicate our own dependence on the other party (the “meaning” approach);
3. Whether to restrict the flow of information to the other party in order to generate ambiguity and
uncertainty (the “power” approach) or to promote the open and extensive contact necessary for
creating openness and predictability (the “meaning” approach);
4. Whether to manage hostile feelings to create optimal impact on others (the “power” approach) or on
one’s own group - the latter course allowing catharsis and a revaluation of feelings (the “meaning”
approach); and
5. Whether to build coalitions against (the “power” approach) or social groups with (the “meaning”
approach) the other party.
Walton maintains that it is possible to cope with these dilemmas given certain conditions; in particular, that
the relationship between strategies is fully understood. It is this that would enable the two strategies to help
each other through the selection of “... power tactics which have least negative impact on attitudes and...
attitudinal structuring activities which detract least from the power strategy” (Walton, 1972, p487). Often the
emphasis in advice about conflict is on “participation” and “collaboration” which neglects the unintended
potential consequences of dependence implied by these concepts. Greater involvement of the individual in
the organization’s activities, can actually generate the basis for the intensive personal conflict that
characterizes intimate relations (Pondy, 1972). This is not to deny the important role of “praxis” in changing
society through growing self-awareness, merely to point out its implications. There may be some
circumstances in which the exercise of “power” may be a pre-requisite for a process of mutual problem
solving and collaborative enquiry to take place. Influence and power within the context being sought,
therefore, not for its own sake but in order to enable a learning process to take place.
Key issues for understanding conflict
Throughout this discussion certain issues emerge as key to an understanding of conflict. They are:
1. The contextual embeddedness of conflict. The nature and development of any particular conflict would
appear to be considerably influenced by the context within which it occurs. This seems to include:
(a) the ideological and symbolic understandings of the culture of those involved. Socially sanctioned
ways of thinking about and doing things represent powerful social and psychological forces
working upon those involved in any particular conflict.
12
(b) the structure and use of power. In itself this is an important influence upon the ideological system
of those involved. Clearly although the distribution of power between the parties is important so,
too, may be the arrangements for interaction between them, such as formal rules (Ryan, 1988) and
fully and freely acceptable criteria (Groom, 1988). The latter refers to this as a “legitimised
relationship”. Thus, the analytical concept of “balance” described earlier is refined into a
continuum so that “transactions in any social system can be located on a spectrum between a pole
of power politics and one of legitimized politics ...” and for which the criteria for location is “...
the degree of acceptability of the transaction to the parties concerned” (ibid, p101).
2. The perceptions of those involved in the conflict. As was discussed earlier, although a number of
researchers adhere to an objective view of conflict, such an approach begs the question of who defines the
“interests” that are considered to be in conflict. If “interests” are self-evident to those involved they are
perceived; if they are not self-evident to those involved then “awareness” has to be created - but the
consciousness of a “conflict of interest” created through the necessary social interaction in itself is the
product of someone’s perception and evaluation of the situation. Even if it were possible to identify an
objective conflict, its development will, too a large extent, be perceptual. Causes, choice options, actions
and responses are all filtered through and given meaning by the individual’s interpretive system.
3. The centrality of decision-making. The origins of conflict are frequently claimed to be competition for
scarce resources, drives for autonomy and the divergence of goals between those required to cooperate in
a joint activity (Caldwell and Spinks, 1988, Pondy, 1972). Although Gronn (1986) includes “personality
differences” as a factor in organisations such as schools, few researchers seem to support that position.
Thus conflicts arise from “disagreement about the outcome of behaviour in a relationship” (Dennison and
Shenton, 1987, p86) and the ensuing power struggle. To a large extent, however, that power struggle is
not directly for something but for a position that enables the power of decision without the use of force
(Rapoport, 1974).
At the heart of it all, then, is decision-making: perceptions give meaning to the range of possible actions as
outcomes from a decision and to preferences within that range, power offers the potential for ensuring a
favourable outcome from the decision. It is also possible to bring many of these concepts together and
construct a typology of conflicts as an analytical framework. This is represented in Figure 3: Some Types of
Conflict overleaf.
Conclusion
As was noted at the beginning of this paper, thinking about the handling of conflict in schools tends to be
relatively unsophisticated. Through drawing on the wider field of conflict studies research we have sought to
demonstrate the potential for enhancing our understanding of what might be going on in particular conflicts
in classrooms and schools. Whilst there is, as yet, no general theory of conflict, the different ways in which
conflict may be defined, as ‘subjective’ or ‘objective’, and the implications of these for conflict resolution,
through ‘meaning’ or ‘power’, have been outlined. By offering some of the concepts, such as ‘structural
violence’, found in the research literature we have tried to demonstrate that ‘misbehaviour’ and ‘aggression’
may be symptoms of deeper structural issues in the context that need to be addressed. Similarly, we have
endeavoured to explain the different types of strategies that might be involved in conflict resolution, the
dilemmas these may present and how they may relate to each other. Finally, we suggested some key issues
for understanding conflicts.
Such ideas as those discussed may offer potential as a diagnostic aid in particular situations. Their main
value, however, lies in the issues they highlight. Conflicts are rarely amenable to quick fixes and may have
ramifications that go far further than first thought. In one sense conflicts provide excellent opportunities to
understand what goes on in the organization, the crucial issue is how we respond to and build on that
understanding. By emphasizing the milieu of decision-making in schools and the different perceptions of and
responses to it during development, this paper also suggests that there exists the possibility of seeing what
may be necessary to help attempts at improvement to succeed.
Finally, the implication of our discussion is that the effective handling of conflict in schools requires both
sophisticated understandings in order to analyse situations and a variety of skills in order to resolve them.
This is likely to be best achieved through effective in-service education for teachers. Furthermore, given that
13
not all conflicts can be resolved and we may have to find ways of living with some, this in-service education
will require a process of action and reflection in the workplace as well as inputs from experts in conflict
resolution.
References
Abdennur, A (1987) The Conflict Resolution Syndrome: Volunteerism, Violence and Beyond, Ottawa,
University of Ottawa Press.
Burton, JW (1972) World Society, London and New York, Cambridge University Press quoted in Deutsch,
M (1987) “A theoretical perspective on conflict and conflict resolution”.
Burt, G (1987), Challenge and Emancipation Unpublished mimeograph.
Bush, T (1988) Action and Theory in School Management, Milton Keynes, Open University.
Caldwell, B and Spinks, J (1988) The Self Managing School, Lewes, Falmer.
Chen D.W., (2003) ‘Preventing Violence by Promoting the Development of Competent Conflict Resolution
Skills: Exploring Roles and Responsibilities’, Early Childhood Education Journal, vol. 30, no. 4, pp.
203-208
Crum, TF (1987) The Magic of Conflict: Turning a Life of Work into a Work of Art, New York, Simon and
Schuster.
Curle, A and Dugan, M (1982) “Peace making: Stages and Sequence”, Peace and Change 1982 Vol VII parts
2-3 pp19-28.
De Bono, E (1985) Conflicts: A better way to resolve them, London, Harrap.
Dennison, W and Shenton, K (1987) Challenges in Educational Management: Principles into Practice
London, Croom Helm.
Deutsch, M (1987) “A theoretical perspective on conflict and conflict resolution” in Sandole, D and SandoleStaroste, I (eds) Conflict Management and Problem Solving: Interpersonal to International Application,
London, Frances Pinter pp38-49.
Dugan, M (1987) “Intervenor roles and conflict pathologies” in Sandole, D and Sandole-Staroste, I (eds) op
cit, pp57-61.
Fisher, R (1969) International Conflict for Beginners, New York, Harper and Row.
Fisher, R and Ury, W (1982) Getting to yes: Negotiating Agreement without giving in, London, Hutchinson.
Galtung, J (1969) “Violence, Peace and Peace Research” Journal of Peace Research, Vol 3 pp167-91.
Greenfield, T. and Ribbins, P. (1993 ) Greenfield on Educational Administration: towards a humane science
London, Routledge
Gronn, P (1986)”Politics, power and the management of schools” in Hoyle, E and McMahon, A (eds.) World
Yearbook of Education: The Management of Schools, London, Kogan Page. pp45-54.
Groom, AJR (1988) “Paradigms in conflict: the strategist, the conflict researcher and the peace researcher”
Review of International Studies (1988), 14, pp97-115.
Hewstone, M and Brown, R (1986) Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Hicks, D (1988) “Understanding the field” in Hicks, D (ed) Education for Peace: Issues, principles and
practice in the classroom, London and New York, Routledge.
Laue, J (1987) “The emergence and institutionalization of Third Party roles in Conflict” in Sandole, D and
Sandole-Staroste, I (eds), op cit, pp17-29.
Menzies, I (1970) The functioning of social systems as a defence against anxiety, London, Tavistock
Institute.
Mezirow, J (1977) “Perspective Transformation” Studies in Adult Education Vol 9, pp153-164.
Miller, A., (2002), ‘Parents' and pupils' causal attributions for difficult classroom behaviour’, British Journal
of Educational Psychology, March 2002, 72, 1, pp 27-40
Nardin, T (1980) “Theory and Practice in Conflict Research” in Gurr, T R (ed) Handbook of Political
Conflict: Theory and Research, New York, The Free Press.
Nias, J (1989) Primary Teachers Talking: a study of teaching as work, London and New York, Routledge.
Pondy, L R (1972) “Organizational conflict: Concepts and Models” in Thomas, J M and Bennis, W (eds)
Management of Change and Conflict, Harmondsworth, Penguin pp359-380.
Pruitt, D (1987) “Creative approaches to negotiation” in Sandole, D and Sandole-Staroste, I (eds) op cit
pp62-76.
Rapoport, A (1974) Conflict in Man-made environment, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Ryan, S (1988) “Explaining ethnic conflict: the neglected international dimension”, Review of International
Studies (1988), 14, pp161-177.
Turner, P., (1998), ‘Tackling aggression’, Managing Schools Today, Vol. 7, No 9, pp 26-27
Walton, R E (1972) “Two Strategies of Social Change and their Dilemmas” in Thomas, JM and Bennis, WG
(eds) op cit pp479-491.
14
Zimbardo, P G (1972) “The Tactics and Ethics of Persuasion” in King, B T and McGinnies, E (eds)
Attitudes, Conflict and Social Change, New York and London, Academic Press.
15