Analytic Paper
Rachael Rackley
CONF 620
Professor Gopin
Spring 2013
George Mason University
S-CAR
Rackley 1

Rackley 2
Part One: Book Synopsis
Gopin, M. (2002). Holy war, holy peace: How religion can bring peace to the Middle
East. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gopin’s central idea is that religion can and should be used to create bridges between multiple faiths—such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Religion and culture have a role to play in peace. As we intervene, we should try and understand the cultural and religious situations, and draw upon texts, myths and values. Facilitators should be trained to see more cultural and religious symbols in conflict and thus peacemaking should involve and engage religion and culture with modes of traditional regional reconciliation. He discusses the fact that there is an interrelatedness of religious traditions which leads to convergence. This leads to increased potentials for conflict transformation and increased potentials for peacemaking.

Family as a metaphor for cultural and religious origins o Family as a system of collective identity.
Metaphor of Abrahamic family connections—way to see interrelatedness and unit between
Abrahamic peoples or peoples of the book, and how this notion of family can be a means for organizing the world and ones origins and future.

Unifying power of Abrahamic family connections o Connection as ‘relatives’ in a troubled family.
 Myths as a way to reveal ways of thinking about one’s enemies.

Extensive and deep cultural interactions as a part of high-level and grassroots levels to engage enemies in meetings.

Family as a metaphor to bring humans together. Allows for the possibility of coexistence and community.

Myths as pervasive in the construction of human reality. An idealized image of self and a demonic construction of “the other.”

CR work must confront myths.

Transformation of myths—ability of transforming ideas on who to love and who to hate.

Individuals need to reexamine identities and goals. –acknowledge past wrongs. Need to be able to apologize for their wrongdoing and past wrongs to be able to allow for

Rackley 3 insight!! Insight will then allow for the possibility of new understanding of identities, goals, and values.

Peacemaking must transform underlying myths!! If it does not, it is only peacemaking that does not fully work.
Changing perceptions and worldviews—changing myths is a way of allowing a peace process to change minds and hearts.

Peacemaking that changes myths allows for changing relationships and visions. o Cultural and psychological transformations can stimulate breakthroughs. Allow for shifts in trust.

Religious actors must be involved in diplomacy

Suggestion for developing a peacemaking strategy that focuses on religion, culture, symbolic gestures, moral commitments, and transformation of relationships. o Building peace takes more than the formation of a peace agreement or a political agreement. o Need an understanding and acceptance between religions. o Address intolerance between religions o Religious peacemaking can help with cultural and spiritual issues.

Can therefore reinforce political peace processes and agreement.
Religion can help in moving parties from alienation to inclusion and engagement. “Othering” as a natural psychological situation—that occurs in childhood.

Natural tendency that is not unique- but can be a destructive pattern o Othering and developing negative perceptions of the other are destructive

Need for religious groups to move from radical and violent othering.

Best way for changing the process of othering—re-mythification---
Rereading traditional texts and reworking theology (hermeneutics) to emphasize life and justice and more peaceful ways of distinguishing between people and groups.
Injured cultures—need to confront injuries to change--psychologically, culturally, and religiously.

Must deal with humiliation and dishonor.

Also must confront the mourning process. Mourning process should be through selfexamination. Remind people that all sides have sinned in conflict—connects them with the basic ideas of religion and then connects them with the idea of forgiveness.

Mourning, coping and loss should be shared collectively and brought into peacemaking and reconciliation.

Must transform trauma.. especially chosen traumas. o Interesting idea he brings up of also needing to mourn and move on from lost visions that could not be developed.

Must confront trauma and work through it creatively.

Rackley 4
Practical methods—

Ethical parts of Abrahamic traditions and religions must be emphasized.
 People must acknowledge that their side is not always “correct.” Their side in conflict may not have the entirety of justice, right, goodness, and truth. There is a right and wrong on both sides of conflict.

Concept of forgiveness—so many ways to explore this. Different understandings of forgiveness. Some are viewed as a transformation of the person or of the conflict. Some could be through gestures or words, or through forgiveness of themselves and their past.
(letting go of chosen trauma). Must build upon religious traditions and the concept of forgiveness to gain better peacemaking practices.

Modes of peacemaking—dialogue, verbal communication, nonverbal cues, symbolism, etc. o Peacemakers should always be aware of other opportunities to transform relationships such as nonverbal cues. o Actions that could show honor to the enemy.

Different modes of apology- not just through dialogue but by action and showing emotion.
*Interesting question—what if someone is expressing an apology through alternative means and it is not recognized as such by a cultural divide? Could lead to conflict perpetuation.

Elasticity of means of apology and reconciliation

Children are teachers also— o **Turning the model of teacher-student relationship on its head, which is critical I believe, for insights to develop and for new, collaborative learning!!*

Essential for peacemakers to train themselves to watch non-verbal cues.
Example: Falklands war—hidden issue may be the expectations of both sides and the forms of reconciliation they require or prefer

Strategy of the grand gesture—what if it is interpreted as a blink when it is a wink?
Recommendations for CR that focus on relationship building—

Gestures of regret, honor and rededication—should be done in religious spaces of meaning that were violated.

Rackley 5

Process of mouring and expressions of regret—efforts should be made to offer support to mourning communities.

Need to foster communication between moderates—people will be able to communicate and understand each side.

Commitments to peace—through religious statements and gestures between the communities. o Parties should find symbolic ways to honor the culture and identity of the enemy.

All non-violent ways for conflict resolution and stopping violence.
Connecting to our visit to Israel/Palestine, I was able to see how this reading can be applied.
The concept of utilizing religion to build bridges among communities I believe is already being applied in some forms in this conflict. The people of Israel and Palestine understand that they are connected to the other. They explain that they are ‘cousins’ with the other party due to the connections to Abraham. Peacemaking through religious texts and religious connections could make a large impact upon the religious communities in the conflict. I question however, if this would make any impact on the secular communities.
Dowty, A. (2008). Israel/Palestine (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Polity Books.
Dowty’s
Israel/Palestine is a comprehensive text on the conflict between Israeli's and
Palestinians. The book overviews the conflict and introduces the basic issues without becoming too overwhelming. Dowty steers clear of many of the myths convoluting the conflict and focuses on the cause as being "the claim of two peoples for the same piece of land" (pg. 4). Dowty gives a balanced description of both the Jewish and Palestinian narratives and develops the history of

Rackley 6 the conflict along with sections on the core issues to the conflict and potential resolutions, and further details the concept of victimhood.
After evaluating this reading based on the engagement of my experience in
Israel/Palestine, I would find that much of what Dowty discussed is certainly present. His text is a historical overview of the conflict, but he does highlight some of the main issues that are continuing to plague this region. After visiting I discovered that the issue of water (which I always placed lower on my ‘scale’ of important issues to be covered) is of much more importance and immediate substance than I realized.
Part Two: Article Synopsis
Avruch, Kevin and Peter W. Black (1993). “Conflict Resolution in Intercultural Settings:
Problems and Prospects,” in D. Sandole and H. van der Merwe, eds., Conflict Resolution
Theory and Practice Integration and Application. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 131-145.
Avruch and Black discuss the topics of conflict theory and practice in intercultural settings. They determine that having a universal set of conflict resolution techniques could potentially create cultural problems and obstacles in resolving conflict. This leads to the idea that if culture was put in the background, due to culture leading to differences among people, that there would be a greater likelihood of conflict resolution practice applicability by taking that element out. Avruch argues this is an incorrect notion.
Avruch and Black deliver a great point— that culture is not reducible to behavior. To
'know' a culture is not to understand every act or every member of the group and be able to predict this. Avruch additionally points out that culture, ethnicity, and ethnic identity used as

Rackley 7 synonymous terms when they are not culture a fundamental feature of human consciousness.
This poses a huge problem. Culture is seen as a 'grammar' and meaning making process. It cannot be assumed that there is shared understanding within conflicts that are intercultural therefore. The third party must conduct a cultural analysis in intercultural conflict situations.
He states that within a cultural analysis one should stop at the moment of misunderstanding or non-comprehension. Analysis of one's own culture is vital. This is largely a period of reflection. Reflection and reflecting on one’s culture can often have the unique effect of making what was 'normal' in one’s culture to seem bizarre after a period of reflection.
Cultural analysis through Geertz is defined as thick description—deep, rich layers of context and meaning. When analyzing the culture of another you should look for opacities and things that are not transparent to you. However, it is important to note that cultural analysis is
NOT causal analysis. You cannot simplify the 'strange' with value or judgments. Avruch argues that culture molds the way that parties understand what the conflict is about. Cultural differences exist at all times between various interactions. Cultural analysis is a key component of intercultural conflict resolution. Culture should be seen as a lens and not as a label.
I really love Avruch’s work on culture because it is such a vital element to peace work.
Culture must be kept at the forefront of and the differences between people must be connected.
This is especially noticeable in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Culture must be an element that is discussed in bringing peace to these people. Much of each population lives by very different cultural norms and practices. These need to be taken into account when attempting to find peace between the people.

Rackley 8
Cheldelin, Sandra I., Wallace Warfield with January Makamba. 2004. Reflections on
Reflective Practice, pp. 64-78. In Research Frontiers in Conflict Analysis and Resolution.
Fairfax: Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University.

Focus of paper-how to effectively engage in reflective practice as a practitioner

Practice- the work that professionals do in the field of conflict analysis and resolution

Practice can include negotiation, mediation, peacebuilding, consulting, facilitating and more.

Roots of practice through experience of practice and scientific theories

Field is diverse and interdisciplinary in nature, thus the practice is far ranging. Defining the limits of the practice becomes difficult

Reflective practice useful for the outcome of an intervention

Relationship between theory research and practice--the heart of reflective practice

Disconnect of hierarchy developed where theory is 'on top' and practice 'on the bottom'

Disconnect in what we know from research and theory and what actually happens on the ground

Tacit knowledge- similar to recognizing someone we know in a crowd, but no way to explain how we recognize them. Same with using theories through practice. Point is to be able to understand theories through tacit knowledge to practice them without realizing we are

Good practitioners develop the ability of reflection in action—thinking about what they are doing while they are doing it

Founder of reflective theory- john dewey. Kolb expanded on dewey by examining experiential learning

Learning as a 4 stage cycle—immediate experience, observation and reflection, becoming theory, where new actions are created from this theory o 2 dimensions: how knowledge is perceived and how knowledge is processed

Reflective practice—a form of meaning making –attempting to make sense of phenomena occurring around you

Reflective practice in the field has been used in medical sectors—such as having nurses attempt to reflect upon their interactions with patients and their outcome.

Culture can have an impact on understanding reflective practice and its purposes—it became more of a criticism than a critique in some areas

Issues with gender discrepancies conducting reflective practice –men shy away from it due to believing it is identified with female ethos

Clegg argues that there is a multi intra personal dimension to reflective practice

Basic idea—knowledge derived from reflective practice from practitioners in the field is of equal value to empirical research of those in the academic field

Rackley 9 o Interesting points that the idea of reflective practice must break free from residing in the academic sense of the word—lose empirical connections. Also, must come to a universal definition of reflection and reflective action

Can verbal reports be valid sources of data?
Dugan, Máire A. 1996. A Nested Theory of Conflict. In A Leadership Journal: Women in
Leadership – Sharing the Vision. Volume 1, pp. 9-19.
Máire Dugan examines conflict at specific levels. She finds that we must analyze the level of the conflict in order to establish how to resolve it. Dugan found that women were not present in her friend’s academic articles and wished to observe why. Found that many influential women within this field have contributed to much organizational work. When listing theorists who have influenced the field, most are men.
*very good point that theorists rarely share the story of how they developed their theories
Dugan details Moore's 5 spheres of conflict: data conflict, interest conflict, relationship conflict, value conflict and structural conflict. Dugan finds that these spheres are very useful in understanding conflict because we must understand the sphere or level of conflict in order to understand which strategies to use. Dugan finds that most conflict models are static. Most models offer little connection between theories and analysis and actions.
Issue specific conflict : one or more issues that have caused disagreement over time
Relational conflict: one that emerges from problems having to do with the interaction patterns of the parties and their feelings toward each other.
System-level structural conflict : one that emerges from inequities that are built into the social system.

Rackley 10
She examines the school structural conflict of racism and addresses how to combat that -not simply through a dialogue between the boys in conflict, but a school wide measure to change racism throughout this structure. She delves into Elise Boulding's work on interventions as a practical measure for what to do in this conflict situation.
LeBaron, Michelle. 2003. Bridging Cultural Conflicts: A New Approach for a Changing
World. Chapter 1, pp. 3-31; & Chapter 10, pp. 271-289. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN:
07879 6431 X.
"Third parties are the bridge walked on by both sides."
LeBaron addresses the fact that third parties from outside cultural settings have no guaranteed acceptability in conflict situations. Insiders with established relationships may be preferred to outsiders with conflict expertise. She explores the relational tools that third parties can use. She finds that is it vital and important to understand cultural fluency and conflict fluency. We must seek cultural common sense of parties involved to find ways to bridge parties.
LeBaron denotes multiple cultural influences that form our worldviews: social and moral guidelines--(shared structures of relationships such as family, kinship, economic and political patterns), practical knowledge--(shared physical requirements), and transcendent explanations--
(belief system and myths of a society or group).
The deepest ways that we identify others and ourselves are involved at the heart of meaning making. These worldviews are largely unconscious--as third parties we must utilize symbolic tools to reach the unconscious level, and make meaning of ourselves within that context and surrounding those parties. There are no cultural neutral ways to think about or respond to conflict.

Rackley 11
Relational and Symbolic tools-- it is important to put the relationship front and center in the conflict--conflicts evolve and change but at the center of conflicts are the relationships.
Bridging conflict includes healing, therefore relational tools are necessary. Symbolic tools are necessary because they engage the unconscious--penetrate the boundaries of worldviews to give reasons why communication ultimately fails across relationship boundaries and leads to conflict.
Symbolic tools are stories, myths, rituals and metaphors. Stories contain people in context and are not controversial. Story cocreation begins with mutual sharing of stories. Mutual listening encourages emotional intimacy which can help in shifting protracted conflicts.
Cocreating stories works at three levels: 1) At the personal level the stories are retold and recast with assistance in ways that make assumptions visible and open to change. 2)
Interpersonal level-parties review and examine stories about their relationship from the others perspective to find a shared story that represents and honors important elements of cultural understanding. 3) Intergroup level,stories that groups tell and retell about itself and the other group are shared as windows into perspectives and worldviews.
Rituals include marriages, funerals, ordinations, precessions and observations. These are all rituals that address identity and cultural meanings. Rituals are used in bridging conflict to create smooth transitions by marking a shift between an enemy to a friend.
Myths are stories that groups tell about themselves and about others. Myths highlight relationships and belief systems. Uncovering myths reveals values, and ways of being and seeing. Perceptual filters can be uncovered and ways forward can be created. Exploring myths is important in discovering the misconceptions it reveals about our own group and who we see ourselves to be. Myths invite multiple voices in the way that history is told. Therefore, extensive groundwork is needed for examining myths with groups of people who are historically divided.

Rackley 12
Finally, metaphors are relational and symbolic tools. Metaphors are ways of mapping sets of ideas to another. The use of a metaphor such as a fish tank as 'conflict' illustrates the potential to engage people in reflection on third-party roles. Metaphors are useful tools for third-parties for examining worldviews.
What else is necessary for bridging cultural divides apart from relational and symbolic tools—conflict fluency, cultural fluency, and dynamic engagement. These tools allow for an approach to working through conflict across cultures, naturalistic ways of intervention, multiple ways of knowing—intuitive, imaginative, emotional, spiritual; and finally-relational adeptness. Relational adeptness involves collaboration, genuineness, creativity, reflectiveness, sensitivity, humility and congruence.
So how does one become an effective intervenor?
1) Partnering collaboratively with those in the conflict--acknowledging their experience and sharing yours.
2) Engaging genuinely with others-using yourself as a bridge
3) Creatively envisioning ways forward
4) Reflectively observing and evaluating processes. Inviting others to reflect with you and share insights.
5) Sensitively employing conflict and cultural fluency--observing what worked well and what could have been done differently.
6) Humbly remembering that you will never be able to understand a particular culture, group, conflict or individual and understanding cultural faux pas.

Rackley 13
7) Checking that behaviors, values, and intentions match congruently.
Effectiveness is impaired when intervenors: fly in and out of cultural contexts without attention to culture, pack their schedules with little listening and reflecting, focus on the outcome at the expense of the process or the process at the expense of the outcome (need balance), view culture as a topic which is unconnected to conflict or conflict resolution, use artificial methods for teaching others how to intervene, imagine that culture is static, become overwhelmed by the complexity of culture and let another work it out, stop the exploration process.
Five sources for credibility are as follows:
1) Inherent credibility like gender, generation and nationality.
2) Conferred credibility through education, association with respected persons or recognition by respected bodies.
3) Expert credibility through linguistic fluency, cultural fluency and conflict fluency.
4) Congruent credibility when the intervenor's values fit with those in conflict.
5) Contribution credibility which is tied to actual results.
Lederach, John Paul. 1995. Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across Cultures.
Chapter 6, pp. 55-62. New York: Syracuse University Press. ISBN: 0 8156 2725.
Lederach focuses on ‘The Elicitive Model’
This model states that training is aimed at discovery and creation of models that emerge from resources present, and be able to respond to needs in that context. Elicitive training

Rackley 14 involves a reconceptualization of roles-the trainer sees himself as a facilitator rather than an expert on a particular conflict resolution model. Therefore the importance is the facilitation skill of discovery and creation through a participation process that is highly participatory.
Indigenous knowledge is a valued resource for creating and sustaining appropriate models of conflict resolution in given situations. This includes discovering what people have in place and already know. The design and goals of training are identified by the participants rather than the trainer. The trainer assumes a perspective of ignorance.
This is an open approach of identifying needs and working with participants to create training that corresponds to the needs. Participants therefore might identify a need to work on conflict transformation, nonviolence, mediation or trauma healing. An aspect of ignorance focuses on the idea that the trainer should not assume that their experience or expertise is a resource for the training—assuming "I do not have the answer, but I can work together with you to help create it."
5 interrelated training activities--
1) Discovery: Exercises aimed at participants engaging and interacting with their own understandings of how conflict (and their response to it) operate in their setting. Questions such as "what do we do?" and "how do we do it?" Different from a prescriptive approach because you are not telling them what to do or how to do it. Invite participants into small groups to discuss real-life situations that involve them and use their descriptions for discussion and development of role-plays during training.
2) Naming and Categorizing: Participants take ownership of approaches of models that develop from their implicit understandings. Movement from implicit to explicit knowledge is discovery.
Encourages participants to define and name their own understandings. Discovery that naming

Rackley 15 and categorizing are legitimate and necessary as training processes.
3) Evaluation: Participants invited to re-discover and describe what is present in their setting and to evaluate what helps and what does not. Participants evaluate their own action and behavior rather than judging their approaches according to outside criteria.
4) Adapt/Recreate: Adaptation and recreation of what exists toward the participants suggest of what is more suited or desired. Own model and proposals begin to develop.
5) Practical application: Opportunities for experimenting with their own model. Cycle of discovery, naming and application--then re-discovery, re-naming and re-application.
Lederach finds empowerment throughout this training process. This approach is not based on transferring knowledge from trainer to participant, but on building and creating models from an interaction among participants themselves and with the trainer. The facilitator helps the participants create their own learning environment. Thus, elicitive approach allows for a shift in the relationship between participants and trainer that redefines power as participatory in discovery and naming rather than transfer of knowledge.
Lederach, John Paul.
1998. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies.
Washington, DC: USIP. Pp. 23-63. ISBN: 978-1-878379-73-3
Lederach’s book argues that dealing with contemporary armed conflict requires new approaches in addition to traditional diplomacy. Lederach develops the ideas of conceptual frameworks for peacebuilding and conflict analysis. He finds that peacebuilding should focus on reconciliation efforts and the rebuilding of relationships. This focus on reconciliation recognizes

Rackley 16 that conflicts are a type of relationships with others. Therefore, when analyzing conflicts, we should examine them from the aspects of a relationship. By doing this, it allows for peacebuilders to address psychological components to the conflict.
Lederach describes the different levels of leaderships in a conflict, through the actors and issues. The leadership occurs at three main levels: the top level, middle range level and grassroots level. The top level consists of actors who are political, military or religious leaders.
The middle range level consists of respected business heads, education or agricultural leaders.
And the last level, grassroots, consists of the masses of people on the ground including the refugee camp officials, NGO workers and health workers. Lederach finds that different peacebuilding activities and relationship forming is possible and appropriate at all levels of leadership.
Lederach also continues with Dugan’s nested theory by relating the immediate issues within a conflict to a larger system. He finds that issues arise within relationships, which exist within the larger context of these subsystems and society-wide systems. To fully understand a conflict therefore, one must understand the conflict issues in relation to these larger systems.
Marsick, Victoria J., and Alfonso Sauquet. 2000. Learning through Reflection, Chapter19, pp. 382-399. In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. Deutsch,
Morton and Peter T. Coleman, Eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. ISBN: 07879
4822 5.
Marsick and Sauquet’s article focuses on the potential for learning through the process of reflection. They tie in Jack Mezirow’s theory on transformative learning and demonstrate how individuals can apply this theory and reflective practice to the processes before, during and after

Rackley 17 a conflict. The process of learning through experience involves an observation of surrounding conditions, knowledge of what has happened in similar situations in the past and judgment that puts together what was observed and what was recalled. “People make meaning of situations they encounter by filtering them through impressions they acquire over time from past experiences” (pp.383). They find that learning takes place as people interpret and reinterpret these experiences in the light of a growing set of insights. Learning results in new insights and new habits of behavior.
They find that the practice of reflection plays a key role in opening up lines of thinking that otherwise remain unexplored. Reflection is central to every phase of learning from experience—its helps people interpret and reinterpret experiences. They discuss this through an examination of reflection through Jack Mezirow’s theory on transformative learning.
The concept of action-science is the argument that people act blindly in response to their external environment—people act certain ways under certain conditions. Reflection then occurs as a double loop learning process. Single loop learning is not bad per say, but does not go far enough to a reflectionary stage.
The process of learning is affective, meaning that people learn from experience through a direct encounter with life, sensations and feelings. Experiential learning allows for people to get in touch with insights that they typically filter out of their awareness. It is crucial to use reflection and critical reflection processes to learn from your experiences. One way to instill reflection is to put in place a system of learning reviews after experiential learning. A dialogue can be one means of identifying various views and allowing for transformative learning to take place.

Rackley 18
Schirch, Lisa. 2004.
Ten principles of identity for peacebuilders--
1) People have a human need to define themselves.
2) People create a sense of who they are through relationships with others and interactions with those around us
3) Individuals define themselves in multiple ways based on social and cultural groups that influence and shape them.
4) People gain a sense of self through relationships with people who are the same, and who are different from them.
5) Forms of identity based on difference are often cause for conflict.
6) Forms of identity based on difference are also results of conflict, by creating in-groups and out-groups.
7) The way an individual defines himself/herself differs in conflict and non-conflict situations.
8) The way an individual or group defines others differs in conflict and non-conflict situations.
9) Because of the connection between identity and conflict, perceptions of self and other may need to be transformed during peacebuilding efforts.
10) Perceptions of identity change according to physical and relational contexts.
Warfield, Wallace. 2002. Is This the Right Thing to Do? A Practical Framework for
Ethical Decisions, Chapter 19, pp. 213-223. In A Handbook of International Peacebuilding:
Into the Eye of the Storm. Lederach, John Paul, and Janice Moomaw
Jenner, Eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. ISBN: 0 7879 5879 4.

Rackley 19
Wallace states that you must be clear on frame of reference for ethical decisions. You must make sure this frame allows you to stop, listen to your doubts, and check them before making decisions. A few minutes of reflection can make a huge difference.
All forms of CR work pose dilemmas at one time or another. Ethical dilemmas are a special problem. They deal with principles and values that defy simple solutions. In a general sense, ethics are "guiding moral principles that define the rightness or wrongs of a course of action." Ethical dilemmas are situation in which, in CR, a practitioner is faced with a doubt about how to act in relation to personal and professional values, norms and obligations. An example of an ethical dilemma: to what extent is it ethical for a mediator to superimpose her or his sense of outcomes on what the parties desire in settlement? Should the mediator push for social justice if one party (or more) is disempowered? Ethical dilemmas pose a conflict within a conflict. Intrapersonal conflict.
Potential for ethical dilemmas created by: 1) culture, 2) exposing users to greater risks such as threat escalation, 3) conflict intervention posed as training (trainers act as those participants are facing abstract conflict situations, but is it ethical to pose intervention measures as such?).
A model for responding to ethical dilemmas--Model building (a form of reflective practice) can greatly help. The process of constructing frames of reference that will allow the practitioner to develop multiple rationales for what is occurring/ what could occur. A transition

Rackley 20 to a deeper understanding of anticipated or unfolding events. The practitioner responds to dilemma in 4 stages: 1) pause, 2) reflect, 3) share, 4) determine options and select.
As a practitioner, pausing include noting discomfort and pausing before moving on. This includes calling for a break or step away momentarily. Reflect—reflect on personal and professional values and what meaning something has. Share—Process of externalization and assessment with others. Determine options and select—Determine what choices are available to prevent the situation from deteriorating.
Watkins, Jane Magruder and Bernard J. Mohr. 2001. Appreciative Inquiry: Change at
theSpeed of Imagination. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Chapter 2 “Appreciative
Inquiry : History, Theory and Research.”
Chapter 2:
Appreciative inquiry
—a collaborative and participatory approach to seeking, identifying and enhancing life-giving forces that are present when a system is performing optimally. AI involves the practice of asking questions that strengthen a systems capacity to apprehend, anticipate and heighten positive potential. AI was developed not for organizational change purposes, but for theory building.
The advent of OD allows for people within the organization to determine what has to be changed and ways to formulate those changes. AI is sometimes applied in micro situations as a form of process consultation. The real power and impact of AI—strategic shifts in relation of the enterprise, changes in the way the work of the organization is done, etc.

Rackley 21
Static conceptions of AI are difficult due to its constantly evolving nature. AI integrates the concepts of a practical change process with a new paradigm view of how to shape the future. 5 OD phases-- 1) Definition, 2) Discovery, 3) Dream, 4) Design and 5) Destiny.
Chapter 3:
The essential ingredients of AI: 1) beliefs and values in five core principles—
(constructionist, simultaneity, anticipatory, poetic, and positive). And 2) The five core processes—focus on the positive as a core value; inquire into stories of life-giving forces; locate themes that appear in the stories and select topics from the themes for further inquiry; create shared images for a preferred future; and find innovative ways to create that preferred future.
The concept of Appreciative Inquiry is fascinating and yet still a concept that I am struggling to 100% understand. Appreciative Inquiry is the practice of asking questions to strengthen the positive potential of something. I think that in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, many of us were interested in simply hearing stories from the people on the ground. We wanted to know their day to day lives and we wanted to ask them questions about how this conflict can be changed and how their lives can become better. In terms of looking for the positive and moving forward, one of the five core processes as outlined by chapter 3, is the creation of shared images for a preferred future. The creation of this preferred future with shared images is still difficult to create in the conflict context. There are many parties who are invested in continuing this conflict who do not wish to see this shared creation. However, I believe that when you ask people in this land what they envision for a future, most do see a future living side by side with the other party with shared resources and land as the only option.