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