本土化背景下土著冲突管理策略的有效性

IF 2.3 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Brandon D. Lundy, T. Collette, Taylor J. Downs
{"title":"本土化背景下土著冲突管理策略的有效性","authors":"Brandon D. Lundy, T. Collette, Taylor J. Downs","doi":"10.1177/10693971211051534","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The professionalization of addressing conflict creates a field filled with specialists highly trained to apply modularized and manualized, often evidence-based solutions. But how effective are these professionalized conflict management strategies in Indigenous and localized cultural contexts compared to homegrown Indigenous approaches? While instances of these Indigenous peacebuilding and conflict management strategies are routine throughout the world, to date, no one has attempted to test which conflict management approaches are most effective empirically, nor has the literature sufficiently addressed the contexts in which strategies are most helpful. Using multi-dimensional scaling and chi-square tests of independence applied to a similarity matrix of co-occurrences from select Outline of Cultural Materials subjects from the Human Relations Area Files cultural database, this study tests the hypothesis: Indigenous conflict management strategies are more effective (i.e., less associated conflict) than non-Indigenous conflict management strategies in Indigenous contexts. We show that Indigenous conflict management approaches co-occur with conflict less often than non-Indigenous strategies. From an applied perspective, when we break conflict into four discreet types—sociocultural/interpersonal, political, legal/judicial, and economic—Indigenous conflict management strategies co-occur most often with socio-cultural types of conflicts. The results suggest that Indigenous approaches are more effective in Indigenous contexts overall, while they are most often applied to socio-cultural and interpersonal conflicts. Based on our findings, homegrown solutions effectively manage, resolve, and transform localized conflicts.","PeriodicalId":47154,"journal":{"name":"Cross-Cultural Research","volume":"56 1","pages":"3 - 28"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effectiveness of Indigenous Conflict Management Strategies in Localized Contexts\",\"authors\":\"Brandon D. Lundy, T. Collette, Taylor J. Downs\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10693971211051534\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The professionalization of addressing conflict creates a field filled with specialists highly trained to apply modularized and manualized, often evidence-based solutions. But how effective are these professionalized conflict management strategies in Indigenous and localized cultural contexts compared to homegrown Indigenous approaches? While instances of these Indigenous peacebuilding and conflict management strategies are routine throughout the world, to date, no one has attempted to test which conflict management approaches are most effective empirically, nor has the literature sufficiently addressed the contexts in which strategies are most helpful. Using multi-dimensional scaling and chi-square tests of independence applied to a similarity matrix of co-occurrences from select Outline of Cultural Materials subjects from the Human Relations Area Files cultural database, this study tests the hypothesis: Indigenous conflict management strategies are more effective (i.e., less associated conflict) than non-Indigenous conflict management strategies in Indigenous contexts. We show that Indigenous conflict management approaches co-occur with conflict less often than non-Indigenous strategies. From an applied perspective, when we break conflict into four discreet types—sociocultural/interpersonal, political, legal/judicial, and economic—Indigenous conflict management strategies co-occur most often with socio-cultural types of conflicts. The results suggest that Indigenous approaches are more effective in Indigenous contexts overall, while they are most often applied to socio-cultural and interpersonal conflicts. Based on our findings, homegrown solutions effectively manage, resolve, and transform localized conflicts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47154,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cross-Cultural Research\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"3 - 28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cross-Cultural Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971211051534\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cross-Cultural Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971211051534","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

解决冲突的专业化创造了一个充满训练有素的专家的领域,他们能够应用模块化和手工化的、通常基于证据的解决方案。但是,与本土土著方法相比,这些在土著和本地化文化背景下的专业化冲突管理战略的有效性如何?尽管这些土著建设和平和冲突管理战略在世界各地都是家常便饭,但迄今为止,没有人试图从经验上检验哪些冲突管理方法最有效,文献也没有充分论述战略最有用的背景。使用多维标度和独立性卡方检验,将其应用于从人际关系区域档案文化数据库中选择的文化材料大纲主题的共同出现的相似矩阵,本研究检验了以下假设:在土著背景下,土著冲突管理策略比非土著冲突管理战略更有效(即关联较少的冲突)。我们表明,与非土著战略相比,土著冲突管理方法与冲突共存的频率更低。从应用的角度来看,当我们将冲突分为四种谨慎的类型——社会文化/人际关系、政治、法律/司法和经济——土著冲突管理策略最常与社会文化类型的冲突共存。研究结果表明,总体而言,土著方法在土著环境中更有效,而它们最常应用于社会文化和人际冲突。基于我们的发现,自主开发的解决方案能够有效地管理、解决和转换本地化冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Effectiveness of Indigenous Conflict Management Strategies in Localized Contexts
The professionalization of addressing conflict creates a field filled with specialists highly trained to apply modularized and manualized, often evidence-based solutions. But how effective are these professionalized conflict management strategies in Indigenous and localized cultural contexts compared to homegrown Indigenous approaches? While instances of these Indigenous peacebuilding and conflict management strategies are routine throughout the world, to date, no one has attempted to test which conflict management approaches are most effective empirically, nor has the literature sufficiently addressed the contexts in which strategies are most helpful. Using multi-dimensional scaling and chi-square tests of independence applied to a similarity matrix of co-occurrences from select Outline of Cultural Materials subjects from the Human Relations Area Files cultural database, this study tests the hypothesis: Indigenous conflict management strategies are more effective (i.e., less associated conflict) than non-Indigenous conflict management strategies in Indigenous contexts. We show that Indigenous conflict management approaches co-occur with conflict less often than non-Indigenous strategies. From an applied perspective, when we break conflict into four discreet types—sociocultural/interpersonal, political, legal/judicial, and economic—Indigenous conflict management strategies co-occur most often with socio-cultural types of conflicts. The results suggest that Indigenous approaches are more effective in Indigenous contexts overall, while they are most often applied to socio-cultural and interpersonal conflicts. Based on our findings, homegrown solutions effectively manage, resolve, and transform localized conflicts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cross-Cultural Research
Cross-Cultural Research SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
8.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Cross-Cultural Research, formerly Behavior Science Research, is sponsored by the Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (HRAF) and is the official journal of the Society for Cross-Cultural Research. The mission of the journal is to publish peer-reviewed articles describing cross-cultural or comparative studies in all the social/behavioral sciences and other sciences dealing with humans, including anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, economics, human ecology, and evolutionary biology. Worldwide cross-cultural studies are particularly welcomed, but all kinds of systematic comparisons are acceptable so long as they deal explicity with cross-cultural issues pertaining to the constraints and variables of human behavior.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信