Department
School of Conflict Management, Peacebuilding and Development
Additional Department
Sociology and Criminal Justice
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2-1-2022
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.
Journal Title
Cross-Cultural Research
Journal ISSN
1069-3971
Volume
56
Issue
1
First Page
3
Last Page
28
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
10.1177/10693971211051534
Comments
This article received funding through Kennesaw State University's Faculty Open Access Publishing Fund, supported by the KSU Library System and KSU Office of Research.