Framing the Conflict: How Students See It

Framing the Conflict: How Students See It

Gražina Čiuladienė (Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania) and Agata Katkonienė (Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania)
Copyright: © 2017 |Pages: 10
DOI: 10.4018/IJKSR.2017100104


Frame perspective can be used to contextualize action: to a certain degree it both explains, why individuals behave as they do, and emphasizes various restrictions upon individuals. “Its central feature is the experience of individuals and the organizing of experience when interacting with others” (Persson, 2015). The study aimed at revealing the ways of framing the conflict. Data were collected from undergraduate students at Mykolas Romeris University (N = 138). Findings show that most students perceived conflict in negative versus positive terms. Identifying the images of conflict students made statements mostly about the situations that have become aggressive, both verbally and physically.
Article Preview

Literature Review: Conflict Frame Categories And Approaches

Conflict frames are characterized across various categories in the field literature (Table 1). The most prevailing is threefold distinction. Sheppard et al. (1994) have identified three types of frames: a choice frame, a negotiation frame; and an underlying conflict frame. Pinkley (1990) has identified three categories of conflict frames such as 1) the relationship / task frame, 2) the emotional / intellectual, 3) the cooperate / win. Although the categories differ as the authors argues general categories - issues, identities and relationships, and interaction process.

L. E. Drake and W. A. Donohue (cited in Rogan, 2006) have deductively coded a set of four frame categories: factual, interest, value, and relational. M. Elliott et al. (2002) constructed six dimensions of frames: identity, characterization, conflict management, risk/information, loss / gain and views. R. G. Rogan (2006) study explored six different categories: instrumentality, other assessment, affect, face, affiliation, distributiveness. B. Gray and A. Donnellon (cited in Rogan, 2006, p. 160) have described framing along three dimensions including perception of the conflict, process expectations, and outcome expectations. They have developed a set of seven frame categories: substantive, loss-gain, characterization, outcome, aspiration, process, and evidentiary frames. M. C. Campbell and J. S. Docherty (2004) have operated with eight types of frame. Researchers have noted that parties in conflict do not necessarily use each one of these frames – some frames may predominant, while others may not come into play at all. Researcher added outcome vs. aspiration, power and world-making story to the set of frames. Thus, there is an absence of consensus about the number and types of frames people use to define their conflicts.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2010)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing