In understanding the causes of conflict - what lies behind the apparently incompatible demands being made by disputants - a useful first step is to try to break down into categories the types of conflict that might arise. Christopher Moore (1986, 1996) provides a useful topology.

Moore breaks conflicts down into five (non-exclusive) categories. These are

* Data conflicts
* Value conflicts
* Interest conflicts
* Relationship conflicts
* Structural conflicts

Click on each of the above for definition

 --Taken from Moore, C. 'The Mediation Process' Jossey-Bass 1996 (2nd edition)

Moore proposes that each type of conflict suggests different types of intervention, or dispute resolution process. For example,

data conflicts suggest using a process to agree on collection and assessment of data (for example the development of objective criteria), or using a third-party expert to adjudicate

value conflicts may require an agreement to disagree, or a search for a shared superordinate goal

interest conflicts may be resolved by clarifying and expanding interests to look for integrative potential.

Taken from Moore, C. 'The Mediation Process' Jossey-Bass 1996 (2nd edition). For the complete picture, see the excerpt in the Module Materials.

Moore's typology includes a distinction made by many conflict theorists and which will be explored further on in this module. This is the distinction between conflicts over values (or principles, or ethical commitments) and conflicts over interests (understood as resource-conflicts or disputes over different procedural or psychological goals).

Another useful starting point in beginning to analyse the roots of conflict is the psychological analysis of Jeffrey Rubin and Dean Pruitt (1986). They argue that conflict is generally underpinned by interests which reflect aspirations, either those of self or those of an organisation which the individual represents. Conflict is generated under three basic sets of circumstances

1. when one Party's level of aspiration is higher than can be easily accommodated by the Other;
2. when one Party perceives that the Other's level of aspiration is higher than they can easily accommodate; and/ or
3. when there is an absence of integrative potential for resolving the conflict (sometimes described as a 'win-win' solution where each party can accommodate some of its interests)

Try applying either Moore's typology, or Rubin & Pruitt's analysis to one of the case studies provided in the course manual, or to your own dispute.

• What do you notice?
• How useful are these models in providing new ideas for possible interventions in these disputes?
• What options do they suggest for resolution?
• Do they suggest that the conflict is resolvable using an integrative solution?
• Are any possible 'objective criteria' for resolving the dispute suggested by your analysis?