This article explores the extent to which framing affects Track Two diplomacy practice and especially how the cognitive frames used by practitioners shape the design of their interventions. The framing effect is pervasive and shapes every type of action. Peacebuilding and Track Two work are no exception. Track Two practitioners often rely on frames as cognitive heuristics when they design their interventions. This article reports on the results of an online survey of 273 participants, using measures based on categories identified in two previous qualitative studies using the grounded theory approach. Four main frames used by practitioners are presented, along with examples from practice: psychologists, constructivists, capacity-builders, and realistic negotiators. Finally, the implications of being captive to the framing effect for Track Two practice are discussed. Steps are suggested towards making more deliberative and reflective context-specific decisions about interventions rather than “fast thinking” based on heuristics and bias.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Brummans, B., L. Putnam, B. Gray, R. Hanke, R. Lewicki and C. Wiethoff (2008). “Making Sense of Intractable Multiparty Conflict: A Study of Framing in Four Environmental Disputes.” Communication Monographs 75: 25–51.
Çuhadar, E. (2009). “Assessing Transfer from Track Two Diplomacy: The Cases of Water and Jerusalem.” Journal of Peace Research 46, 5: 641–658.
Çuhadar, E. and B. Dayton (2011). “The Social Psychology of Identity and Intergroup Conflict: From Theory to Practice.” International Studies Perspectives 12: 273–293.
Çuhadar, E. and B. Dayton (2012). “Oslo and Its Aftermath: Lessons Learned from Track Two Diplomacy.” Negotiation Journal 28, 2.
Çuhadar, E. and B. G. Punsmann (2012). Reflecting on the Two Decades of Bridging the Divide: Taking Stock of Turkish-Armenian Civil Society Activities. Ankara: TEPAV Publications.
Edelman, M. (1993). “Contestable Categories and Public Opinion.” Political Communication 10, 3: 231–242.
Entman, R. M. (1993). “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43, 4: 51–58.
Firchow, P. (2018). Reclaiming Everyday Peace: Local Voices in Measurement and Evaluation after War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Groom, A.J.R. and P. Taylor (1975). Functionalism: Theory and Practice in International Relations. New York: Crane.
Huhn, J., C. Potts and D. Rosenbaum (2016). “Cognitive Framing in Action.” Cognitio 151: 42–51.
Jones, P. (2015). Track Two Diplomacy in Theory and Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Lederach, John Paul (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press.
Levin, I., S. Schneider and C. Gaeth (1998). “All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76, 2: 149–188.
Pettigrew, T. (1998). “Intergroup Contact Theory.” Annual Review of Psychology 49: 65–85.
Putnam, L. and M. Holmer (1992). “Framing, Reframing, and Issue Development,” in L. L. Putnam and M. E. Roloff, editors, Communication and Negotiation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rosenbaum, D., K. M. W. Chapman, D. Weiss and R. van der Wel (2012). “Cognition, Action, and Object Manipulation.” Psychological Bulletin 138, 5: 924–946.
Rosenbaum, D., O. Herbort, R. van der Wel and D. Weiss (2014). “What’s in a Grasp?” American Scientist 102 (September–October): 367–373.
Rubenstein, R. (2017). How Violent Systems Can Be Transformed. New York: Routledge.
Sherif, M. (1958). “Superordinate Goals in the Reduction of Intergroup Conflict.” American Journal of Sociology: 349–356.
Tversky, A. & D. Kahneman (1986). “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions.” Journal of Business 59, 4: 251–278.
Weick, K. E. (1999). “Sensemaking as an Organizational Dimension on Global Change,” in D. L. Cooperrider and J. E. Dutton, editors, Organizational Dimensions of Global Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 461 | 117 | 18 |
Full Text Views | 111 | 15 | 11 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 236 | 29 | 15 |
This article explores the extent to which framing affects Track Two diplomacy practice and especially how the cognitive frames used by practitioners shape the design of their interventions. The framing effect is pervasive and shapes every type of action. Peacebuilding and Track Two work are no exception. Track Two practitioners often rely on frames as cognitive heuristics when they design their interventions. This article reports on the results of an online survey of 273 participants, using measures based on categories identified in two previous qualitative studies using the grounded theory approach. Four main frames used by practitioners are presented, along with examples from practice: psychologists, constructivists, capacity-builders, and realistic negotiators. Finally, the implications of being captive to the framing effect for Track Two practice are discussed. Steps are suggested towards making more deliberative and reflective context-specific decisions about interventions rather than “fast thinking” based on heuristics and bias.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 461 | 117 | 18 |
Full Text Views | 111 | 15 | 11 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 236 | 29 | 15 |