On the Methodology of Conflict Research: Some Reflections

Zastavenko Valerii Aleksandrovich PhD in Pedagogy Associate professor, Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Saint Petersburg University of Management Technologies and Economics 197372, Russia, 190103. Sankt-Peterburg, Lermontovskii pr-t, d.44, lit.A zastawenko.valery2012@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Methodology of the conflict: a brief analysis

In recent years, a large amount of educational and scientific literature devoted to the study of conflicts has appeared in Russia, which is explained both by the relevance of this phenomenon in modern conditions and by the growing interest in it from the general public and specialists.

At the same time, the analysis of literary sources indicates that most authors try to avoid issues related to the methodology of conflict research, limiting themselves most often to a list of basic methodological principles. Out of more than two dozen textbooks and manuals published over the past decade, only the well-known textbook "Conflictology" can be distinguished, the authors of which are A.Ya. Antsupov and A.I. Shipilov, although the first edition of this textbook dates back to 2000, and the textbook "Conflictology", published in 2019 ^[1], the authors V.A. Svetlov and V.A. Semenov. ^[2], where the methodology of the conflict is considered as a separate problem, in relation to the tasks solved in these textbooks.

This situation can be explained either by underestimating the importance of methodological justification of research activities on the study of conflicts, or by the authors' confidence that all complex issues are "embroidered" and they can only refer to the basic methodological principles, the content of which is already known to everyone. In addition, methodological analysis of conflicts often causes difficulties in understanding and scientific interpretation, giving rise to the temptation to avoid solving complex issues or the desire to minimize their presentation.

Speaking about the importance of methodology in scientific research, I would like to refer to the well-known statement of V.I. Lenin that "... Whoever undertakes particular issues without first solving general ones, he will inevitably unconsciously stumble upon these general questions for himself at every step" [3. p.368]. Methodological knowledge, especially at the philosophical and general scientific level, are the guidelines that allow the researcher to successfully solve many problems that arise in the course of research and practice-transformative activities. In modern science, the methodology of research activity is commonly understood as "the teaching not only about methods, but also about the initial provisions, principles, methods of cognition, explanatory schemes of research search and practical transformation of reality" ^[4]. For some time, the priority in the development of methodological knowledge has traditionally been given to philosophical science, but in the future, through the works of I. V. Blauberg, V. I. Sadovsky, G.P. Shchedrovitsky, E.G. Yudin ^[5,6,7,8] and other scientists, methodology acquires the status of not just a philosophical basis for scientific research, but a separate teaching, including, along with philosophical general scientific, specifically-scientific and methodological justifications of science and scientific research.  Nowadays, the vast majority of scientific works devoted to the study of various phenomena of reality presupposes a methodological analysis of the object of research. This is due to the need to achieve scientific logic, integrity and consistency in research activities. Only methodological rigor makes it possible not to get lost in the abundance of empirical facts and direct the work towards an effective solution of the scientific and practical tasks facing the researcher. The study of conflict, which is a difficult-to-predict situation of social interaction and a psychological problem, is a complex task that can be successfully solved only on the basis of a scientific approach based on solid methodological foundations.  

As already noted, attempts to carry out methodological substantiation of the study of conflicts were made by A.Ya. Antsupov, A.I. Shipilov, ^[1] and V.A. Svetlov ^[2]. It is also possible to note the works of Y.L. Bankovskaya ^[9] and T.V. Vrachinskaya ^[10] devoted to the methodology of conflict research.

Despite certain differences in the understanding and interpretation of the methodology of conflict research, the works of the listed authors are united by the following:

Firstly, the statement of the objective need to expand the methodological base of conflict research, due to "the lack of a clear and effective methodology for conflict research, ... insufficient understanding of what a conflict is and what its properties should be investigated in the first place" ^[11].

Secondly, the recognition that the dialectical method (as a method of cognition) acts as the philosophical and methodological basis of conflictology, and the general scientific methodological foundations are represented primarily by a systematic approach.

Thirdly, there is a lack of unity in understanding the degree of elaboration of the concrete scientific and methodological foundations of the methodological analysis of conflictology. There are two main positions, one of which generally denies the existence of its own methodological foundations and methods of conflictology, explaining this by the fact that conflictology as a science has not yet taken place and can only rely in research on what has been developed by other, related sciences and successfully functions in scientific circulation ^{[11, 12]}. Most often, researchers rely on a different point of view, in accordance with which the scientific status of conflictology is recognized and attempts are made to formulate its specific scientific methodological principles that make it possible to effectively study the object of research. It is customary to distinguish such principles as: the principle of interdisciplinarity, continuity, evolutionism, personal approach ^[1]. T. V. Vrachinskaya suggests considering the principles of civilizational, anthropological, axiological, and cultural approach as concrete scientific principles of methodological analysis of conflict in pedagogy ^[10]. Without entering into a controversy about this, I would like to note only that, while recognizing the scientific status of conflictology as a science, it is also necessary to recognize the fact that at the moment there has not yet been a generally recognized, scientifically based point of view regarding the concrete scientific principles of methodological analysis of conflictology.

Contradiction, object and subject of conflict

Most researchers, relying on the systematization of methodological knowledge developed by E.G. Yudin, pay special attention to the philosophical and general scientific levels of methodological analysis of conflicts ^[8]. This is due to the fact that philosophical and general scientific knowledge act as the foundation to ensure effective research and practice-transformative activities in any even the most difficult situations.

In the Russian scientific literature, the point of view has been established that the dialectical method of cognition, the essence of which is the recognition of the universal interconnection of all objects and phenomena, their continuous development, acts primarily as a philosophical and methodological basis for the study of conflicts. For the study of conflicts, the whole set of laws and categories explaining the content and mechanisms of dialectics is of methodological value. But of particular methodological importance is the understanding of contradiction as the basic basis of conflict, understanding its essence and identifying its place in the system of concepts of conflict.

Most often, a contradiction is considered as a relationship between two subjects (binary relations) ^[11], as a zone of disagreement between them, due to claims to the same object ^[1]. This approach, being generally correct, does not reflect many essential characteristics of the conflict contradiction and limits the possibilities of a deep and comprehensive study of the conflict in any of its manifestations.

Firstly, the ratio of contradiction and conflict. In some studies, the non-distinction of these concepts is allowed. Moreover, it is argued that any system contains an internal conflict and the presence of this internal conflict determines the development program of the system ^[11]. In this case, not only is contradiction and conflict identified, but the concept of conflict is transferred to inanimate stagnant systems. I would like to emphasize that the source of development is the unity and struggle of opposites, but not conflict. But if in nature we are talking about the unity of the opposites of elements, particles, sides that determine the mechanism and dynamics of the self-development of living and inanimate systems, then in society the opposite takes the form of a contradiction. The carriers of contradictions are not particles, elements, but people and groups of people, and the mechanism of the emergence and resolution of contradictions is significantly different from the nature-conditioned mechanisms of the emergence and resolution of situations of the opposite. At the same time, the role of contradiction as a source of development remains, but the way to remove the contradiction does not necessarily have the nature of a conflict. Any need is a contradiction between what an individual or a social group needs and their current, real state. The gap between them can cause a person, a social group, a state of displeasure and, depending on the urgency of the problem, the degree of mental discomfort, encourage activity, act as a stimulus to behavior or activity, thereby contributing to the development of a personality or social group. Most often, the resolution of the contradiction is carried out in a non-conflict way. A conflict situation arises in the event of difficulties that prevent an individual or a social group from getting what they want. Such obstacles may arise as a result of uncertainty caused by the peculiarities of the natural and social environment or the opposition of other subjects of society.

It can be argued that conflict and contradiction are phenomena that exist in close mutual connection, but are not identical. Contradiction, as a manifestation of the dialectical law of unity and struggle of opposites in human society, contains the mechanism and logic of development, personal and social self-organization, but does not imply a mandatory conflict solution to the problems arising in this case. In other words, the resolution of the contradiction is also possible in a non–conflict way. At the same time, a conflict without contradiction cannot arise.

Secondly, the contradiction and the object of the conflict. Contradiction is a prerequisite for the appearance of any conflict. This statement does not seem so obvious if we start from the point of view existing in conflictology about the possibility of "spontaneous" conflicts that develop regardless of the existence of contradictions ^[13]. The same thoughts can be seen in M. Deutsch in his famous classification of conflicts ^[18].

In Russian conflictology, contradiction is traditionally associated with the object of conflict. In the most general form, the object of the conflict can be understood as a fragment of objective or subjective reality for full or preferential mastery, which the opponents seek. A contradiction arises between individuals or social groups in connection with their divergent interests in relation to the object. The content of the opponents' interests in relation to the object determines the essence of the contradiction that underlies the conflict.  It is customary to distinguish three main groups of objects of conflict: resource, status and spiritual (intangible) value. If we take into account only the above list, then it really seems that a system that includes a subject, an object, an interest is not correct and a conflict can arise outside the object, outside the interests of the subjects only on the basis of emotions, incorrect assessments, etc. But emotions do not arise from scratch, assessments, even if incorrect, are conditioned by perceptions of a threat. What can cause negative emotions in a person?

The phenomenon of self-esteem has been studied in psychology for a long time and quite deeply. It is usually considered in the context of the "I-concept" and assumes an assessment by the personality of himself, based on an ideal image, as a role model and a real assumption about the conformity of himself to the ideal image. In a situation where the mirror image of the Self-image of a person sharply contrasts with his own assessment of himself, an individual may experience discomfort, feelings about this, which is a sign of a contradiction that has arisen. Such contradictions can lead to the emergence of both internal and external, interpersonal conflict with the primary source of negative "mirror" reflection. All this allows us to conclude that it is necessary to consider as an object of conflict the self-esteem of a person as a fragment of subjective (mental) reality, reflecting the attitude towards oneself and determining the behavior of an individual in various situations of social interaction, including in a conflict situation.  For confirmation, you can use the example given by V.P. Sheinov. "The bus with passengers during the movement suddenly braked sharply. The passengers standing in the cabin collapsed on top of each other. Someone was hurt, someone was injured and attacked the driver with insults and threats. The driver himself experienced stress, because he almost hit a pedestrian who rushed to run across the road in front of the bus, which is why he had to brake sharply" [13. p.38]. Based on the above situation, an assumption is made about the possibility of "non-objective" conflicts, in which there is no subject and object of incompatible claims of the parties. First of all, I would like to note that there is no conflict in this situation, since there is no conflicting behavior of the driver. In the case of retaliatory aggressive actions of the driver aimed at the passenger who insulted him, a conflict really arises. However, this is not a pointless conflict. There is clearly a contradiction between two people, where the object is the self-esteem of the driver, which is belittled by the passenger who attacked him with insults.  The recognition of self-esteem as an object of conflict (independent or as a special case of spiritual value) allows us to conclude that there are no conflicts beyond contradictions and without the presence of an object claimed by both sides. A conflict without an object and an object cannot arise.

Thirdly, the subjective nature of the contradiction. As a rule, in the scientific literature on conflictology, many authors, considering the contradictions of the conflict, ignore the fact that they have a clearly expressed subjective character, i.e., being a reflection of an objective situation, they represent its subjective perception and interpretation.  Without touching on the concept of the information model of the conflict, which is described quite well and in detail in the interdisciplinary study of Antsupov and Shipilov, I would like to note that the study of contradiction is impossible without a deep analysis of the totality of mental mechanisms that determine the assessment of the emerging conflict situation and decision-making in each case. It is fundamentally important that the contradiction is always subjective, it is based on the assessment by individuals or social groups of the relevance of the object and the degree of threat to their own interests regarding this object. A conflict may not arise even in a situation where an opponent encroaches on the life of an individual. As an example, we can recall an episode from N.V. Gogol's novel "Taras Bulba". The youngest son of Taras Bulba, Andriy, meekly accepted death at the hands of his father, without even trying to counteract his father in order to protect his life.  At the same time, there are many examples when a conflict arises on the basis of an incorrect assessment of the degree of threat, by one or both opponents, to their interests.

Methodology of conflict at the general scientific level

The general scientific level of methodological analysis of conflicts in most literary sources is represented by a systematic approach. Most often, a systematic approach is used to study conflict as a system education to identify the totality of the components that make up its content and the connections between them, as well as with the system elements of the external environment in relation to the conflict under study.  Along with this, the position of researchers is of particular interest, based on applying a systematic approach not only to study the conflict as a hypothetical structure, but also to explain its genesis by the desire of the social system to optimize its state in a situation of unstable relations between its elements, in a situation of crisis of the system. 

The conflict fits into the social system as a kind of solution to the contradictions between the structural elements of the system in the case when, under the influence of internal and/or external factors, there is a serious mismatch of connections between these elements and the system loses its stability. "The emergence and development of conflict means the inability of the previously existing system of interactions between social structures to remain in its former qualitative characteristics, indicates the need to get out of the current unstable state into a qualitatively different system of interactions." (9. p.240). A similar position is defended by V. A. Svetlov [11. p.76], who considers social conflict in relation to the categories of "synergy, antagonism and conflict".

Recognizing the validity of the authors' position, I would like to emphasize that it is not always advisable in a situation of a critical moment of instability (bifurcation point) to determine the perspective of the evolution of the system only on the path of conflict resolution of the problem that has arisen. The presence of instability of the system, the appearance of misalignment of its components and even contradictions between them does not necessarily mean the need for active counteraction of the system structures. V.A. Svetlov, speaking about antagonism, characterizes it as "a state of asymmetric strengthening of the activity of one system and weakening of the activity of another system", which does not imply mandatory conflict interaction. Moreover, he quite correctly, considering the conflict potential of the system, identifies the category of synergy, the function of which in this case is to inhibit the activity of conflict elements and the transition to self-regulation and self-organization of the system, allowing to find new forms of interaction. The synergetic approach assumes that in complex systems (personality and social groups are complex systems) there is a certain set of attractor structures that have the properties of self–organization, self-similarity, and are able to ensure the stability of the system. In some studies, models of self-organization of the individual and the collective have been proposed as a way of mental activity of the individual and socio-psychological activity of the collective aimed at regulating the disturbing influence of one or more components of the system in order to maintain balance in the system and ensure its continued existence and development in an updated form ^[14]. Therefore, assessing the disturbance in the system and the prospects for its development, it is advisable to take into account the binary nature of this development, which consists in the fact that some nonlinearities can generate order from chaos, leading to the preservation and renewal of the system, while others lead to the destruction of this order, the destruction of the system.

The methodological significance of the synergetic approach in conflictology lies in the fact that, based on knowledge of the mechanisms of functioning and interaction of the elements of the system, its properties, the ability to both destroy and self-organize, the researcher gets the opportunity to understand not only the causes of disturbances in the system, revealing the instability of relations between its elements, the influence of external and internal factors, but also and predict the possibility of a conflict and the prospects for its development. At the same time, it is quite reasonable to assume that at the general scientific level of methodological analysis of the conflict, it is necessary to talk about both a systemic and a synergetic approach.

Carrying out a methodological analysis of the conflict from the standpoint of systemic and synergetic approaches, the researcher inevitably encounters such concepts as: "uncertainty", "disparity", "instability", etc. The nature of these categories is difficult to understand through the prism of synergetics. The interconnections of systems also require understanding and explanation. Therefore, scientific interest in the phenomenon of information has increased in recent decades. The study of this phenomenon has led to the emergence of an information approach, which consists in the fact that "when studying any object, process or phenomenon in nature and society, the most characteristic information aspects are identified and analyzed first of all." [15. p.98].

According to K.K. Kolin, "the information approach can be considered as a further development of the methodology of science, which gives the scientist new opportunities to study complex objects, processes and phenomena in nature and society, based on the use of common properties and patterns of manifestation of information processes" [15. p.99]. Many scientists adhere to the same position. ^{[16, 17]}. E.P. Semenyuk defines the information approach as "a fundamentally new layer of methodology formed in the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution ^[17].

Unfortunately, in modern conflictology, the information approach has not received due recognition and has not become the subject of study. The exception is the interdisciplinary study by Antsupov and Shipilov, where the authors tried to determine the place of information in the system-structural model of conflict ^[1], expressing the hope that the problem of the information approach in conflictology will be reflected in the research activities of scientists.

The importance of information in the problems of methodological analysis of the conflict is due to the following circumstances:

 Firstly, the dialectical mechanism of universal connection and interdependence is realized through the universal property of matter, in which its existence in space and time is manifested, the property of reflection, in the form of a universal field that generalizes all physical fields – the information field ^[14]. Outside of the study of information aspects, any scientific or other explanation of the phenomena of real reality is impossible.

Secondly, the conflict, being a systemic phenomenon, requires not only structural and systemic, but also information analysis. It means   the need to identify its properties and features: attribute (quantitative and qualitative characteristics); functional (relationships, target orientation); hierarchical (place and role among other systems); communication (description of the process of interaction between the elements of the whole and with other systems). Using the information approach in the system analysis of a conflict allows you to describe it and get the necessary information to create a model of conflict interaction, predict its development and make the optimal decision.

Thirdly, as we know, the conflict arises, functions and ends in the communicative space. Communication in conflict is both a condition and the core of any conflict. The essence of communication is the exchange of individuals and social groups with sign systems containing encoded information. Information and communication represent a dialectical unity, but are not identical.  The functioning of information systems is based on its own laws, closely related to the laws of the functioning of communication systems. This connection is so close that it is fair to talk about the existence of an information and communication space of conflict, the knowledge and consideration of the laws of which is the most important condition for methodological analysis in conflictology.

Conclusion

Thus, based on the analysis of literary sources, it can be argued that in modern Russian conflictology, the study of methodological problems is currently in a "canned" state. Despite the fact that a deeper examination of the methodological foundations of conflictology reveals discrepancies, insufficiently developed issues.  

The works of the authors who have studied the methodological problems of conflictology unite: a) the statement of the objective need to expand the methodological base of conflictological research; b) the recognition that the dialectical method (as a method of cognition) acts as the philosophical and methodological basis of conflictology, and the general scientific methodological foundations are represented primarily by a systematic approach; c) the lack of unity in understanding the degree of elaboration of concrete scientific and methodological foundations methodological analysis of conflictology.

At the level of philosophical and methodological analysis, issues related to the definition of the role of contradiction in the conflict, as well as the relationship of contradiction and the object of conflict, require in-depth study. It can be argued that conflict and contradiction are phenomena that exist in close mutual connection, but are not identical. The presence of a contradiction does not necessarily imply the occurrence of a conflict. The resolution of the contradiction is also possible in a non-conflict way. At the same time, a conflict without contradiction cannot arise. In turn, the presence of an object of conflict is mandatory, but not the only condition for the occurrence of a contradiction leading to a conflict. The essence of the contradiction of the conflict (subject) it is determined not by the object itself, but by the interests of opponents regarding the object. This position allows us to come to a conclusion about the subjective nature of the conflict contradiction.  

In Russian conflictology, it is customary to distinguish three main groups of objects of conflict: resource, status and spiritual (intangible) value. However, the analysis of conflicts provides grounds for a more expanded understanding of this phenomenon and the identification of the self-esteem of a person as a fragment of subjective (mental) reality as an object of conflict, reflecting the attitude towards oneself and on this basis influencing the regulation of an individual's behavior in various situations of social interaction, including in a conflict situation.  Assigning the self-assessment of a person the status of an object of conflict serves as a methodological basis for asserting the absence of non-objective, false conflicts.  

At the general scientific level of methodological analysis of the conflict, it is advisable to talk not only about a systemic, but also a synergetic approach. The methodological possibilities of systemic synergetic approaches equip the researcher with principles and methods that allow only to reveal the structure of the conflict, to understand the cause of its occurrence, revealing the instability of relations between the elements of the system, as well as to predict the possibility of the prospects for its development.

At the general scientific level of methodological analysis of conflictology, an informational approach requires special understanding, which has not yet been recognized and has not been reflected in the conflictological literature at all.