![]() |
International Online Training Program On Intractable Conflict |
Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, USA |
Opening Page | Glossary | Menu Shortcut Page
Often people involved in difficult or intractable conflicts define the problem as a win-lose situation. They assume that anything that they win will cause the other side to lose, and vice versa. With integrative reframing, the parties try to redefine the problem in a win-win way. This can either be done by expanding the resources from which they are drawing (sometimes referred to as "expanding the pie") or redefining what they want so that everyone can have what they want at the same time, even with limited resources.
Often, integrative reframing involves focusing on interests, rather than positions. When done in this way, it is the same as interest-based framing. (Click here for a discussion of interest-based framing) But win-win reframing can also be based on needs, rather than interests. Although fundamental human needs are not negotiable, they are often mutually reinforcing. For example, if both sides seek more security, by agreeing not to threaten each other with violence, the need for security can be met simultaneously by both disputants. The key to integrative reframing in this case is framing the conflict in terms of needs, and then examining how those needs could be met for all sides simultaneously. (Click here to see the related discussion of needs-based framing.)
U.S. Institute of Peace--Religion, Nationalism, and Peace in Sudan
Joint Reframing/Assisted Reframing
Confusing Interests with Positions
Confusing Material Interests With Fundamental Human Needs
Overly Competitive Approaches to a Conflict
Copyright ©1998 Conflict Research Consortium -- Contact: crc@colorado.edu