Method Confrontation analysis

an interaction sequence of confrontations card table changes parties struggle eliminate dilemmas

confrontation analysis looks on interaction sequence of confrontations. during each confrontation parties communicate until have made positions clear 1 another. these positions can expressed card table (also known options board) of yes/no decisions. each decision each party communicates happen (their position) , happen if cannot agree (the threatened future). these interactions produce dilemmas , card table changes players attempt eliminate these.

initial card table: un threatens use air strikes, not believed bosnian serbs: un has 3 dilemmas bosnians have none

consider example on right (initial card table), taken 1995 bosnian conflict. represents interaction between bosnian serbs , united nations forces on safe areas. bosnian serbs had bosniak enclaves surrounded , threatening attack.

each side had position wanted happen:

the bosnian serbs wanted (see 4th column):

to able attack enclaves
not withdraw heavy weapons enclaves
for un not use air strikes

the un wanted (see 5th column):

the bosnian serbs not attack enclaves
the bosnian serbs withdraw heavy weapons
the bosnian serbs not take hostages.

if no further changes made sides saying happen (see 1st column):

the bosnian serbs said attack enclaves
the bosnian serbs said not withdraw heavy weapons
the bosnian serbs said take hostages if un uses air strikes
the un said initiate air strikes. bosnian serbs did not believe them. (hence question mark on card table).

confrontation analysis specifies number of precisely defined dilemmas occur parties following structure of card tables. states motivated desire eliminate these dilemmas, parties involved change card table, eliminate problem.

in situation @ start bosnian serbs have no dilemmas, un has four. has 3 persuasion dilemmas in bosnian serbs not going 3 things want them (not attack enclaves, withdraw heavy weapons , not take hostages). has rejection dilemma in bosnian serbs not believe use air strikes, think un submit position, fear of having hostages taken.

faced these dilemmas, un modified card table eliminate dilemmas. took 2 actions:

firstly, withdrew forces positions vulnerable being taken hostage. action eliminated bosnian serbs option (card) of taking hostages.

second card table: un eliminated bosnian hostage card , brought in additional, credible artillery card, changing situation in favour: bosnian serbs have 2 persuasion dilemmas , 2 rejection dilemmas

secondly, addition of rapid reaction force, , in particular artillery un had additional capability engage bosnian serb weapons; added card use artillery against bosnian serbs . because of this, un s threat of air strikes became more credible. situation changed of second card table:

the bosnian serbs wanted (see 4th column):

to able attack enclaves
not withdraw heavy weapons enclaves
for un not use air strikes
for un not use artillery

the un wanted (see 5th column):

the bosnian serbs not attack enclaves
the bosnian serbs withdraw heavy weapons

if no further changes made sides saying happen (see 1st column):

the bosnian serbs said attack enclaves, un did not believe them.
the bosnian serbs said not withdraw heavy weapons, un did not believe them.
the un said use artillery. bosnian serbs believed this.
the un said use air strikes. time, however, bosnian serbs believed them.



final card table: final situation. bosnian serbs modified position eliminate dilemmas. involved accepting initial goals unobtainable

faced new situation, bosnian serbs modified position accept un proposal. final table agreement shown in final card table (see thumbnail , picture).

confrontation analysis not produce win-win solution (although end states more remain stable if do); however, word confrontation should not imply negotiations should carried out in aggressive way.

the card tables or isomorphic game theory models, not built aim of finding solution. instead, aim find dilemmas facing characters , predict how change table itself. such prediction requires not analysis of model , dilemmas, exploration of reality outside model; without impossible decide ways of changing model in order eliminate dilemmas might rationalized characters.

sometimes analysis of ticks , crosses can supported values showing payoff each of parties.