Societies in conflicts develop an ‘ethos of conflict’, a set of socially shared beliefs about the conflict. We argue that the ethos of conflict can be based on different representations of the conflict, and exploring such representations helps to analyze similarities and differences between and within conflict parties. We explored representations of the Kurdish conflict among 45 laypeople in a multi-ethnic city in Turkey based on comprehensive models of conflict analysis using an approach based on Q-methodology, which is suitable for uncovering socially shared viewpoints. Representations of conflict were conceptualized along three domains: causes and issues; relationships between the groups, processes and dynamics; and possible solutions. An integrated analysis across these domains revealed five qualitatively distinct viewpoints toward the conflict. The meaning of these viewpoints, their possible links to the ethos of conflict, differences and commonalities within and between conflict parties, the usefulness of our methodological approach to explore conflict viewpoints, and implications for conflict resolution are discussed.
BakerRvan ExelJMasonHStricklinM (2010) Connecting Q and surveys: Three methods to explore factor membership in large samples. Operant Subjectivity34: 38–58.
2.
Bar-TalD (1990) Israel–Palestinian conflict: A cognitive analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations14: 7–29.
3.
Bar-TalD (1998) Societal beliefs in times of intractable conflict: The Israeli case. International Journal of Conflict Management9: 22–50.
4.
Bar-TalD (2000) From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to reconciliation: Psychological analysis. Political Psychology21: 351–365.
5.
Bar-TalD (2007) Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist50: 1430–1453.
6.
Bar-TalDRavivARavivADgani-HirshA (2009) The influence of the ethos of conflict on Israeli Jews’ interpretation of Jewish–Palestinian encounters. Journal of Conflict Resolution53: 94–118.
7.
Bar-TalDSharvitKHalperinEZafranA (2012) Ethos of conflict: The concept and its measurement. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology18: 40–61.
8.
BarrettP (1986) Factor comparison: An examination of three methods. Personality and Individual Differences7: 327–340.
Beriker-AtiyasN (1997) The Kurdish conflict in Turkey: Issues, parties and prospects. Security Dialogue28: 439–452.
11.
BliucAMMcGartyCReynoldsKMunteleD (2007) Opinion-based group membership as a predictor of commitment to political action. European Journal of Social Psychology37: 19–32.
12.
BronfenbrennerU (1961) The mirror image in Soviet–American relations: A social psychologist’s report. Journal of Social Issues16: 45–56.
13.
BrownSR (1980) Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
BrownSR (1993) A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity16: 91–138.
15.
BrownSR (2002) Structural and functional information. Policy Sciences35: 285–304.
16.
BrownSRUngsTD (1970) Representativeness and the study of political behavior: An application of Q technique to reactions to the Kent State incident. Social Science Quarterly51: 514–526.
17.
ÇandarC (2009) The Kurdish question: The reasons and fortunes of the “Opening”. Insight Turkey11: 13–19.
18.
ÇandarC (2011) Dağdan iniş—PKK Nasıl Silah Bırakır: Kürt sorunu’nun şiddetten arındırılması [Coming Down from the Mountain—How the PKK Can Disarm: the de-violencing of the Kurdish problem]. TESEV Kürt Sorunu Raporu.
19.
ÇelikAB (2010) Kürt meselesinde aktörler ve süreçler: barışa giden farklı seçenekleri keşfetmek [Actors and processes in the Kurdish question: Exploring different alternatives to peace]. Available from: http://myweb.sabanciuniv.edu/bcelik/su_yayinlar/ (accessed 8 August 2014).
20.
ÇelikABBlumA (2007) Track II interventions and the Kurdish question in Turkey: An analysis using a theories of change approach. International Journal of Peace Studies12: 51–81.
21.
ÇelikABRumeliliB (2006) Necessary but not sufficient: The role of the EU in resolving Turkey’s Kurdish question and the Greek–Turkish conflicts. European Foreign Affairs Review11: 203–222.
22.
Cerrahİ (1999) Ethnic Identity versus national identity: An analysis of PKK terror in relation to identity conflict. Turkish Journal of Police Studies3: 1–12.
23.
CheldelinSIDruckmanDFastL (2003) Conflict: From Analysis to Intervention. London: Bloomsbury.
24.
CohrsJC (2012) Ideological bases of violent conflict. In: TroppLR (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 53–71.
25.
CohrsJCUluğÖMStahelLKışlıoğluR (2015) Ethos of conflict and beyond: Differentiating social representations of conflict. In: HalperinESharvitK (eds) The Social Psychology of Intractable Conflicts: Celebrating the Legacy of Daniel Bar-Tal, Vol. 1. New York: Springer, pp. 33–45.
26.
ColemanPT (2003) Characteristics of protracted, intractable conflict: Towards the development of a framework—I. Journal of Peace Psychology9: 1–37.
27.
ConoverPJFeldmanS (1984) How people organize the political world: A schematic model. American Journal of Political Science28: 95–126.
28.
DanielsonS (2009) Q method and surveys: Three ways to combine Q and R. Field Methods21: 219–237.
29.
DuganM (1996) A nested theory of conflict. Women in Leadership1: 9–20.
30.
ElcherothGSpiniD (2012) Political violence, intergroup conflict, and ethnic categories. In: Bar-TalD (ed.), Intergroup Conflicts and their Resolution: A Social Psychological Perspective. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 175–194.
31.
FisherRJ (2006) Intergroup conflict. In: DeutschMColemanPTMarcusEC (eds), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 176–196.
32.
GayerC (2012) Gendered Intractability: National Identity Constructions and Gender in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
33.
GlasfordDECalcagnoJ (2012) The conflict of harmony: Intergroup contact, commonality and political solidarity between minority groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology48: 323–328.
34.
GunterMM (2000) The continuing Kurdish problem in Turkey after Öcalan’s capture. Third World Quarterly21: 849–869.
35.
HammackPL (2006) Identity, conflict, and coexistence: Life stories of Israeli and Palestinian adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research21: 323–369.
36.
Karakaya-PolatR (2008) The AKP and the Kurdish Issue: What went wrong?SETA Policy Brief14: 1–6.
37.
KelmanHC (2008) Evaluating the contributions of interactive problem solving to the resolution of ethnonational conflicts. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology14: 29–60.
38.
KelmanHCFisherRJ (2003) Conflict analysis and resolution. In: SearsDOHuddyLJervisR (eds), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 315–353.
39.
KempfW (2010) Mental Models of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict (Diskussionsbeiträge der Projektgruppe Friedensforschung, No. 64). Konstanz, Germany: University of Konstanz.
40.
KlausTWingreenSCBlantonJE (2010) Resistant groups in enterprise system implementations: A Q-methodology examination. Journal of Information Technology25: 91–106.
41.
KoçIHancıoğluAÇavlinA (2008) Demographic differentials and demographic integration of Turkish and Kurdish populations in Turkey. Population Research and Policy Review27: 447–457.
KriesbergL (1998) Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
44.
LederachJP (1999) Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (3rd edn). Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
45.
McCraeRRZondermanABCostaPTBondMHPaunonenSV (1996) Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology70: 552–566.
46.
MiallH (2004) Conflict transformation: A multi-dimensional task. Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation. Available from: http://www.berghof-handbook.net/ (accessed 8 August 2014).
47.
ÖzdağÜVurucuİAkbaşAA (2011) Doğu raporu: Bölgede Türk kimliği ve Türklük algısı [East Report: Perception of Turkish identity and Turkishness in the Region]. Ankara: Kripto Kitaplar.
48.
PruittDG (1986) Achieving integrative agreements in negotiation. In: WhiteRK (ed.), Psychology and the Prevention of Nuclear War. New York: New York University Press, pp. 463–478.
49.
ReicherS (2004) The context of social identity: Domination, resistance, and change. Political Psychology25: 921–945.
50.
RoccasSKlarYLiviatanI (2006) The paradox of group-based guilt: Modes of conflict identification, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the in-group’s moral violations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology91: 698–711.
51.
SalomonG (2004) A narrative-based view of coexistence education. Journal of Social Issues60: 273–287.
52.
SandoleDJD (2003) A Typology. In: CheldelinSDruckmanDFastL (eds), Conflict: From Analysis to Intervention. London and New York: Continuum International, pp. 39–55.
ShakedR (2016) Ethos of conflict of the Palestinian society. In: SharvitKHalperinE (eds), A Social Psychology Perspective on the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict: Celebrating the Legacy of Daniel Bar-Tal, Vol. 2. New York: Springer, pp. 133–148.
StahelLCohrsJC (2015) Socially shared representations of the Israel–Palestine conflict: An exploration among third parties. Conflict and Communication Online14(1): 1–19.
57.
Stainton RogersW (1991) Explaining Health and Illness: An Exploration of Diversity. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
58.
Stainton RogersRStainton RogersW (1990) What the Brits got out of the Q: And why their work may not line up with the American way of getting into it!Electronic Journal of Communication1(1). Available from: http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/001/1/00113.html
59.
TajfelH (1974) Social identity and inter-group behavior. Social Science Information13: 65–93.
60.
TajfelHTurnerJC (1986) The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In: WorchelSAustinW (eds), Psychology of Inter-group Relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall, pp. 7–24.
61.
TanA (2008) Kürt sorunu [Kurdish question]. Istanbul: Timaş Yayınları.
62.
TocciN (2005) Conflict resolution in the neighborhood: Comparing the role of the EU in the Turkish–Kurdish and Israeli–Palestinian conflicts. Centre for European Policy Studies Working Documents221: 1–32.
63.
UluğÖMCohrsJC (2016a) An exploration of lay people’s Kurdish conflict frames in Turkey. Peace & Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology22(2): 109–119; http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pac0000165
64.
UluğÖMCohrsJC (2016b) “If we become friends, maybe I can change my perspective”: Intergroup contact, endorsement of conflict narratives, and peace-related attitudes in Turkey. Peace & Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, in press.
65.
UluğÖMCohrsJC (2016c) “Who will resolve this conflict if the politicians don’t?”: Members of Parliament’s understanding of the Kurdish conflict in Turkey. International Journal of Conflict Management, in press.
66.
WattsSStennerP (2005a) Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology2: 67–91.
67.
WattsSStennerP (2005b) The subjective experience of partnership love: A Q-methodology study. British Journal of Social Psychology44: 85–107.
WeblerTDanielsonSTulerS (2009) Using Q Method to Reveal Social Perspectives in Environmental Research. Greenfield MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute.
WongTKSunMT (1998) Dissolution and reconstruction of national identity: The experience of subjectivity in Taiwan. Nations and Nationalism4: 247–272.
73.
YavuzHÖzcanNA (2006) The Kurdish question and Turkey’s justice and development party. Middle East Policy8: 1–7.
74.
YeğenM (2007) Turkish nationalism and the Kurdish question. Ethnic and Racial Studies30: 119–151.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
