轨道二实践者的认知框架:他们如何影响(最佳)实践?

IF 0.9 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Negotiation-A Journal of Theory and Practice Pub Date : 2020-12-07 DOI:10.1163/15718069-bja10027
Esra Cuhadar
{"title":"轨道二实践者的认知框架:他们如何影响(最佳)实践?","authors":"Esra Cuhadar","doi":"10.1163/15718069-bja10027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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, and 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” shortcuts based on heuristics and bias.","PeriodicalId":45224,"journal":{"name":"International Negotiation-A Journal of Theory and Practice","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cognitive Frames of Track Two Practitioners: How Do They Affect (Best) Practice?\",\"authors\":\"Esra Cuhadar\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718069-bja10027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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, and 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” shortcuts based on heuristics and bias.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45224,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Negotiation-A Journal of Theory and Practice\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"1-23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Negotiation-A Journal of Theory and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-bja10027\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Negotiation-A Journal of Theory and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-bja10027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文探讨了框架对第二轨外交实践的影响程度,特别是从业者使用的认知框架如何影响他们干预措施的设计。框架效应无处不在,影响着每一种行动,建设和平和第二轨道工作也不例外。第二轨从业者在设计干预措施时,通常将框架作为认知启发法。本文报告了一项针对273名参与者的在线调查的结果,该调查使用了基于先前两项定性研究中确定的类别的测量方法,并使用了扎根理论方法。介绍了从业者使用的四个主要框架,以及实践中的例子:心理学家、建构主义者、能力建设者和现实主义谈判者。最后,讨论了被框架效应束缚对第二轨道实践的影响。建议采取措施,就干预措施做出更深思熟虑和反思性的具体情境决定,而不是基于启发式和偏见的“快速思考”捷径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cognitive Frames of Track Two Practitioners: How Do They Affect (Best) Practice?
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, and 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” shortcuts based on heuristics and bias.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: International Negotiation: A Journal of Theory and Practice examines negotiation from many perspectives, to explore its theoretical foundations and to promote its practical application. It addresses the processes of negotiation relating to political, security, environmental, ethnic, economic, business, legal, scientific and cultural issues and conflicts among nations, international and regional organisations, multinational corporations and other non-state parties. Conceptually, the Journal confronts the difficult task of developing interdisciplinary theories and models of the negotiation process and its desired outcome.
期刊最新文献
Front matter Future Issues of International Negotiation Radiogenomics of adult intracranial gliomas after the 2021 World Health Organisation classification: a review of changes, challenges and opportunities. Climate Paradiplomacy: A Comparative Study of Canadian Provinces (British Columbia, Ontario, and New Brunswick) Compellence and batna for the Denuclearization of North Korea
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1