This research represents an innovative examination of the role of university educators in protracted ethnic conflict. In this exploratory qualitative case study, Israeli professors from five universities were asked to share their experiences and opinions as educators. They were invited to share their perceptions and perspectives when asked if they chose to challenge conflict narratives in the classroom. Research participants were asked to picture the future and to communicate their fears, worries, hopes and wishes. The educators interviewed in this study felt the atmosphere in Israel was hostile to individuals who teach from a critical standpoint and that there could be repercussions for persons who challenged the Zionist narrative. Educators used a variety of methods regarding contested materials: some spoke freely, many used a comparative approach using examples external to Israel, and some refused to discuss sensitive issues in the classroom. The results of this study point to an escalation in extreme positions in Israel, an inhospitable atmosphere for critical academics and a general pessimism regarding the future. However, this study also revealed the majority of those interviewed used strategies to challenge narratives of conflict in the classroom and most felt it was essential and beneficial to do so. Many respondents felt worried and uncertain about the future, most struggled to imagine a future that encompassed the qualities of ‘positive peace’ including mutual cooperation and equity among individuals and even fewer could imagine the means to manifest such a reality. When asked to imagine the future, responses were conservative, pessimistic and fearful and few educators articulated their professional contributions to social change.

This research represents an innovative examination of the role of university educators in protracted ethnic conflict. In this exploratory qualitative case study, Israeli professors from five universities were asked to share their experiences and opinions as educators. They were invited to share their perceptions and perspectives when asked if they chose to challenge conflict narratives in the classroom. Research participants were asked to picture the future and to communicate their fears, worries, hopes and wishes. The educators interviewed in this study felt the atmosphere in Israel was hostile to individuals who teach from a critical standpoint and that there could be repercussions for persons who challenged the Zionist narrative. Educators used a variety of methods regarding contested materials: some spoke freely, many used a comparative approach using examples external to Israel, and some refused to discuss sensitive issues in the classroom. The results of this study point to an escalation in extreme positions in Israel, an inhospitable atmosphere for critical academics and a general pessimism regarding the future. However, this study also revealed the majority of those interviewed used strategies to challenge narratives of conflict in the classroom and most felt it was essential and beneficial to do so. Many respondents felt worried and uncertain about the future, most struggled to imagine a future that encompassed the qualities of ‘positive peace’ including mutual cooperation and equity among individuals and even fewer could imagine the means to manifest such a reality. When asked to imagine the future, responses were conservative, pessimistic and fearful and few educators articulated their professional contributions to social change.

Scholars have described conflict tactics as a means to engage or avoid a conflict, and face tactics as a means of face-saving by way of defense or restoration. While theories of conflict and face flourish, few researchers have sought an explanation of conflict themes within the field of nursing or examined how nurses display face-saving tactics within their conflict interactions. The goal of this study is to identify the connection of these concepts through a qualitative analysis of conflict stories compiled from interviews with licensed floor-nurses. The data is analyzed two ways: first, as conflict themes in stories about nurses’ floor/shift work; and secondly, as communicative face tactics used in conjunction with conflict styles as viewed through a nurses’ conflict-interaction. The study identified three outcomes. From the analysis of conflict stories, an updated and extended view of conflict themes in nursing is developed. Specific face tactics surfaced within certain conflict themes supporting the concept that face tactics can directly affect the outcome of a conflict interaction. And lastly, the discovery of new restorative and defensive face tactics not previously identified in research literature. The implications for theory and practical application are also discussed, as is the proposed direction for future research. / text

No description available.

Despite extensive research into the effects of framing in media, much less is still known about how and why these frames constructed. The field of media framing has also neglected reporting on violent conflict, instead focusing on different types of non-violent conflict, especially in terms of frame analysis. This study aims to expand on framing theory by studying the framing of diaspora-specific media in reporting on violent homeland conflict, in comparison with general media in the diaspora’s country of residence. Despite arguments that diasporic media negatively impact integration, further polarisation or contribute to conflict recreation in the country of residence, there has been little research into the reporting by diasporic media. In this thesis, I argue that diasporic and general media will differ in their framing of violent conflict in the diaspora’s homeland because of two factors: (1) the expected levels of interest and knowledge among the medium’s target audience and (2) the knowledge and objectives of the journalists producing the reporting. Through in-depth analysis of a collection of articles of the New York Times and the Armenian Mirror-Spectator on the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, I find that there are indeed considerable differences between the framing of the two news media. Diasporic media use more thematic framing in their reporting, whereas general media use more episodic framing in their reporting on the conflict. Furthermore, the framing by diasporic media aligns with central (conflict) narratives of the diaspora’s collective memory, whereas general media present a mix of different conflict perspectives. Finally, this analysis showcases some of the issues of applying concepts derived from the framing of non-violent contexts to violent conflict settings. These findings further the understanding of both the reporting of diasporic media, relative to the reporting by general media, and the knowledge on the types of framing used in reporting on violent conflict, and what drives the construction of such frames. This study also highlights the importance of the consideration of violent conflict in the study of framing, and the need for further research into framing of violent conflict.