When worldviews collide: applying worldview conflict analysis in a conventional dispute resolution process.

This thesis uses worldview conflict theory to examine an unsuccessful lobbying campaign of the Coalition for Change for Caregivers and Temporary Foreign Workers. Using Nudler (1990, 1993), Blechman, Crocker, Docherty, and Garon (2000) and Docherty (1996, 2001), a worldview conflict analysis was developed and applied to the campaign. This research addresses two questions: 1) Is communication between the parties being impeded by the negotiation of reality? 2) Could the application of a worldview conflict analysis show the parties a way to communicate without negotiating reality? Data collected from publically available documents (Coalition, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and Minister of Human Resources and Skill Development Canada) were analyzed using content analysis, Lakoff and Johnson's (1980) metaphor analysis, and worldview conflict analysis. Similarities between the parties’ worldviews (regarding what is valuable, construction and structure of the world, and enforcement of ethic) indicated ways they could communicate without negotiating reality. / Graduate

Identiferoai:union.ndltd.org:uvic.ca/oai:dspace.library.uvic.ca:1828/3868
Date10 April 2012
CreatorsSmith, Nicole
ContributorsDavis, Lyn
Source SetsUniversity of Victoria
LanguageEnglish, English
Detected LanguageEnglish
TypeThesis
RightsAvailable to the World Wide Web

Page generated in 0.0021 seconds