Scenario-based Planning as a Tool for Conflict

Resolution

Andrés Álvarez Castañeda

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Conflict
Resolution

Department of Peace Studies

University of Bradford

2006
 Table of Contents

I. Abstract ......................................................................................................................... 2

II. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3

III. Scenario Based Planning ............................................................................................. 5

A. General Definition.................................................................................................... 5

B. History ..................................................................................................................... 6

C. General Description of the Technique..................................................................... 10

D. Critical Perspectives of SBP and Critical Theory within SBP ................................. 19

IV. Scenario Based Planning in Post-conflict and Conflictive Societies........................... 22

A. Case Study: South Africa....................................................................................... 22

B. Case Study: Guatemala.......................................................................................... 26

C. Other Applications.................................................................................................. 30

V. Problem-solving and Scenario Based Planning ........................................................... 34

A. Problem-solving ..................................................................................................... 34

B. Epistemology.......................................................................................................... 37

C. Theory.................................................................................................................... 40

D. Methodology .......................................................................................................... 43

E. Case Study: The Fermeda Workshop...................................................................... 47

F. Case Study: The Belfast or Sterling Workshop ....................................................... 49

G. SBP and PS: a complimentary relationship............................................................. 51

VI. Critical Issues ........................................................................................................... 53

VII. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 57

VIII. Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 60

 “As for the future, your task is not to

foresee it, but to enable it”

Antoine de Saint-Exúpery.

“Scenarios are a tool for helping us to take

a long view in a world of great uncertainty”

Peter Schwartz.

“Al final del viaje, estamos tú y yo,

intactos. Quedamos los que puedan sonreír

en medio de la muerte, en plena luz”.

Silvio Rodríguez

1
I. Abstract

Scenario-based Planning (SBP) is a tool used by governments, private companies and

NGOs for envisioning possible future outcomes. The general principle of this

framework is to consider the possibility of change and to empower its users in the

creation of a path towards the transformation of current realities. SBP shares

methodological, theoretical and epistemological similarities with the Problem-solving

(PS) methods used within the Conflict Resolution (CR) field. Furthermore, SBP has

been used in several post-conflict and conflictive societies to create a common agenda

for the future of a whole nation. Although much can be said about certain critical issues

in the use of SBP, like representation, sustainability, applicability, lack of a concrete

theory, re-entry problems, cultural generalization and the phenomena of group think, the

case studies in Guatemala and South Africa show its great potential within the field of

CR, especially if it is framed within the general idea of PS.

Keywords: Conflict Resolution, Scenario-based Planning, Prospective Studies,

Futurology, Problem-solving, Interactive Conflict Resolution, Guatemala, South Africa,

Stirling Workshop, Fermeda Workshop.

2
II. Introduction

This dissertation was written based on a transformative approach to human reality, one

that considers the potentials of change inherent to every single human being and that

seeks to transcend the restrictions imposed by current unjust realities. As part of this

enterprise of transforming society towards the ideal of Peace, imagining the future can

be a powerful tool, both as a utopian possibility for change and as the inherent calamity

of the continuation of the status quo. Scenario-based Planning (SBP) is a form of

envisioning the future used by a wide range of political actors in the world, and the

point will be made in this dissertation that this framework can be applied in the

construction of Peace and the transformation of conflict.

SBP has been used by a diverse range of individuals and institutions for several

purposes. This dissertation will argue that SBP is not only an important tool for

planning, but it can also become an integral part of a conflict manager’s tool kit.

Although SBP was not originally designed to be applied in conflictive situations, it has

been used in several occasions (two of them discussed later on in this essay). The basic

idea is that people involved in a conflict can get together and imagine a common future

that benefits all the actors equally.

Including a new methodology in a well established field like CR is not a simple matter.

First of all, the utility of the methodology should be assessed. Second, the method

should be related to a wider theoretical and epistemological framework. After that, the

method should be validated through a “lessons-learned” process. In this dissertation,

3
the point will be made that there are enough elements that can be taken from a “lessons-

learned” approach so as to prove the actual and potential utility for the field of CR.

SBP shares many theoretical and practical features with past developments in CR. The

most important ones are discussed in the following pages of this dissertation, but some

deserve mention at this introductory state of discussion. First, SBP is very similar to

Problem-solving (PS), in the sense that it requires a creative effort by the part of the

participants. When the conflict is defined in terms of practical problems that need a

solution, participants get involved and committed with the process, allowing them to

think in a different way than how they’re used to. Second, SBP requires a close

collaboration between conflicting parties so as to the creation of a future common

national (or regional or local) project. This approach allows for the creation of

empathy, an eventually helping to change conflictual attitudes (both at an individual and

societal level). Finally, SBP helps to unleash the potential of thinking in terms of the

future. This characteristic is shared not only with PS but by the more general

epistemological foundations of CR.

The dissertation will first present a brief explanation of the general principles of SBP.

Then, two case studies of the use of SBP in post-conflict societies will be then be

analyzed. After that, the theoretical and practical potentials for the use of SBP will be

exposed, specifically in relation to previous efforts within the Problem-solving (PS)

framework. Afterwards, a couple of critical issues surrounding the use of SBP in CR

will be explored. Finally, some general conclusions are drawn.

4
III. Scenario Based Planning

A. General Definition

Plainly put, SBP is a method for envisioning the future, the main idea is to imagine

several possible future outcomes for a given company, governmental institution,

country, etc.. Imagining possible and plausible future scenarios allows managers to

consider both opportunities and threats as a basic part of planning for the future:

“Scenarios are tools for ordering one’s perceptions about alternative future

environments in which today’s decisions might be played out. In practice, scenarios

resemble a set of stories, written or spoken, build around carefully constructed plots”

(GBN: www.gbn.com/AboutScenariosDisplayServlet.srv).

In this same line, Schwartz considers SBP to: “…provide a context for thinking clearly

about the impossibly complex array of factors that affect any decision. It gives a

common language for talking about these factors, starting with a series of ‘what-if’

stories, each with a different name. Then it encourages participants to think about each

of them as if it had already come to pass” 1996:xiv).

These stories have been constructed on the basis of “hard” facts, though. This is a

constant tension within the method itself: on the one hand, the users are stimulated to

think about every possible outcome, on the other, a careful evaluation of all of the

outcomes should necessarily result in the selection of the most probable and plausible

scenarios. SBP is not about predicting the future; if the method works it is precisely

because the future is unpredictable. Mojica (2001) reminds us that the basic underlying

5
principle of SBP has to do with the belief that social reality is constructed. As such, it is

shaped by actors (individuals, nations, communities) and it can be modified in the

future. It is this potential for future change that makes the method so appealing to most

people.

Scenarios are basically used for preventing the surprise of emerging events, questioning

conventional wisdom about the future, recognizing the signs of change and evaluating

different strategies under various circumstances. The team behind the creation of

scenarios should be able to understand current events and identify the predictable and

unpredictable events in the future (GBN, 1992:3).

B. History

The idea of imagining alternate futures has been present for a long time: “Ancient

philosophers used to argue that duplicate worlds were necessary for assessing the

consequences and hence the merits of alternative courses of action. It was said that only

by observing the courses of events unfolding in each world could it ever be possible to

make valid comparisons between the alternatives and to select the most desirable”

(Chandler and Cockle, 1982:1). But the method as we know it today was first used by

the military during towards the middle of the twentieth century as part of new ideas in

Strategic Studies. It eventually migrated towards private companies, which used it in

order to overcome “paradigm paralysis”1, i.e. the inability to adapt to changes in the

market, mainly technology and customer preferences (Schwartz, 1996).

1
Paradigm paralysis refers to Thomas Kuhn’s idea of scientific paradigm. Kuhn (1962), an
epistemologist and historian of science developed the idea that science advances through “revolutions”.
These revolutions consist in a radical change relating to the most basic scientific premises. For example,
the change from a Newtonian to an Einsteinian physics would represent a scientific revolution.

6
Relating to this point, Roubelat (2005:520) reminds us that: “To adapt Kuhn’s

conceptual framework to explain the role of scenario planning in the strategy process,

we first have to identify the community at work in the process. Actually, scenario

planning stresses the contact between differential and complementary views to produce

different logics for the future. Thus, the methodology of scenario planning leads to a

more or less formal system interacting people in order to gather visions, e.g. images of

the future produced through imagination, and beliefs about the future. These visions

and beliefs are then used to set up scenarios”.

Later on, the method was refined by social scientists, to the point that currently certain

computer programs have been developed to aid in the construction of scenarios through

the assignment of different values to indexes and variables (see for example, the

Mic/Mac program developed by the French Prospective2 School:

www.3ie.org/lipsor/micmac.htm).

2
There are several schools of SBP, one of which is the French School, also known as the Prospective
School. Other regional perspectives are the Anglo-American School, known as the Futures or Futurology
School. An incipient Latin-American School can also be identified.

7
 Figure 1

Generic Model of a Mathematical SBP Process

Source: Godet, 2000:7

Today SBP is part of every day life in companies and governmental intelligence and

planning agencies alike. Even NGOs are currently using the method in order to prepare

for future outcomes. “Thus, scenario planning plays a sense-making role to challenge

strategic paradigms of organizations and to rethink their internal and external borders”

(Roubelat, 2005:519).

8
A form of illustrating the history of SBP is to analyze the French case, where much of

the ideas surrounding scenario thinking were developed. In the 1960s, Sema (an aircraft

engine company) used SBP to emerge from the quickly changing European business

world. During the late 60s and early 70s, Elf (an oil and chemical company) used SBP

in its transformation of the oil market. Lastly, during the 1980s and early 1990s

confronted the European deregulation through scenario techniques.

Figure 2

Historical Evolution of SBP in France (Prospective School)

Source, Roubelat, 2005:522.

In general, the analysis of the French case shows the existence of two distinct phases:

“The first phase ran from the end of WWII until the eighties and may be linked to the

design and implementation of long-term public programs to equip and support the

national infrastructure, e.g. electricity, rail transportation and telecommunications. All

of these programs required a long-term vision beyond sectorial or technological

definitions that include macro-economics and, especially in the case of energy,

geopolitics. The second phase, begun as the eighties ended, is linked not only to this

programming effort but also to a change in the institutional environment of public sector

9
corporations, called deregulation. For these companies, whose status, legal constitution

and area of activity were all regulated, the change of strategic paradigm grew

particularly complex and was based on time lags” (Roubelat, 2005:524).

Recently, SBP has “gone global”, through the promotion and diffusion of prospective

thought by a world-wide network of scholars, politicians and business men. Global

Business Network (GBN) has been behind the application of SBP techniques en Post-

conflict societies like South Africa and Guatemala and conflictive societies like

Colombia and México. Their website, www.gbn.com contains not only the Mission of

this network, but also a series of documents produced by their “Future Planners”,

relating to a great diversity of topics.

C. General Description of the Technique

SBP usually begins with the selection of a group of people to participate in a series of

workshops. Special effort should be made so that the participants represent different

areas or sectors within a company or institution. The rationale behind this is that

different people can imagine different future scenarios based on their specific line of

work, personal experiences, etc.

Once the main group of participants is defined, the workshop begins with a series of ice-

breaking and confidence building techniques. Basic ground rules are also set, mainly

that everybody has a right to be heard, and that all opinions should be considered

seriously. After that, the current social, economic and political reality surrounding the

institution in question is analyzed by the group.

10
This analysis may take several days, and it must be condensed through a Strengths /

Opportunities / Weaknesses / Threats matrix. This allows the participants to visualize

the “big picture” in a couple of pages. A future refinement of the analysis is done by

the choosing of 5 to 10 main variables by the group. These variables are the ones that

are considered the most important ones in shaping the future.

11
 Figure 3

Example of a Strengths / Opportunities / Weaknesses / Threats Matrix

Analysis of Latin America 2025

Latin America 2025 Strengths Weaknesses

• Strong human resource base • Pervasive levels of poverty and

• Privileged geographical and discrimination, especially

environmental situation among the rural and indigenous

• Relatively stable democracies populations. Low educational

in the last 10 years levels and unequal access to

health and medicine

• Growing levels of violence and

insecurity, especially relating

to drug trafficking

• Lagging infrastructure,

specially relating to

telecommunications

Opportunities • Free trade treaties

• Globalization targeting the Region because of its many competitive

advantages

• Strong cooperation ties to developing countries

Threats • Challenges by the emerging Asian market

• Unwelcome foreign intervention for “security reasons”

• Global environmental degradation

Source: elaborated by the author based on inputs

and perspectives by Mojica (2001)

After the elaboration of the analysis matrix, the participants are required to map the

actors or processes that intervene in the situation being analyzed. Mapping techniques

12
are not unique to SBP; there is a long tradition of using political maps in Political

Science and International Relations. For the example used in Figure 2, a corresponding

map could be exemplified in Figure 3.

Figure 4

Political Map

Analysis of Latin America 20253

Nationalism, ethno-nationalism, terrorism,

fundamentalism
Environmental Pressures

Asian Market Pressures

Source: elaborated by the author.

3
Some explanations should be made about the reading of the map. It is composed of three different
levels of actors / processes. At the top level are the global processes common to every country and the
international system as a whole. The second level is composed by international actors such as nations or
global movements or institutions. The third level (in green) is composed by Latin America’s inner
political and social actors. All actors are positions based on a left-right political continuum. A further
elaboration of this map would require a series of continuous and dotted lines denoting different types of
relationships between actors and processes. Because of its utility as an example, this map will be left at
this basic level.

13
The next step in the workshop requires a great deal of creativity from the participants.

They have to collectively write down 3 to 4 future scenarios based on the variables and

the actors map. These should be short, and they should reflect the different possible

outcomes of each of the variables that were previously selected. SBP workshops

usually end with the selection of an underlining metaphor to describe the scenarios.

Scenarios are written based upon three main plots (Schwartz, 1996:135-157). The first

plot is that of winners and losers. Through this perspective, the future is envisioned

thinking of who will win and who will lose if Change A or Change B occurs. Another

important plot is that of challenge and response, and is based on the way different

institutions and social and economic groups respond to challenges. Finally, a plot of

evolution considers slow change over time, based upon past trends. These plots do not

cover all situations, and other ones used include: revolutionary change, historical

cycles, infinite possibilities and the lone ranger (this one relating to changes predicted

by few but that affect many).

A final product, which both systematizes the results and describes the process by which

the results were achieved, is considered as a sort of prelude for future policy making and

should be distributed within the institution. It is the narrative effect of SBP that has a

special impact on all those who have been in contact with the method. By taking part in

the building of a great collective story, the participants achieve a new sense of

commitment with the process.

The final scenarios are summarized using literary metaphors, and sometimes even

images. The idea is to make the final analysis available to a broad scope of people. For

14
example, figure 5 shows the way in which future scenarios for the US were presented in

a post 9/11 project4:

Figure 5

Four Post 9/11 Scenarios

Source: Kennedy, Perrottet and Thomas; 2003:10.

There are several variations depending on the school of thought and the immediate

objectives of the participants. Schwartz (1996:241-248) describes a more generic

approach towards scenario building, with seven steps. The first move should be to

identify focal issue or decision. Then the key forces in the local environment should be

described. In third place, the driving forces of the global situation should be considered.

4
9/11 2001 was an important date not only for the general state of peace and security in the world (many
see it as a turning point after which international security policies hardened) but also for SBP. While
some attributed the failure to predict the event to scenario-based techniques in general others argued that
it was precisely the lack of use of SBP that allowed the event to happen without any possibility of
prediction.

15
These forces should be ranked by importance and uncertainty. Fourth, scenario logics

should be selected (answering the question: what will the scenarios be based upon?).

Then the scenarios should be fleshed out. Future implications should be considered,

and finally, leading indicators and signposts should be selected in order to know if

reality is heading towards one scenario or another.

The use of quantitative or qualitative variables can also determine the nature of SBP.

Some prefer to feed the variables into analysis software, which automatically produces

economic, political and social scenarios. Others prefer a less technical approach, and

emphasize the more “artistic” aspects of imagining the future. The following quote

from Flowers5 (2003:32) illustrates this point: “My continuing attempts to give

scenario writing the intense, imagistic brevity of poetry has become an elusive goal –to

make each aspect of the scenario a facet that reflects the whole. For example, one of the

seed images for the future of biotechnology was Aesop’s fable hare-and-tortoise race.

Wherever possible, the hare and tortoise were evoked in headings or through race

analogies so that the over-arching theme of the scenario would not be lost even when

the focus was on specific details of biotechnology development. The “whole” of

course, was the story itself, in which slower technologies beat out futuristic ones. But

within the sub stories, I inserted headlines with the “sticky” images and phases to

provide a kind of ongoing outline of the story)”.

The general structure of scenarios usually includes three generic types. A scenario that

describes more of the same, but better (a slow changing reality but with a generally

positive outcome. The other type is the worsening and depressive scenario, in which the

5
Besides being a successful academic in the area of poetry and literature, Flowers has done consultancy
work in scenario planning for NASA, GM, The USA’s Navy and Shell Corporation.

16
general situation tends to decay with time. The last type is one of change towards a

more positive outcome, one of fundamental change (Schwartz, 1996:19).

A more systematic way of classifying prospective methods is by the modes of thinking

identified by Voros (2006:44). E mode is based on an evolutionary framework, where

changes are seen as subtle and occurring in the long-term. R mode, on the other hand,

considers revolutionary changes happening in short lengths of time. As ideal types,

none correspond with actual exercises of SBP, they are more of ideal types at either end

of a continuum. “In addition, mode E prospection appears to be the mode of choice for

creating images of probable and plausible futures, whereas mode R prospection appears

to be the mode of choice for possible and preferable futures” (Voros, 2006:45).

Figure 6

Schematic Representation of Mode “R” and Mode “E” Prospection

Source: Voros, 2006:45

Another way of classifying SBP methods has to do with Layers of Reality. Voros

(2006:46) notes that there are 5 distinct layers of reality when applying prospective

17
analysis: events; constructs of thinking; contents of thinking; capacities of thinking;

and conditions of existence. Each of these layers corresponds to a specific analysis

focus: events, trends, systems, worldviews and history.

Prospective methods also difference themselves because of the actual technique used to

imagine the future. The Wildcard approach forces participants to imagine a future

scenario based on a single, unexpected event (a nuclear catastrophe, a sudden change in

the technology market, etc.). Prospective techniques are more about casting certain

trends identified in the past into the future. Visioning has to do with a very free-spirited

way of thinking, through which future possibilities are imagined without any regards to

economic, political and technological restraints. A similar technique is that of Back

casting, which consists of an imagined ideal future, which is then set on “rewind” in

order to reconstruct the steps necessary to reach that future from today’s starting point.

Macro history, an approach closer to classic social science methods, involves the

analysis of past trends in order to predict possible future outcomes. Finally, recent

trends in SBP techniques are Counterfactuals and Alternative Histories. Both rely on

the construction of divergent versions of history. Of course, Scenarios are the best

known of techniques (Voros, 2006:).

Finally, SBP can be classified based on the overall ideological underpinning of thought

that drives the use of the technique. Thus, “techno-utopian”, “eco-utopian”, “integrated

technology” (this perspectives tries to condense both technological and ecological

utopias with a deep-rooted humanistic thought, i.e., the type of proposals brought forth

by Bono, the singer and Human Rights activist) are some of the possibilities (Voros,

2006:51).

18
Even though SBP has many different methodological and even theoretical approaches,

one basic aspect should never be forgotten: SBP should always be a collective effort of

thinking creatively about future possible outcomes.

D. Critical Perspectives of SBP and Critical Theory within SBP

Shoemaker (1999), one of the proponents of the “globalization” of scenario planning

warns us of certain dangers in the use of this perspective, some of which are

summarized in the following lines. First, he thinks that even the best scenario planning

processes are rendered inoperative if the effort isn’t made to influence top-level decision

makers. Another important point to be avoided is to underestimate the informative

value that outsider perspectives can bring in to the SBP technique, this means to allow

the results of the workshops to be known and analyzed by other people besides the

participants. Third, unrealistic expectations should not be attributed to the SBP process.

Even though it can have a great transformative effect, SBP is not an all-encompassing

solution for every single problem. The capacity to change mindsets should also be

considered. If SBP is to have the transformative effect that is expected from it, then a

concerted effort should be made to use this technique in the actual modification of

people’s attitudes and behavior.

Glenn and Gordon (1999:453) created a very optimistic world scenario for 2025, based

on the inputs of at least 550 futurologists (another name for SBP experts) and the

general assumption that the Millennium Project Goals will be met by that date. The

scenario “… describes how technological success, human development and economic /

19
political policies achieved a global economy that appears to be environmentally

sustainable while providing nearly all people with the basic necessities of life and the

majority with a comfortable living. The resulting social stability has created a relatively

peaceful world and allowed the existence of possible futures for the second half of the

21st. century”.

This kind of approach could be seen as a terrible weakness of SBP, the excessive

emphasis that is given to the best-possible or normative scenario. Although some social

sciences, like Anthropology and Sociology have a long tradition of studying human

reality in function of what it really is, others, like Political Science and International

Relations have some traditions (although not by any means the dominant trends) of

dealing with idealistic or normative aspects. The real strength of the SBP method

actually is that it considers all possible outcomes, not only the good or bad ones.

Pessimistic scenarios are constructed form a realist viewpoint, as a starting point from

which a better future can be imagined.

Schwartz (1996:164) identifies a series of critical uncertainties that challenge any

planning process, including SBP. The first characteristic of the contemporary world is a

situation of continuing shuffling of political alignments. The changes produces by the

end of the Cold War have had a long-term and unpredictable effect. Another important

source of uncertainty is the technology explosion occurring at a global scale. The third

important point noted by the author is a trend of global pragmatism. Under the slogan

of “whatever works”, political boundaries are blurred and egalitarian utopias lose

ground and give way to the widening of the gap between rich and poor. Demographics

pose another challenge to any planning process. Whatever decision made relating to

20
scarce resources will necessarily pass through the important filter of demographic

trends. Fourth, energy will be a growing concern and an even more important source of

uncertainty. Closely related to energy is the use and management of the environment.

Global environmental degradation can have unpredictable consequences. Finally, the

global information economy is a source of risk and uncertainty.

Besides the critical approaches towards SBP that can be identified, there is also an

unusual and unexpected relationship between prospective thought and Critical Theory.

Through critical thought, a state of current affairs is described in which all the factors of

the dominating hegemonic structure are considered. After that, plausible alternatives

are imagined, through a Counter-hegemonic framework (Voros. 2006:52).

Some might think that a method that had its origins in the transnational corporate world

could hardly be described as Critical or Counter-hegemonic. The recent use of SBP by

local NGOs, including those involved in social transformation (Peace-building, Human

Rights and Indigenous Advocacy Groups, etc), shows the possibilities of using the

method with very different political ends than those of the great Oil and Defense

Corporations.

21
IV. Scenario Based Planning in Post-conflict and Conflictive

Societies

A. Case Study: South Africa

SBP was used for the first time in a post-conflict scenario in South Africa in 1991-92,

before Apartheid officially ended but well into the democratic reform process. A

consultancy team (Global Business Network) was hired by the international community,

mainly the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Foundation and the Swiss Development Agency to

experiment with SBP. They selected a small group of political figures, ranging from

government officials, representatives of all political parties, church leaders,

entrepreneurs, etc.

The experience was named “the Mont Fleur Scenarios”, and became an example in

nation planning. For the first time in South Africa’s history, a blue print for correct

governance was created in a participatory manner; in effect, a consensus was reached

among the different participants about what type of country everyone wanted to see in

the future. The purpose of Mont Fleur was “not to present definitive truths, but to

stimulate debate on how to shape the next 10 years” (GBN, 1992:2).

The team at GBM was very clear about what Mont Fleur was not about: it was not

about changing the reality of South Africa with just one document, it was not about

dealing with deep-underlying differences on the ways in which political change would

be brought upon the country. It was exclusively about imagining the future of South

22
Africa based on different plausible scenarios, and arriving to a consensus about which

of the scenarios was the most desirable one.

The firs task at hand for the scenario-building team was to analyze South Africa’s

situation at that moment in time. They concluded that the country was undergoing a

political crisis characterized by: a general lack of legitimacy of the system, a deep-

rooted distrust of the armed forces, and the judicial system, an ever-growing ethnic

division, the collapse of local authorities, and a general feeling of repression,

intimidation, intolerance and political violence. The social and economic situation was

also discouraging: underdevelopment, poverty, lack of confidence for investments, and

a general breakdown in the health and educational systems (GBN, 1992:4).

After analyzing the general situation of South Africa and choosing the main variables

for the construction of scenarios, many different possible stories about the future of the

country were created. Of these, four were chosen as the most representative: The

Ostrich Scenario, The Limp Duck Scenario, The Icarus Scenario and The Flight of the

Flamingos Scenario (GBN, 1992:5).

The Ostrich Scenario describes a government that will not confront the reality of its

country. As Ostriches do in the wild, the government hides6 its head under the ground

every time it sees danger in the horizon. In this scenario, the democratic transition is

hindered by a growing confrontation between the old powers and the Liberation

Movement, with a rapid radicalization of their positions and growing international

pressures. The government calls for an alliance with more moderate positions, and this

6
As a stylistic resource, scenarios are usually written in present-tense.

23
is harshly resented by the Liberation movement. Mass protests erupt and the

government decides to repress them violently. The economy does not grow

significantly, and violent episodes keep investments away. The social situation also

worsens, with growing social injustice and liberalizing tendencies that only contribute to

a general feeling of despair among the population.

The tale of the Limp Duck Scenario is one of a long and treacherous road towards

development and well-being. The main image is that of a Duck with a broken wing that

has to exert great energy in flying. In this scenario, political factions agree on a slow

transition, fearing the excesses that could occur if a more radical agenda is applied. The

international community, sharing the general fear of things “getting out of hand”, decide

to continue fostering the transition process. Society in general, and particularly The

Liberation movement, decide to accept small concessions by the government fearing

that more radical changes could hinder the transition process, giving way to the return

of a restrictive and authoritarian system. The general economic and social ambiance is

one of uncertainty and disillusion.

The Icarus Scenario uses the old Greek myth about the incarceration of Dedalus and

Icarus by King Minos. Searching for a way to escape their captor, they decide to build

wings, which they attach to their shoulders with wax. Dedalus warns Icarus about the

dangers of flying too close to the sun, but he can’t resist himself and flies too high; the

wax melts and Icarus plummets to his death. Applying the myth to a concrete future

reality for South Africa, the scenario can be described as follows. Populism begins to

dominate the transition process, with a democratic government too eager to implement

change. Too much is being done with scarce resources. “Quick fixes” overshadow the

24
implementation of long-term strategies, resulting in rapid economic growth followed by

financial, monetary and budget crisis. An economic crisis ensues, and fears grow of a

movement to overthrow the government.

Finally, the Flight of the Flamingos Scenario is based on the way these bird fly; the

usually take-off slowly but achieve great altitude, and they fly as a group. In this

scenario, the basic political agreement for the transition is a solid one. Although

economic growth is slow at first, it gradually increases because of ever-growing levels

of confidence. Sound investments in social areas of interest are also made, promoting

higher educational and health indicators. Social violence is thus reduced, feeding the

virtuous circle of economic and social development.

After the selection of the optimal scenario, a checklist of pre-conditions was elaborated

by the participants, which included: a culture of justice, a complete break-up with

previous authoritarian traditions, a solid constitution, and effective political

participation. They also considered fiscal and monetary discipline, and a certain level

of free market. Socially, they included a robust social system with strong health and

education components. Much attention was paid also to the reduction of violence and

the prevention of the –then emerging- AIDS epidemic.

25
 Figure 7

Possible Paths to South Africa’s Future

Source: GBN, 1992:5.

B. Case Study: Guatemala

Some years later, the experience was repeated in Guatemala, with three main objectives:

the development of a dialogue process, the creation of a shared vision for the future of

the country and the diffusion of strategic information within Guatemalan society. (Díez,

2004). The workshop’s participants were all important political figures, and they have

been heard referring publicly to the experience on several occasions; SBP has become a

26
part of their every day work, they have used similar methods in a whole range of

venues.

Between 1998 and 1999 a team of promoters from GBN and paid for by the

International Community (UNDP, among others), organized four workshops that had

the final objective of creating scenarios for Guatemala. Besides the evident outcomes of

the workshops (a written document, a video documentary and a children’s book) other,

less visible and collateral goals were achieved. For example, a series of workshops with

local authorities were held relating to strategic thinking. Other dialogue and planning

instances, like Foro Guatemala, Grupo Barómetro, Q’onojel, Futuro Democrático,

Diálogo y Ciudadanía and Visión Educación were all deeply influenced by the SBP

workshops (Visión Guatemala, 2005:7)7.

Visión Guatemala was envisioned from the beginning as a Nation-building proposal that

included perspectives from a diverse range of actors in Guatemalan politics, business

and social scenes. The process began only a year and a half after the signing of the

Peace Accords that put an end to 36 years of a gruesome civil war that killed more than

300,000 people (mostly rural and indigenous) and displaced millions.

The team established 7 main objectives for the process. First, the scenarios would help

to improve the quality of strategic dialogue and debate. Another objective was to

question dominant mental models of reality. Third, they would create a shared space for

learning. Another goal was to foster confidence and empathy. Fifth, they would help

7
All of these instances were created to promote an open dialogue about Guatemala’s main problems.
Some of them were governmental initiatives, while others were created around Civil Society, the
Business Community, or a mix of two or three of these sectors.

27
imagine the future. They also sought to create more robust and innovative strategies.

Finally, they would help create a feeling of hope about the future.

Participants found a very appropriate metaphor, one that involved insects8. Three

scenarios were created based on this metaphor: The Illusion of the Moths, The Zigzag

Flight of the Beetle and the Flight of the Firefly9.

Moths fly around blindly looking for light. Their intention is the right one, but without

a concrete flight plan, their flight is perilous. They spend most of their energy flying

from one source of light to the next, without ever really advancing. After a while, they

eventually fly into the light of a candle, burning themselves. Thus, the worst was the

Moth scenario, one in which Guatemalans fly blindly into the candle-light of peace, too

quickly and without preparing before-hand. This scenario involves many cosmetic

reforms which don’t tend to the country’s unjust structures. Real peace is an illusion,

and long-term economic prosperity does not occur for most Guatemalans. Intercultural

relations do not improve, and discrimination pervades society. Few advances are made

in the area of reconciliation, and the authoritarian temptation appears within the political

society. Job instability, fiscal crisis and unemployment characterize Guatemala. There

is no rule of law and mediocrity and pessimism dominates the mentality of most

citizens.

8
Insects are very important in the worldview of both main ethnic groups in Guatemala. After the Spanish
conquest, two main groups have conformed, one that emphasizes its indigenous origin, the Maya or
Indigenous group (composed of more than 20 linguistic sub-families of the Maya, Xinka and Garífuna
families)) and the Ladino group, which emphasizes its European or mixed origins. Insects are of common
use in popular narratives (legends, fairy-tales, jokes), and were readily accepted by the participants as the
main actors for the Scenario-building process.
9
In Spanish: La Ilusión de las Palomillas, el Zigzagueo del Ronrón and El Vuelo de las Luciérnagas.

28
Beetles fly erratically, bumping once and again with walls, windows and worse

obstacles. Their flight is heavy and slow, though they persist on flying to matter what

obstacles they encounter. This Scenario describes the erratic flight of a country that,

while implementing some aspects of the Peace Agenda, still lags in the basic

construction of a socially and economically just society. Advances are counter-

balanced with many policy obstacles and even some forms of regression to a previous

state of affairs. Reconciliation and dialogue coexist with profound social divisions and

fear. Environmental problems worsen, and citizens in general are apathetic and

government lacks legitimacy.

Lastly, Fireflies have found creative ways to beat their two main problems: gravity and

darkness. They fly in a decided manner, using both their physical strength as well as

taking advantage of subtle wind currents. At the same time they produce their own

light, which they share with others, illuminating paths to a better future. In this

Scenario, Guatemala projects its bright light onto its neighbors. A strong national

identity is created, through the acceptance of past history, but also with a strong

emphasis on strategic thinking. Tolerance and a profound educational reform promote a

more just society were all forms of discrimination are abolished. The main axis of

development is the idea of Integral Development, with equal emphasis on social,

economic and political issues. Rule of law is a reality for all Guatemalans, and poverty

is reduced drastically. Participation and consensus dominate the political scene, and the

general ambiance of optimism produces increased foreign and inner investment.

Participants of Visión Guatemala also collaborated with a later evaluation of the project.

Most of the limitations of the SBP workshops identified had to do with the lack of

29
funding and time for the realization of more workshops and related activities (like

promotion of the project within the wider society). More participation by women and

young people would have also been desirable, and some political expressions were not

represented (dissident left and right parties, for example). Frustration ensued because of

high expectations from the participants about the scope of the project. But in general,

participants expressed positive opinions about SBP workshops in general, and the

Visión Guatemala project in particular.

C. Other Applications

The method has also been used in other contexts that cannot be described as post-

conflict. For example, another similar process was fostered during 1997 by a civic

group in Colombia, a country with an on-going internal war which is worsened by the

influence of drug cartels and strong paramilitary groups. The project was called Destino

Colombia (Destiny: Colombia) and also drew participants from a great diversity of

social, economic and political strata.

The process was very similar to the other case studies, and the scenarios were called

We’ll Wait ‘till Morning (Amanecerá y Veremos; the worst-case scenario), A Mediocre

Deal is Better than a Good War (Más Vale Pájaro en Mano que Ciento Volando; the

conservative scenario), Everyone March! (¡Todos a Marchar!; a hard-line military

intervention scenario) and United we are Stronger (La Unión Hace la Fuerza; the ideal

democratic scenario). The Colombian process is of special importance because it

transformed into a viable alternative proposes by society as a whole to the dominating

polarized opinions usually present during Civil Wars.

30
GBN also participated in a SBP workshop in México, a country with many social and

political problems but a general stability in relation to armed conflict and guerrilla

warfare. The country was going through a transition, though. The 60 year reign of the

Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) had come to an end, with both the leftist and

rightist parties contesting the PRI’s hegemony. In this case, GBN facilitated a

workshop called The Future of Civil Society in México, with financial support from the

David & Lucile Packard Foundation.

Following the same basic structure as the two SBP workshops described before, the

participants arrived to four different scenarios, summarized in the following figure:

31
 Figure 8

Scenarios for México

Democratic

participation
The Return of Quetzalcóatl The Mexican Miracle

Reactive civic Proactive

Mexico’s attitude towards globalization
Social conscience and

McMex The Divided Country

Paternalistic

Source: GBN, 2002.

The Mexican experience included two important differences with the other SBP

workshops analyzed before. First, the quadrant approach allows the interaction of two

main processes, that of civic participation and the attitude towards globalization.

Second, the way the stories / scenarios were presented was very original. Instead of

constructing stories, the participants wrote old-fashioned letters, in which close relatives

would tell the experiences they were living depending on each of the four scenarios.

32
Currently, efforts are being made towards the application of SBP at a more grass-roots

level of society in Latin America, through NGO / government / international /

community fostered projects. Similar approaches which emphasize the future are being

used by development agencies like GTZ (the German Development Agency)10.

As was shown by the case studies and the potential future applications, SBP could be an

important tool for contemporary conflict managers. The main problem would be to

“validate” the type of knowledge produced by SBP with the standards used by the

Conflict Resolution field. A first way of bridging the gap between CR and SBP would

be to and SBP would be to explore the many similarities that this method has with

Problem-solving (PS), a well established and important they share in their

epistemological, methodological and theoretical frameworks.

10
GTZ uses several prospective approaches in its Rural Participative Diagnoses (Diagnóstico Rural
Participativo, or DRP). The DRP approach seeks to involve communities in the planning of their future
development. Techniques like “the bridge” involve creative Problem-solving. Participants draw a
problem on one side of a black-board, and draw an ideal solution on the other side, then they have to
imagine a bridge to fill the gap. Future maps of the community are also used to investigate the different
priorities of different gender and age groups.

33
V. Problem-solving and Scenario Based Planning

A. Problem-solving

The main barrier in CR is that the parties involved in a conflict have a pre-defined

mental framework programmed to view conflicts as a zero-sum game. One of the most

important approaches of the CR field has to do with a theoretical, methodological and

epistemological framework known as a whole as Problem-solving. Some authors, like

de Reuck (1990:186) believe that humans have a psychological predisposition towards

framing conflicts as zero-sum games. The role of PS facilitators is to provide a safe and

open environment in which creative solutions to common problems can be envisioned.

The most important founder of the Problem-solving approach was John Burton. He was

a psychologist with postgraduate studies in economics and international relations. He

founded the Centre for the Analysis of Conflict at University college London during the

1960s. Much of his experience came from his work in the Australian Foreign Service,

so when he finally dedicated himself entirely to academic endeavors, his perspectives

were strongly influences by his pragmatic experience in the international realm. In

close collaboration with other important authors like de Reuck, Doob and Kelman, he

began a series of workshops to tend to historical, deep-rooted conflicts in many parts of

the world (Fisher, 1997:29-35).

An important heir to Burton’s ideas is Leonard Doob, who organized a series of

Problem-solving workshops, the most relevant being the Fermeda workshop relating to

the Horn of Africa conflict and the Stirling workshop relating to the conflict in Northern

34
Ireland. The main contribution that Doob brought to the PS arena was the realization

that any theory surrounding Problem-solving or interactive perspectives had to be a

theory of practice. This is, a theory built upon experience and with a transformative

agenda (Fisher, 1997:52-53).

The product of these workshops was a new understanding about CR, especially in

relation to the role that workshops can play as a methodological tool. A new theoretical

and philosophical perspective of CR was also adopted, one that “… addresses how

human aspirations can be satisfied in the context of the social good, and as such

provides an alternative or at least supplement to authority-based political systems”

(Fisher, 1997:36).

Mitchell (1993:78) defines Problem-solving (PS) exercises as “processes through which

informal, powerless, and – usually – academic third parties can affect the course of

protracted and deep-rooted conflict, by providing parties to such conflicts with

opportunities to interact in an analytical rather than coercive manner as well as giving

scholarly insights into the parties’ mutual predicament”. The author notes that problem-

solving exercises are externally oriented, triangular in structure and small-group

phenomena.

By externally oriented, the author means to say that the exercises have the objective of

transforming the conflict and the relationships surrounding it, instead of emphasizing

the results of the exercise itself. They are triangular because they involve the

participation of two (or more) parties in conflict, as well as a third party functioning as a

facilitator. And PS exercises are clearly small-group phenomena because the idea is to

35
change the mentality of a few representatives, who will then function as multipliers of

the experience when they return to their respective groups (Mitchell, 1993:79-80).

Foltz (1977:203-204) and Mitchell (1993:80) consider that a differentiation between

Problem-solving and Process-promoting exercises must me made. The first type are

intended to have a direct effect on the conflict, through a process very similar to a

negotiation session, but within a more open environment and with more willingness to

examine radical solutions to the conflict. The second type could be framed in the

longer-term, and seek to promote indirect changes, through changes in the ideas and

actions of the participants of the workshops11.

Another sub-category of a PS approach to CR is the interactive one. For Interactive

Conflict Resolution (ICR), Fisher understands a process “…involving small-group,

problem-solving discussions between unofficial representatives of identity groups or

states engaged in destructive conflict that are facilitated by an impartial third party of

social scientist-practitioners. In a broader manner, ICR can be defined as facilitated

face-to-face activities in communication, training, education, or consultation that

promote collaborative conflict analysis and problem solving among parties engaged in

protracted conflict in a manner that addresses basic human needs and promotes the

building of peace, justice and equality” (1997:8).

Kelman (1990:200) considers three main differences between the interactive approach

and the -dominant- realist framework. First, ICR considers a broad range of process,

not only the negative (threat-based) aspects of conflict, but considering its

11
Although not a separate type of workshop, there is a very distinct use for PS as a phase of pre-
negotiation. A fuller discussion of this topic can be found in Kelman, (1990).

36
transformative potential. Second, this approach has a broad vision of goals for a

negotiation. Emphasis is made on transformation processes, not only on results.

Finally, the ICR approach focuses on a multi-level analysis. Many different types of

interactions are considered and then related among each other.

Fisher (1997:12) considers that ICR has a special position within the newer approaches

to peace. Within the domain of a peace that is achieved through cooperation, (or

alternate security) ICR can be conceived as an integral part of peace-building, a parallel

effort to Track Two Diplomacy and Unofficial Diplomacy, a previous effort to Conflict

Resolution and Transnationalism.

Independently of the various types and sub types that could be derived from the basic

idea of PS, there is a basic goal that is aspired. “The aim must be therefore to help the

parties to redefine their situation so that they both perceive it as a shared predicament to

be solved jointly, and to equip them with a common language for communication: it is,

in short, to enable the parties to create for themselves a common frame or universe of

discourse in order to cooperate” (de Reuck, 1990:186).

B. Epistemology

Behind every methodology there is an epistemology. This is an often ignored aspect of

science. Simply defined, it is the study of the way in which we can approach

knowledge, and the definition and classification of “good” or “valid” knowledge.

Epistemology is the lens through which the world is analyzed, and thus it is closely

related to a political and cultural framework.

37
Until now, Western thought has been dominated by a scientific, positivistic

epistemology. This viewpoint is characterized by a rigid classification of valid

knowledge, closely related to statistical data, a hypothesis-testing model and a

generally inflexible model of methods and techniques. Some epistemologists,

proponents of a more open way of viewing science, believe that knowledge, and

especially valid knowledge, can also come from other sources, like every-day life

experiences and empowering processes (see for example Freire, 1997; and Maffesoli,

2005).

In a previous study about the uses of PS in relation to more conceptual and abstract

frameworks and the way that trainers use theory, some authors have noted that: “Each

individual training program thus offers a case study of how this trainer relates theory to

practice in making pedagogic choices. Essentially, each training program has an

internal epistemology or underlying theory of knowledge that supports it – what Donald

Shön and Chris Argyris call a ‘theory of action’. A related concept is Michael Polanyi’s

‘tacit knowledge’, which often resides only in our unconscious; as Polanyi stated, ‘we

can know more than we can tell’” (Macfarlane and Mayer, 2005:261).

This theory of action can be closely related to the more general philosophy behind SBP,

which emphasizes the power of change. When used within the private sector,

companies are able to envision their futures as if technological restraints didn’t exist.

Governments are able to identify the main strengths that their countries and inhabitants

have, as well as the potential threats that they may encounter in the future. Helping to

38
break the chains posed by current realities is the principal feature that SBP can provide

to the CR field.

Another important epistemological aspect of both PS and SBP is the collapse of

categories. By transcending current situations, frames of analysis and dominant

paradigms, these future-centered approaches allow a creative and dialectical process of

destroying old categories and creating new ones (de Reuck, 1990:193).

In this sense, Roubelat (2005:526) reminds us the general that within the SBP process,

the general “To challenge strategic paradigms, scenario planning uses primarily trend-

braking uncertainties which can be based on emerging ideologies, considered as sets of

beliefs which could explain the action of a group of actors. The creation of these

scenarios relies primarily on subjective data, generated when experts and decision

makers are brought together to compare their visions and beliefs with the future, which

can reveal emerging ideologies. In such a process, the most interesting issue is often to

see how different actors accept a scenario and its possible impacts both on the business

environment and on the company itself, e.g. in most cases how they can live with an

emerging ideology which could become the framework for a new dominant paradigm”.

The main strength that SBP has in relation to CR is that it helps unleash the creative

capacity of people in relation to the future. The Chilean philosopher Zemelmann (1996)

considers that all human beings have the capacity and need for strategic thinking, and

that it is through the imagining of better futures that humanity reaches its true potentials.

But these better futures are not plausible unless humans have access to different choices.

SBP is a process that naturally elicits choices (GBN, 1992:3). In this sense, the

39
parallelisms with PS are evident: this particular framework of thought within CR

emphasizes creativity, interaction and the construction of new, viable and positive

solutions to current problems.

C. Theory

Mitchell’s analysis of the relationship between PS and theory, although mostly centered

on the relationship between theory testing and problem-solving workshops, also

considers the value of PS as a source of theoretical thought: “It is also the case that

there exists a third way in which theory building might well be related to practical

problem-solving exercises, apart from the use of theories in conducting such exercises

and the testing of theories by using participant reaction and evaluation as a form of

‘crucial test’.

Many practitioners have remarked on how their own involvement in problem-solving

exercises has, through the almost unique opportunity for direct involvement with and

observation of participants interacting, generated new ideas and insights into (a) the

psychology of ‘being in conflict’, (b) the dynamics of conflictual interaction, and (c) the

opportunities for and obstacles to processes such as confidence building, entrapment, or

de-commitment, to name only a few” (Mitchell, 1993:90).

Other authors try to prove the soundness of their theory-related suggestions with the

success that a given PS exercise has, success that can be evaluated based on the impact

that the exercise has on the participant, the output of the workshop (in the line of

40
proposals) and the outcome of the exercise, in the sense of a long-term change in the

conflict, with a reduction in the level of conflict and coercion (Mitchell, 1993).

Mitchell (1993) also considers three forms of theorizing in relation to PS. At a Micro-

level, some generalizations can be made about group dynamics, the nature of the

participants, the procedure that should be followed throughout the workshop, the

functions of the facilitators, and the sequence of events during the event. At a Meso-

level, there is also some sort of experimental work being done, mainly through the

evaluation of the outcomes of the exercises as a whole, and not only the different

components (as in the Micro-level). Finally, the Macro-level of theorizing consists of

general hypothesis about the nature of conflict, its phases and the best ways to transform

them. All three levels involve some sort of hypothesis testing, but until now, only the

Micro-level has had concrete, validated results. In the words of Mitchell: “…it seems

important to emphasize that problem-solving exercises do appear to provide a variety of

levels, from micro-level hypotheses about ‘within exercise’ relationships to macro-level

propositions about the effects of the exercise output on the subsequent course of the

conflict” (Mitchell, 1993:89).

41
 Figure 9: Theorizing and Problem-solving

Source: Mitchell, 1993:89

Another insight to the problem of theory in PS was proposed by Macfarlane and Mayer

(2005:260), who studied the way in which trainers use theoretical frameworks: “Some

training programs explicitly promote particular theoretical or philosophical models of

practice (transformative mediation, stakeholder consensus building), while others reflect

a more personal or ‘folksy’ orientation derived from the trainer’s own experience”.

The authors interviewed 25 trainers in the field of CR. Their study shows that there is a

divorce between the theoretical elements that the trainers say they use and the actual

contents of their courses. The main explanation given by the trainers as to the reason of

that divorce has to do with the perception of theory as an “intimidating” aspect of

academic life. Others also believe that their knowledge as CR practitioners comes more

from their practical experience than from theoretical insights. This is why storytelling

42
was found to be the number one method used by trainers in order to introduce

theoretical elements into their classes (2005:263-266).

In this sense, Macfarlane and Mayer recommend a general re-appropriation of theory by

practitioners and trainers through paying attention to three key issues. First, they must

find a way to translate the complex language present in CR theoretical writing and

translate and communicate it to the trainees. Second, reading material should be

carefully selected. Finally, trainers should consider that material does not readily

“translate” into training exercises. In this sense, trainers should take responsibility in

bridging the gap between theory and training, especially in relation to the teaching of PS

(Macfarlane and Mayer, 2005:271-272).

D. Methodology

There are many variations within the PS framework, especially relating to methodology.

Some approaches have rigid structures, others use relaxed and semi-improvised

techniques. But above all: “The essence of the problem-solving procedure is this: that

representatives of the parties in a dispute should meet in the presence of a small panel of

disinterested consultants, professionally qualifies in the social sciences, in order to

analyze and possible also to resolve their conflict, in conditions of total confidentiality.

The parties should be enabled by the panel to negotiate not by bargaining in the

conventional manner, but by collaborating in the solution of their joint predicament

through the discovery of accommodations affording net advantages to all concerned.

Their joint predicament is the problem to be solved” (de Reuck, 1990:183). Specifically

relating to ICR, Kelman (1990:201) proposes that even though the general workshop

43
method emphasizes changes in the individual, the final objective is the influence on the

larger conflict.

Thus, the most important building block of PS methodology is the workshop. “Such

exercises invariably involve informal, week-long meetings of conflict in an informal,

often academic, setting that permits the re-analysis of their conflict as a shared problem

and the generation of some alternative courses of action to continued coercion, together

with new options for a generally acceptable and self-sustaining resolution, involving

agreement and a new relationship between erstwhile adversaries” (Mitchell,1993:79).

Workshops provide not only a methodological function, but also elements for social and

psychological analysis (de Reuck, 1990:187).

One of the main advantages of the workshops in comparison with negotiation sessions,

for example, is their apparently chaotic nature. PS workshops are very ambiguous in

the sense that the actors are constantly switching from an open analysis of the problem

to a more negotiation-centered style of discussion. Facilitators can use this to switch

from one role to an other whenever tempers flare or when the process seems to stall (de

Reuck, 1990:187)

A disclaimer should be stated at this point. Workshops have been used in many

different contexts, and are not exclusive to the CR discipline: “There are many applied

variations on this theme, too numerous to catalogue. In the managerial setting they are

often referred to as management development workshops, or labs; in the educational

setting, educational development labs; in a more general cross-discipline setting, human

relations labs. The structured content of these workshops is, of course, designed to be

44
relevant to the background and work of the participants at that particular workshop”

(Wickes, 1970:27).

Kelman (1990:204-205) describes workshop participants as corresponding to three basic

types. The first category is of the pre-influentials, political influentials and political

actors. The first type of participants don’t have the ability to influence political

processes directly. However, they are in a position of continuous professional growth;

they are students or low-level government officials, people how will eventually achieve

a real position of political influence. The second category is that of the political

influentials; i.e. academics and officials with a real level of influence in the political

processes. Finally, the political actors are the people of the utmost influence in political

systems; party leaders, senators, etc.

Malhotra and Liyanage (2005) have written about the long-term effect of peace

workshops in protracted conflicts. They consider that empathy is a basic element for

effective conflict resolution. Peace workshops (much in the manner of PS exercises)

can have the long term effect of producing higher levels of empathy from one group

towards another. The authors describe peace workshops as events in which participants,

usually from different sides of a deep-rooted protracted conflict, share a common space

during several days. They engage in discussions, role-playing activities, group projects,

etc.

The authors indicate that most previous research around peace workshops has explored

the causal relationship between inter-group contact and attitude change. This

hypothesis is too simplistic, and has been contested by several studies where mere

45
contact has not resulted in attitude changes. Furthermore, most of the research has

been made in relatively peaceful environments (Malhotra and Liyanage, 2005:909).

In their critical assessment of previous studies of the contact hypothesis, Malhotra and

Liyanage (2005:911) state two important points. First, they believe that an excessive

emphasis has been given to outcomes, distracting the attention from the processes

behind peace workshops. Second, most success evaluations have been centered in the

short term, ignoring the long-term effects of such workshops.

Despite these facts, Malhotra and Liyanage (2005:910) admit that, even in situations

where all four of the “ideal” characteristics (as defined by Allport) of a positive contact

between conflicting groups are not present12, usually interaction produces a reduction in

the levels of prejudice between the groups. The authors consider that follow-up

interventions should be implemented after the original workshop. They also believe

that future research should consider a wide range of conflicts, different stages of

conflict, and the influence of contact on other attitudes besides empathy (Malhotra and

Livanage, 2005:920). Thus, the basic contact between conflicting parties is paramount

to the methodology of the PS framework.

At the time of publishing his seminal article (199?:13), Mitchell identified no more than

100 properly documented cases of PS exercises. In this dissertation, two paradigmatic

cases in very different parts of the world will be analyzed; the Belfast workshop

(tending to the conflict in Northern Ireland) and the Fermeda workshop (relating to

12
Allport (1954) defined four requisites for a positive inter-group contact that can help reduce prejudice:
an equal status among the participants, a common goal, the need to cooperate to achieve this goal, and the
sanction of authority figures.

46
Ethiopia / Kenya / Somalia). This analysis will help to deepen the knowledge about the

methodological similarities between PS and SBP.

E. Case Study: The Fermeda Workshop

In early August, 1969, Doob and a team of CR specialists began a workshop that took

years of preparation which involved participants from Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia13.

The objective was to apply a new technique, called Sensitivity Training, in protracted

conflict: “The objective of the workshop that was to last almost two weeks was to

known to all the participants: to determine whether in idyllic surroundings it might be

possible for men of good will to evolve a solution for unresolved border disputes that

have produced the misery associated with war and the preparation for war” (Doob,

1970:1).

Doob (1970:X) stated that (referring to sensitivity training techniques): “through them it

is hoped that the participants will gain a greater self-knowledge and will learn to

communicate their views more effectively than is the case in most formal meetings”.

The idea was to bring together people from three different countries and cultures in the

pursuit of a common goal: a better understanding of each other and of the conflict that

was destroying their region: “The basic feature of this approach is that participants

13
A good summary of the conflict is presented by Fisher (1997:38): “In 1960, the colonies of British and
Italian Somaliland gained independence as the Republic of Somalia, which continued the historical claim
to incorporate areas of Ethiopia and Kenya populated by ethnic Somali majorities. In the early sixties,
guerilla attacks by Somalis in the disputed areas were paralleled by an escalating diplomatic offensive on
all sides and eventually armed conflict between regular forces. The conflict continued through the mid-to
late sixties, with alternating periods of confrontations and accommodation, but without any resolution of
the underlying problems”.

47
learn through analysis of, and generalizations from, their own experience and that of

others with whom they interact” (Wickes, 1970:26).

As with many workshops, the final results were controversial. In the words of one of

the participants: “What did we learn from the experience at Fermeda? I learned that we

– the African participants- had imbibed uncritically so much of white man’s concepts of

social and political organizations that we spend all our time parroting outdated and

mischievous, nineteenth-century European fictions like sovereignty, without being

original or even intelligent about them” (Ali Duhul, 1970:54). Considering the general

objectives of all problem-solving endeavors, at least the testimony of Ali Duhul tells a

story of paradigmatic change: after many years of an uncritical approach to the idea of

sovereignty, the African participants were finally in a position to challenge certain

dominant ideas and categories.

Doob (1970:163-164) adds to this that: “From our standpoint, the first stumbling block

to a solution of the disputes is the emotional commitment to the abstract concepts of

self-determination and national sovereignty. If ever one regrets the influence of

European history and practice on African thought, it is indeed in connection with the

reification of these doctrines, product themselves of European nineteenth-century

politics and exported to the Horn of East Africa as part of Europe’s futile attempt to

resolve its contradictions at the expense of others”

In the end, there was an attempt of creating a joint proposal for the resolution of the

Horn of Africa’s conflict. The idea of a Joint Administration Area (JAA) managed to

48
transcend old paradigms and provided a new framework for the analysis of the problem.

Besides the controversial aspects of the workshops, Doob considers that it was a worth-

while experience: “Perhaps, I sometimes tell myself late at night when I try to comfort

myself for going on this wild trip which I am not enjoying, perhaps we might suggest to

everybody that here is a tool – the workshop – that could be used to help resolve other

international conflicts, much bigger ones” (Doob, 1970:18).

F. Case Study: The Belfast or Sterling Workshop

Doob and Foltz (1973) participated in the design, execution and later analysis of a

workshop that involved 56 Catholic and Protestant citizens of Belfast during August

1972. The main idea behind the workshop was to provide the participants with tools

for intercommunal cooperation that could eventually be socialized within their own

communities.

The Northern Ireland conflict has been vastly analyzed in other works within the

Conflict Resolution Field. It could be simply described as a destructive and long-

ranging conflict that involves social, cultural, religious and political aspects. At the

time of the publication of the article, the conflict seemed mostly intractable, although

developments in recent years have shed some light to the general problem.

The workshop was based on two premises. First, the existence of decision makers

within both communities, i.e., the communities had a clear social and political structure

which could be influenced through reaching decision makers. Second, the decision

makers should have at least a minimum interest in avoiding or reducing conflict. Any

49
intervention in a conflict that does not comply with both these premises, is not viable

(Doob and Foltz, 1973:491).

The process began with the selection of candidates, trying to cover all the spectrum of

political and religious opinions. The goals of the workshop was to bring together

persons of influence to create mutual trust, avoiding central leaderships; to provide a

space in which these persons could learn from each others experience; to promote a

realistic understanding of the points of view of the other side; to provide opportunities

of common interest,; to promote the exploration of cooperative strategies; and to

promote a wider change in the conflict through the transfer of the lessons learned in the

workshop towards the wider communities (Doob and Foltz, 1973:492-493).

The workshop used primarily Tavistock and National Training Laboratory (NTL)

methodologies. The first method consists in the promotion of a teaching-learning

process about the ways in which people function in organized groups. The idea is to

force the participants “to confront directly the ways in which they respond to authority

and the challenges of cooperative and competitive work” (Doob and Foltz, 1973:496-

497). People are organized into different groups, and forced to share a series of

experiences within different types of groups (age, sex, nationality, task oriented groups,

etc.). The second method, the NTL or Bethel approach, guides participants into the

design of back-home activities, both to foster certain planning capabilities and to aid in

the actual realization of the plans.

The main results of the workshops can be organized in three different categories:

learning about process, learning about others, and project development. Within the first

50
category, the workshop promoters conclude that the participants learned amply about

authority, power and leadership. They were stimulated to think critically about the way

their communities are organized around power. They also learned to question

established leaderships and authority structures. Specifically, the participants learned to

identify the irrational elements of their ideas and reactions to power and authority

structures. Above all, they learned about their multiple identities, which in turn helped

them view the conflict through a different lens. The participants also learned about

others. After the workshop, they were able to identify the divisions within the “other

side”, as well as to engage in empathetic attitudes. Finally, the workshop resulted in a

couple of projects that could be jointly implemented by both sides (Doob and Foltz,

1973:500-505).

Fisher (1997:46-48), although expressing a general approval and admiration of the

Stirling workshop, does note a couple of criticisms towards the general process. First,

the participants were not adequately informed about the goals and overall nature of the

process. Second, the methods used were considered too harsh, especially the Tavistock

model, which calls for a pain-staking learning process, which might be considered too

extreme for citizens coming from a war-torn society. It must be said though, that

follow-up workshops had much more positive reactions by the participants.

G. SBP and PS: a complimentary relationship

Based on the previous discussion, many similarities between the PS method and the

uses of SBP can be drawn. First, relating to methodology, SBP is a way of re-framing

conflict. This procedure is common in many theoretical postures of the CR field. By

51
emphasizing the future, actors in conflict can concentrate on strategic, long-term issues

and forget the immediate (and sometimes petty) disagreements regarding positions. The

creation of future scenarios allows the participants to think more in terms of needs and

interests. The scenario process is based on facts and logic, leaving little or no space

for positions or values (GBN, 1992:3).

SBP also promotes empathy through contact. Participants of SBP workshops go

through similar processes than those in PS exercises. Although the proximity

hypothesis has been recently criticized in CR, something should also be said about the

way the workshops (both in SBP and in PS) bring ex-enemies together, helping to

bridge certain differences that used to divide them. The participants not only learn a

new way of thinking about the future, through collective thought and collaborative

thinking, they also multiply the effects of the workshops by taking the experience to

with them to different social and political venues.

Second, relating to theory and epistemology, SBP and PS share many ideas about the

transformative nature of human creativity. Current realities are not unchangeable, and

collective processes can bring about positive change. Above all, both types of

workshops give participants a hope for the future.

52
VI. Critical Issues

SBP, by definition, needs the participation of the people who have a certain decision-

making capacity. This contradicts the most modern perspectives of CR which consider

the necessity of a bottom-up approach, where the most significant transformation of a

conflict will occur at a grass roots level. Both in Mont Fleur and in Guatemala, the

participants of the SBP workshop were known political figures. Although some efforts

have been made in the use of SBP at a local level, the actual applications are very

diverse and there is currently no consensus about the different uses that the method

could have in this milieu.

Even if the experience could be repeated at several different levels (national, regional,

local) there would still be the issue of representation. In order for SBP to be effective in

transforming conflicts, the actors involved should be legitimate and representative of

their constituencies. They must then repeat the experience at a more local level, and

this process could be very expensive and time consuming.

Another important issue has to do with the sustainability of the results of the SBP

workshops. Both in Guatemala and South Africa, the final documents showed a real

consensus about what all the actors wanted for the future of both countries. But the

processes have been criticized because there wasn’t a plan to assure that the document

actually became a part of public policy. The results of the workshops weren’t

publicized enough in order to assure sustainability. No further workshops were

organized, and at the time of writing this essay, there was no independent perspective

that aspired to evaluate the experiences.

53
The main critics of PS attack the method because of its applicability. They believe that

the technique can be used in a very restricted range of conflicts. This is actually a false

problem, because most critics have equivocally considered these methods as all-

encompassing substitutes for other measures, like negotiation. PS and SBP cannot be

considered substitutes for other tools in CR, but should be viewed as useful tools

(Fisher, 1997:197-204).

Another issue that could be raised has to do with the lack of a concrete theory relating

both to PS and SBP. Even though they both share an “action based” epistemology, they

still lack in a construction of a solid theory that relates not only to a wider CR referent,

but also to more general sociological, political and anthropological framework. In the

words of Fisher: “Furthermore, there is not much specification about the relationships

among variables within the models, for example, between the attributes of the third

party and the qualities of interaction between the delegates. Nor is there a detailed

elucidation of how the outputs from a workshop are expected to flow from the

participants into the policymaking process. What exists is a theory of practice that lacks

an adequate theory of understanding, both about its internal functioning and its

relationship to the phenomena it addresses” (Fisher, 1997:210).

An especially problematic issue relating to SBP has to do with the phenomenon called

“groupthink”. This is, that an excessive emphasis on creating consensus might bring

about self-censorship and eventually, cripple the capacity of the the participants of SBP

workshops of viewing all the possible outcomes: “In such cases, futures thinking falters

as the perspective shrinks to the consensual hypothesis only, e.g. often the core of the

54
old paradigm, and reject all anomalies that would change the face of the company”

(Roubelat, 2005:525).

Groupthink could eventually hinder the process of transforming a conflict, because the

final outcomes of the workshops could be viewed by the participants and their

constituencies as “wishful thinking” or “utopian thought” after the process is over. A

tendency to disqualify the results achieved in PS workshops by some of the participants

could be seen in the case studies of Fermeda and Sterling. The same could be said

about SBP experiences in Guatemala and South Africa. The arguments exposed by the

critics imply that groupthink happened at least in certain cases, where some individuals

were forced into a certain mental framework by the group dynamic.

Cultural sensitivity and cultural appropriateness is a very delicate one in CR in general

and in PS in particular. Fisher (1997:264) considers that the cultural issue should be

taken much more seriously by PS practitioners and theorists alike. In this sense, an

application of the knowledge exposed by Avruch (2003) about Type I and Type II errors

in approaching culture and conflict could be useful, although the discussion is by no

means closed14.

14
The Type I Error identified by Avruch is basically an underestimation of culture. Practitioners (and
taking the concept further, maybe even the participants) consider that universal models can be applied to
their specific case, and that local knowledge cannot provide insights into the CR process. The Type II
Error is an overestimation of culture, or a process of “hearing voices that aren’t there” (Avruch,
2003:363). The author warns against the practitioner’s common sense, which might lead to believing
that committing a Type II Error is not as grave as incurring in a Type I. This is a misleading chain of
thought: “This is so because overvaluing cultural impacts can be deleterious for the weaker,
disempowered, or subordinate parties in the conflict or dispute. It can affect the equity of the
intervention’s outcome, its justice” (Avruch, 2003:366)”. The main danger, Avruch says, is that
overvaluing culture, especially from an e/n perspective, can lead to the masking of underlying issued like
class, racism and gender. It can also reify culture, turn it into a “thing” that is capable of actions in its
own terms. Another important point is that Type II Error can lead to a false homogenization of group
members, framing them into a closed behavioral stereotype. Last, there is a grave risk of replacing race
and racial conceptions of the social world with culture. This is, thinking of the world in racial terms but
with the “mask” of cultural terminology (Avruch, 2003:367).

55
Culture can be falsely labeled as the cause of conflicts, or where it can be used as the

one and only factor to be considered in any type of conflictive situation. Culture can

also be underestimated (as was the case for many years), and universal -mostly white,

male-centered, upper middle class, English-speaking- models are applied

indiscriminately and with no consideration for local cultures or subcultures. Lederach

(1995:5-6) identifies three common (and usually false) assumptions about culture. First,

that culture is an aspect of CR that can be reduced to a technique, any cultural problems

encountered during the process of CR can be fixed just by raising the level of cultural

sensitivity of those involved. Second, that the general model of CR is transferable from

one culture to another. Last, that most of the cultural issues should be aimed at the

training of people who are already professionals in CR.

Finally, the re-entry problem should be addressed. Macauley (2002) has warned about

the dangers of reintroduction. The author considers that long-term effects of the contact

hypothesis might be overshadowed by the social stress that the participants are exposed

to when they return to their respective communities after the workshops. Their

constituencies might force theme to assume hard line ideas that were already overcome

during the workshops.

56
VII. Conclusions

There are several critical issues that should be addressed before SBP is completely

adopted by the CR field, especially those that have to do with applicability,

sustainability, representation, lack of theory, groupthink, cultural appropriateness and

re-entry:

• Relating to representation, both PS and SBP approaches still rely on political

and social elites. Even if the workshops could be replicated at other levels of

society, the problems of representation would still be present.

• Lessons learned from the case studies show that both SBP and PS workshops

share the common problem of a lack of sustainability. Products coming from

SBP and PS techniques should be followed up in the medium and long term

through more workshops, political incidence strategies and in general, a

concerted effort for the diffusion of the main results and obstacles to a wider

audience.

• Applicability has been noted by some critics as a main flaw of PS (and by

extension, of SBP).

• A lack of concrete theory is also a common critique.

• Groupthink is a very peculiar psychological phenomenon that could translate

into a weakness of PS and especially SBP models.

57
 • Cultural generalization of PS and SBP techniques is also a serious problem.

• The re-entry problem should also be considered. ¿How will the results of the

workshops be accepted by the participants and their constituencies once they

return to their communities?

Some answers to these critiques are already available. The representation problem

could be solved by replicating the experience in several other levels of society. The

sustainability issue could be easily solved with a public relations strategy and a

concerted effort by governments and NGOs to promote these techniques. Applicability

is actually a false problem, because PS and eventually SBP are not substitutes to other

CR perspectives, they are only complimentary options. The lack of theory is only

relative, because of the different epistemological content action-based approaches.

Group-think, cultural appropriateness, and re-entry are very serious problems that need

more attention.

There are also many theoretical and practical aspects of the method, and especially the

lessons learned from its application in specific post-conflict societies, that evidence the

great potential that it has for CR.

• The case studies show that SBP has great potential for the advancement in the

resolution of large-scale conflicts, mainly because it helps to reframe the conflict

in terms of the future.

58
 • It also provides an infinite array of choices for the participants, which has a

multiplying effect on their creativity and the possibility of reaching new

potentials.

• Finally, it provides an initial force for individual and societal change, through

the construction of empathy, and eventually, of trust among conflicting parties.

Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall (2005:330), authors of a very important text

relating to the current affairs of CR, through their own exercise of future visioning,

believe that there are three possible outcomes for humanity in relation to the

construction of Peace: the revival of Hobbesian anarchy, “a new quasi-realist

dispensation” or the existence of a neo-Marxist world where everything is co-opted by

the interests of global capital. A counter proposal from CR theorists and practitioners

should be, the construction of a cosmopolitan future, based on the transformation of the

deep-rooted and structural causes of conflict and violence (social injustice,

environmental degradation, failing democracies, etc.). SBP, if considered within the

framework of PS theory and epistemology, allows Conflict Transformation theorists,

trainers, facilitators and enthusiasts in general to concentrate their efforts in a creative

imagination of the cosmopolitan future, potentially unleashing a great force of social

and individual change.

59
VIII. Bibliography

Ali Duhul, Yousuf Jama.

1970. “Appraisal by a Somali”. In: Resolving Conflict in Africa. The Fermeda

Workshop. Edited by Leonard W. Doob. Yale University Press, London.

38-56.

Allport, G.W.

1954. The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Avruch, Kevin.

2002. “Type I and Type II Errors in Culturally Sensitive Conflict Resolution

Practice”. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 3. Spring

2003:351-371.

de Reuck, Anthony.

1990. “A Theory of Conflict Resolution by Problem-solving”. In: Conflict:

Readings in Management and Resolution. Edited by John Burton and

Frank Dukes. The Macmillan Press. 183-198.

Doob, Leonard W.

1970a. “Preface”. In: Resolving Conflict in Africa. The Fermeda Workshop.

Edited by Leonard W. Doob. Yale University Press, London. ix-xvii.

60
 1970b. “Planning the Workshop”. In: Resolving Conflict in Africa. The

Fermeda Workshop. Edited by Leonard W. Doob. Yale University

Press, London. 1-25.

Doob, Leonard W. & William J. Foltz.

1973. “The Belfast Workshop. An Application of Group Techniques to a

Destructive Conflict”. Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 17, No. 3,

September 1973:489-512.

Kelman, Herbert C.

1990. “Interactive Problem-solving: A Social-psychological Approach to

Conflict Resolution”. In: Conflict: Readings in Management and

Resolution. Edited by John Burton and Frank Dukes. The Macmillan

Press. 199-215.

Kennedy, Peter, Charles Perrottet and Charles Thomas.

2003. “Scenario Planning after 9/11: Managing the Impact of a Catastrophic

Event. Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2003:4-13.

Fisher, Ronald J.

1997. Interactive Conflict Resolution. Syracuse University Press, New York.

Foltz, William J.

61
 1977. “Two Forms of Unofficial Conflict Intervention: The Problem-solving

and the Problem-promoting Workshops”. In: Unofficial Diplomats. M.R.

Berman and J.E. Johnson, editors. Columbia University Press, New York.

Flowers, Betty S.

1978. “The Art and Strategy of Scenario Writing”. Strategy and Leadership.

Vol. 31, No. 2, 2003:29-33.

Freire, Paulo.

1997. Pedagogia da autonomía. Saberes necessários à prática educativa. Rio

de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.

Glenn, Jerome C. and Theodore J. Gordon.

1999. “The World in 2050: A Normative Scenario”. Foresight, Vol. 1 No. 5,

October 1999:453-465.

GBN.

1992. “The Mont Fleur Scenarios. What will South Africa be like in the year

2002?” Deeper News, Global Business Network (GBN). Volume 7,

Number 1.

Godelet, Michel.

2000. “How to be Rigorous with Scenario Planning”. Foresight. Vol. 2, No.

1, Feb. 2000:5-9.

62
Kuhn, Thomas.

1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

Pinto-Díez, Elena.

2004. Tendiendo Puentes de Confianza: Visión Guatemala. Diálogo

Democrático, UNDP.

Macauley, C.

2002. “Head first versus feet first in peace education”. In Peace education:

The concepts principles, and practices around the world. Edited by G.

Salomon and B. Nevo. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 247-258.

Macfarlane, Julie and Bernie Mayer.

2005. “What Theory? How Collaborative Problem-Solving Trainers Use

Theory and Research in Training and Teaching”. Conflict Resolution

Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 2, Winter 2005:259-276.

Maffesoli, Michel.

2005. El conocimiento ordinario. Compendio de sociología. Fondo de Cultura

Económica. México, D.F.

Malhotra, Deepak and Sumanasiri Liyanage.

2004. “Long-Term Effects of Peace Workshops in Protracted Conflict”.

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vo. 9, No. 6, December 2006:908-924.

63
Mitchell, Christopher.

1993. "Problem Solving Exercises and Theories of Conflict Resolution." In:

Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. Dennis Sandole and Hugo

Van Der Merwe, (eds.). 78-94.

Mojica, Francisco José.

2001. Visión del futuro del mundo y escenarios de América Latina.

Conferencia pronunciada en la Universidad de La Habana, Cuba (enero

2000), Universidad de Guadalajara, México (mayo 2000) e Instituto

Tecnológico de Monterrey – ITESM – Monterrey (Nuevo León), México

(mayo 2000), en el IV ENCUENTRO LATINOAMERICANO DE

ESTUDIOS PROSPECTIVOS Bogotá (agosto 2000) y Buenos Aires

(noviembre 2000), en el Seminario de Prospectiva, Caracas-ONUDI

(2000), en la Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial de Quito (enero 2001),

en la Universidad de Puerto Rico (febrero 2001) y en la Escuela Superior

de Guerra (2001).

Ramsbotham, Oliver, Tom Woodhouse and Hugh Miall.

1996. Contemporary Conflict Resolution. Second Edition. Polity, Cambridge.

Roubelat, Fabrice.

2005. “Scenarios to challenge strategic paradigms: Lessons from 2025”.

Futures, 38. 2006:519-527.

Schwartz, Peter.

64
 1996. The Art of the Long View. Planning for the Future in an Uncertain

World. Currency Doubleday. New York.

Shoemaker, Paul.

1999. “Pitfalls in Scenario Planning. A Checklist of Traps to be Avoided”.

The Antidote from CSBS, Issue 22, 1999:32-33.

Visión Guatemala.

2005. Los escenarios del futuro. Historias de aprendizaje: Construyendo

puentes de confianza. 4ta. Edición. PNUD, Magna Terra. Guatemala.

Voros, Joseph.

2006. “Introducing a Classification Framework for Prospective Methods”.

Foresight, Vol. 8, No. 2:43-56.

Wickes, Thomas A.

1970. “The African Context and the Schedule”. In: Resolving Conflict in

Africa. The Fermeda Workshop. Edited by Leonard W. Doob. Yale

University Press, London. 26-37.

Zemelmann, Hugo.

1996. “Sujetos y subjetividad en la construcción metodológica”. In:

Subjetividad: umbrales del pensamiento social. León, Emma y Hugo

Zemelmann. Centro Regional de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias,

65
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Editorial

Anthropos.

66