Daechuri as Symbolic Battleground: Failure to Integrate Divergent Frames for Conflict Interpretation
This study examined how government negotiators` and opponents`different frames for construing others` motivations prevented a settlement andintensified the Daechuri policy conflict over appropriation of land for a militarybase. Although communication- and consensus-based processes have beenacknowledged as useful methods of conflict resolution, the issue of how participants`divergent definitions and interpretations of the situation may inhibit effectivecommunication has rarely been empirically examined. Employing frame analysis,this study explored how two parties` motivations and issue interpretations werepersistently mismatched over time without reaching consensus. The resultsrevealed that government negotiators tended to oversimplify opponents` motivationsas being economically driven, while they were in fact more complicated.These results suggest that communicative negotiation will not likely be conduciveto effective conflict resolution unless it is based on thorough understanding ofthe situation.