Daechuri as Symbolic Battleground: Failure to Integrate Divergent Frames for Conflict Interpretation

Abstract

This study examined how government negotiators and opponents different frames for construing others motivations prevented a settlement and intensified the Daechuri policy conflict over appropriation of land for a military base. Although communication- and consensus-based processes have been acknowledged as useful methods of conflict resolution, the issue of how participants divergent definitions and interpretations of the situation may inhibit effective communication has rarely been empirically examined. Employing frame analysis, this study explored how two parties motivations and issue interpretations were persistently mismatched over time without reaching consensus. The results revealed that government negotiators tended to oversimplify opponents motivations as being economically driven, while they were in fact more complicated. These results suggest that communicative negotiation will not likely be conducive to effective conflict resolution unless it is based on thorough understanding of the situation.