ABSTRACT
The sixteen episodes of conflict resolution creativity have been explored in Chapter 2 to generate working propositions, in preparation for theory-building. Chapter 3 builds on these empirical findings in two different ways. First, the working propositions are systematically compared in order to identify patterns of thinking and social interaction that may account for how creativity emerges across different contexts of conflict work. This exercise will involve inductive reasoning and provide the focus of the first part of the chapter, comparative analysis (1). The second part, comparative analysis (2), will go beyond inductive reasoning to seek commonalities between cases. It will build on four enduring concepts of social science introduced earlier, and apply them as a heuristic device to consciously expand the cognitive horizon of what appears empirical and feasible, in search of unexplored pathways to conflict resolution. The four concepts are: (a) the longitudinal nature of creativity (the five-phase model); (b) the outcome-process typology; (c) the system-element link (levels of analysis); and (d) the relevance of paradigms. The sixteen episodes under study will provide an empirical basis on which each of the four concepts will be refined and developed for theory-building in the realm of conflict resolution creativity. The present section, comparative analysis (1), will discuss the results of a systematic comparison of the fifty-nine themes derived from Chapter 2. The comparative analysis will reveal both distinct features and evocative similarities across the sixteen episodes, with respect to the nature and origination of creativity.1 It will identify six emerging patterns, each exemplified or illustrated by three or more themes drawn from different episodes. These patterns are: (a) analogizing; (b) value commitment; (c) combining known elements in a new way; (d) unconventionality out of conventionality; (e) discoveries in retrospect; and (f) contingency-based, principled flexibility. As discussed earlier, these common themes are by no means more significant or “representative” than less common ones, considering the unique methodological choice adopted for data collection
and analysis. However, since the clustering of three or more emerging themes derived from categorically different contexts appears to offer a particularly useful starting point for theory-building and reflective practice, it deserves attention. While the six emerging patterns will be discussed in this section to highlight the core findings, the remaining un-patterned themes have to be reserved for a future inquiry that might be stimulated by this study.
