Search results

Conflict understandings of lay people mirror society in miniature. Although lay people and their conflict understandings in society may shape the course of an ongoing conflict, little scholarly attention is so far given to the understandings of everyday discourse in Turkey’s ongoing Kurdish conflict. The present research aims to examine the views of lay Kurds and Turks in two politically polarized cities in Turkey, Mersin and Diyarbakır.

To examine these views, the authors used focus group discussions and open-ended questionnaires with a total of 64 lay people from Mersin and Diyarbakır.

Qualitative content analysis revealed more conflict understandings than presented in the existing academic literature. Furthermore, multiple correspondence analysis suggested that both ethnic identity and the city in which people live are important factors influencing how people perceive the conflict.

The meaning of novel themes, differences and similarities within and between ethnic groups and two cities, and the usefulness of qualitative methods to examine lay people’s viewpoints are discussed.

Exploring the understandings of conflict held by Members of Parliament (MPs) provides a meaningful picture of a conflict in a particular society. The aim of the study is to explore the Kurdish conflict understandings among MPs in Turkey.

The current research used Q methodology, which is a suitable method to identify socially shared perspectives and to identify intra- and inter-group differences, and Entman’s (1993) frame analysis to explore subjective understandings of the Kurdish conflict. Data were collected from 23 MPs from four political parties.

The analysis revealed four qualitatively distinct viewpoints: Turkish Nationalist view, Social Democratic view, Conservative-Religious view and Pro-Kurdish view.

This study contributes to the understanding of political parties’ perspectives on the Kurdish conflict in Turkey by representing each political party’s priorities and concerns. The meaning of these priorities and concerns, implications for conflict resolution and the usefulness of the Q methodology for exploring conflict understandings are also discussed.

The authors examine the nature of institutional rigidity and governance problems contributing to crisis and under-performance of large corporations in Japan during a period of environmental turbulence for corporate Japan.

Through explorative case studies of Mitsubishi Motors and Kanebo over a 10-year period from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s the authors see how informal norms deeply embedded in the Japanese business system prevented the adoption of more liberal forms of governance that may have helped to overcome crisis.

Despite fundamental differences in formal organization between the two cases, there were similar underlying problems in terms of (1) mechanisms for capital investment that would underpin strategic resilience and rejuvenation and (2) management decision-making and strategic control during crisis.

The cases show how normative institutions rather than formal regulative institutions matter to strategic continuity in national business systems that are put under pressure.

The authors link informal norms of governance intrinsic to a country to the issues of strategic resilience and responses during crisis and warn against the retrenching to traditional governance approaches where there has been criticism of alternative governance approaches.