View
221
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
1/20
1 | P a g e
Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting: Mediation as a Full Contact Multi-dimensional Encounter
There is nothing more practical than a good theory
James C. Maxwell (later reiterated by Kurt Lewin)
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In reality, they are not
Albert Einstein
Polkinghorn and Jarrett 2013
DRAFT for discussion but not to be cited
Introduction
Modern physics, martial arts, and the practice of mediation have a lot in common. In
fact, the success of mediation as an emerging profession may well depend on how well it
navigates the nitty-gritty, fluid realities to which both the discipline of physics and martial arts
have aptly applied themselves. While good mediators need not become physicists or martial
artists, the former can usefully apply knowledge and skills developed in these disciplines to
improve mediation through the careful application of their practice metaphors. Part I of this
paper explores the notion of complexity and theory development in modern physics, and in
particular, the views of James Maxwell and Albert Einstein. Part II discusses the insights on
human interaction developed in the practice of martial arts and, in particular, the views of
notable practitioner, Bruce Lee and Sun Tzu . Part III applies these collective insights to the
development of a more expanded and value-added mediation theory and practice.
I. Insights from Einstein, Maxwell, Heisenberg and the Quantum UniverseIn the world of physics James C. Maxwell and Albert Einstein were far ahead of their
contemporaries. Each had the uncanny ability to solve age old and perplexing problems that
members of their field struggled to understand. We also know from biographical research that
Einstein liked to conduct thought experiments (Isaacson, 2007) that helped him grapple with
the development of new conceptual frameworks as well as to explore ideas that, at the time,
couldnt be empirically verified due to lack of advanced precision instrumentation. Einstein
used his imagination to maneuver around limitations. Likewise, Maxwell experimented with all
sorts of materials, even toys of all things, to unravel, understand and then demonstrate
complex theoretical principles (Cropper, 2001). Maxwell tinkered with toys to make
discoveries. The results of these thought experiments and playful activities both designed to
explore as yet fully imaginable ideas produced stupendous theoretical breakthroughs.
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
2/20
2 | P a g e
Indeed, their breakthroughs increased exponentially our ability to explore and exploit the
physical world.1
Maxwell and Einstein played by different rules than the contemporaries of their day.
They re-examined the predominant thinking and, to some extent, shed some of the prevailing
theoretical constraints within physics in order to explore other paths of inquiry. In other words,
they were not fixed in their thinking; they were fluid in their ingenuity and thereby encouraged
the discipline to embrace the nature ofcomplexitywithin the physical universe.
As Einstein and Maxwell understood, theory can bind or, alternatively, expand thinking.
Theory can play a useful role in the development of disciplines and schools of thought. In one
sense, the development of theory for theory sake as a purist pursuit can yield useful results that
allows for the exploration of hypothetical ideas that cant be researched perhaps at that time
- in the traditional positivist manner of the scientific method.2
On the other hand, theory is but
one part of the knowledge equation. All areas of scholarly inquiry possess a combination of
theory, research and some type of applied or practical components. An applied theory is one
that is meant to be used to solve problems; it is, by design, practical.3
Arguably, Maxwell is
right in his assertion that there is nothing more useful than a good theory. When all three
areas of scholarly activity, i.e. theory, research and applied/practical, are working in
synchronicity and each component informs the others of new developments and ideas, then
the chances of creating large leaps in the advancement of knowledge and practice are likely to
increase. In less organized disciplines or fields of study, where these three components are not
well coordinated and thus do not interact as well, the ability to advance knowledge and
practice can be less orderly or have less of an impact on knowledge.4
In this case, Einstein is
1Maxwell and Einstein epitomize the ideal scientist in Thomas Kuhns (1962) theory behind the structures of
scientific revolutions. Each produced radical, jarring changes i.e. paradigm shifts - in the basic knowledge and
understanding in the fields of physics. Each radically altered several long held scientific beliefs going back to Sir
Isaac Newton and each changed the way all humans understood the world and how we interact with it. Likewise,
new knowledge attained from their theoretical breakthroughs have had untold impacts on all aspects of everyday
life from the development of all electric devices known to human kind; space travel, communication, medicine,
energy production, etc. Likewise, by approaching normal physic problems from unique perspectives each
altered the fundamental approach and procedures used in problem solving used by physicists.
2Indeed, the paradox of pure theoretical work often times relies on assuming things that cant be empirically
verified as true i.e. they exist as theorized, which is, to some extent an anti-positivist stance. Indeed, intuition
and introspection, realms of thinking whereby people try to make some sense of the physical and social world are
often rejected by the pure positivists yet, to some degree, even positivist have to start somewhere with their
theoretical thinking even if it is a hunch.
3That is, of course, theory that is derived from sound logic and hypotheses testing and not that derived from
ideological dogma such as was seen in Soviet science of the 1920-1930s where superb scientific research was
either suppressed and the scientist punished because the findings did not comport with communist ideology or the
results were manipulated to uphold a tenet of the orthodoxy. The same can be said of Nazi science.
4At this stage in the development of the field of mediation theory is starting to develop into c lusters based on
areas of application (community, international), types of mediation (behavioral styles). The research portion of the
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
3/20
3 | P a g e
correct; in theory, theory and practice are the same. In reality they are not. We suggest in
the social sciences this adage should be considered a quasi-law.
The mark of both Einstein and Maxwell was their ability to think outside the box and
embrace and indeed intiate paradigmatic shifts in their fields. The field of contemporary
mediation is in need of thinkers who are willing to embrace the quality and kind of
paradigmatic shifts associated with these individuals. But what would a paradigmatic shift in
mediation theory look like? Thomas Kuhn has mapped the shifts in science that occurred as a
result of dramatic shifts in worldview. He argues that disciplines continue along, building
toward critical mass in consensus concerning opinion. At a given tipping point, in this process,
opinion is overturned dramatically and replaced by a new paradigmatic view. Its as if the
discipline re-starts, reboots, and reformulates itself. An entire reformulation of mediation
would arguably entail the recognition of mediation as a complex adaptive system in which
practitioners could adopt flexible contingent strategies responsive to moment-to-moment
interactions with their clients. So how do we get there?
Arguably, contemporary mediation is lacking a good social theory within which to
embed the practice. Social theory is designed to predict, among other things, future
behavior/action or likely outcomes of social processes. However social science has limitations.
The theorist must take into account several challenges that the hard sciences do not. The first is
the subject matter. Trying to predict human behavior (individual or group) is fraught with
uncertainty and can lead to fallible theory and sometimes unpredictable outcomes.5
The hard
sciences contend with more predictable subject matter such as the amount of arc light will
bend around the gravitational pull of a star. The second challenge centers on the instruments
or tools used by social scientists. Third, and more problematic, is that social theory is impacted
to a greater extent than the hard sciences by researcher biases that include, among other
things, ideological agendas, self-serving prophesies or wishful thinking and a host of other
forms of human induced fallacies of logic.6
These can creep into complex theories rendering
field is slowly gaining some coherent order especially in mediation process and program evaluation ( e.g. works by
McDermott et al, Bingham, Umbreit, McEwen).
5In game theory the starting point for all experiments rests on several assumptions one of which that is each
player is a rational actor someone who will act in his or her best self-interest. The problem with this assumption
is that, in reality, individuals and groups often ignore or repudiate such conditions and assumptions that
supposedly comprise a unified idea of what rational behavior should be. More importantly, theories that rely on
rational actor models or some other type of pre-determined or deterministic thinking often fail to account for
several types of behavior seen in conflict. Not being able to account for emotionally driven behavior, rituals and
traditions that have lost their original meaning, self-sacrifices and acts of altruism are just a few that could lead to
several types of behavior or interaction that might be labeled as irrational or non-rational by some theorist but are
easily understood and logical and rational to others. Likewise, at a macro theoretical, deterministic thinking has
led to several monumental atrocities including Nazism and Communism. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao were
ideologically illiterate to fallible human behavior.
6Unfortunately, the pursuit of truth through science isnt always a clear cut path. There are instances of the
seeping influence of individual scientists ideology and politics creeping into scientific discourse, the most recent
and notable being the issue of climate change where methods, data and findings are attacked both for relevant
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
4/20
4 | P a g e
them more akin to perspectives than theory that incorporates testable hypotheses. Even so, in
all areas of science, it is a requirement that theories be tested over time and place to establishreliability of outcomes and validity of instruments and tools. Likewise, good science dictates
that when retesting a hypothesis one should not do so in expectation of replication or worse to
actively search for confirming data but to actively challenge the result in what Popper (1963)
refers to as falsification. In this framework Popper states that if the idea is indeed false it can
be shown to be by direct observation. If the results show the hypothesis to be false then the
researcher can reject the hypothesis in its entirety or modify the theoretical framework to
account for the data anomaly. Because of this many social theories need to be tested often as
new behavioral patterns or social dynamics may arise that requires modification of the theory.
One of the challenges in studying social conflict is the numerous ways it is expressed.
Combatants may act rationally which makes our job as researchers more manageable but that
doesnt necessarily imply consistent behavior or conduct at all times.7
Testing theory is a
hallmark of the sciences and yet, sometimes, theory doesnt capture the essence of what isbeing studied. In the case of mediation we believe this is likely the case. In order to address
this concern this article takes aim at the development of another theoretical perspective that
examines mediation processes through a lens that may be more fluid in regard to the
interpretation of social interactions.8
Herbert Blumers theory of symbolic interaction examines
the meaning, language and thought of individuals in situ in their attempts to make sense of
event or situations they encounter. Conflict often arises when there are misses i.e.
scholarly reasons as well as slightly veiled ideological and personal reasons. The attendant fundamental
misattribution and personalization of these pitch battles shows science to be a human endeavor fraught with
human imperfections stirred by the hijacking of scientists and science as proxies in political battles. See Mann,
Michael. (2012). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Line. New York: Columbia
University Press. Likewise, there are cases of battles arising between cliques within specific scientific communities
such a prime example relating to the crown of thorns (star fish) outbreak in the Pacific Ocean that periodically
wipes out huge areas of coral reefs. See Sapp, Jan (1999) What is Natural: Coral Reef Crisis. New York: Oxford
University Press.
7On the rational end of conflict analysis we find game theory. This is where parties act with enlightened self
interest to make choices in deciding on courses of action. It is usually simple dichotomous decisions to cooperate
or defect. Rational thinking predicated on self-interest is the foundation of the logic within which decisions are
made. There are several challenges to game theory and conflict analysis. Contextual elements impact decision
making and thus limits the ability to accurately analyze conflict. Likewise, people do irrational things such as
sacrifice their lives for others as was evident in the Aurora movie theatre killings in the summer of 2012 as well as
the President of the Sikh Temple in Michigan who rushed the killer welding an automatic weapon with a butter
knife. Perhaps the biggest disconnect with game theory is that it has to ignore some aspects of reality and rely
more so on forced choice decisions which limits creativity, the ability to bring options to the table or somehow
add value and other means to reframe and resolve conflicts that have been locked in a structural maze for some
time. For those interested in an enjoyable read on game theory we recommend Prisoners Dilemma: John Von
Neumann, Game Theory, and the Puzzle of the Bomb. William Poundstone (1992). New York: Anchor Books. For a
more academic read we suggest Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Roger B. Meyerson (1991) Cambridge MA:Harvard University Press.
8Brian J., we might want to frame the argument using symbolic interactionism.
Comment [BP1]: How is this for a wa
Blumer and Symbolic Interaction? Feel f
it out.
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
5/20
5 | P a g e
miscommunication of meaning, language and thought among individuals. There are many
other symbolic interaction derived misses that lead to conflict such as misperception,misattribution and miscommunication to name just a few.
This perspective places an emphasis on the meaning of human interaction and thus
provides an alternative to theories relating to mediation that focuses more strictly on pre-
determined behavior or models of conduct.9
The reason for studying interaction instead of
behavior can provide numerous advantages. The first is that the reality of studying conflict
interaction among individuals or groups might not unfold within a pre-determined taxonomy of
behavior but more so by situation specific action-reaction or negotiated interaction whereby
the observer begins to identify situation specific patterns that lead to the development of
testable hypotheses within the data. Second, there are always problems with employing a
preexisting set of principles that purport to measure and/or regulate behavior of mediators
and, to a lesser degree, disputants. One problem is that the mere existence of taxonomy may
influence what it is the observer thinks he or she is witnessing when there is always the chancethat the actual meaning behind the observed interaction, conduct or behavior is misinterpreted
or perhaps even not recorded.10
Heisenberg in the physics discipline demonstrated that in the act of observing the
observer acts on the world changing what s/he can actually observe. (footnote and cite)
Heisenberg called this the Uncertainty Principle. At the subatomic level the act of observing
changes the observed. The discipline of quantum physics has come to recognize what we as
mediators are yet to fully grasp. (Explain metaphorically).
What we are trying to avoid here is the reproduction of yet another behavior driven
perspective that is predicated on pre-existing constructs. The concern here is that the alleged
properties or characteristics of mediator conduct are often driven in a backwards fashion from
9Interaction and behavior are closely related although the distinction between these concepts is crucial to an
understanding of conflict. Interaction focuses on the dynamics that go on between individuals or groups while
behavior focuses on the dynamic on one side of the conflict dyad. Behavior has an individual orientation while
interaction implies two or more individuals engaged in some activity and social conflict, by definition, impoied two
or more parties in an interdependent relationship.
10More specifically, one challenge we see occurring with predetermined taxonomies is that individuals who
employ them may fall prey to two cognitive challenges. The first occurs when viewing a mediation interaction
whereby the observer attempts to place certain episodes into a given taxonomic code where the activity being
observed does not neatly fit the properties of the code. It is akin to jamming reality (the round peg) into the
data category (the square hole) and not adjusting the hole (properties list) to reflect the evolving definition of the
category. An even more troubling problem concern is when the observer, for whatever reason, engages in the
logical fallacy of the self-fulfilling prophecywherein if a person has a pre-determined idea what might occur they
are more likely to observe it. This form of foreshadowing poses a serious research dilemma and is inconsistent
with pursuing an understanding of the meaning, language and thought of individuals interacting in a conflict
scenario or a mediation process. One way to control for this is to train several researchers in behavior coding and
to then establish a high inter-coder reliability (Kappa) score and to then let them code mediation interaction (i.e.
mediator and party behaviors) and then examine the level of agreement among the codes.
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
6/20
6 | P a g e
a pre-determined mediation style or taxonomy to the mediators behavior. What we are
suggesting here is to reverse the entire research endeavor to produce a perspective predicatedon the study of thefluid interaction occurring in mediation rather than a taxonomic behavior
based approach. In other words, start from scratch and see what it is mediators do to help or
hinder the process and from those data findings devise and set of characteristics of effective
mediation encased within a theory of interaction. This approach to the study of mediation
interaction requires a special flexible theoretical origin such as that found in grounded theory11
(Glaser and Strauss, 1969) as well as a more robust method of data collection and analysis such
as that found in analytic induction12
(Znaniecki, 1934). The strength of analytic induction is that
it requires the researcher to employ both deductive and inductive iterative thinking instead of
more limited traditional positivistic driven deduction. The argument for induction is that the
subject matter focuses squarely on human interaction being the source for the creation of
interactive patterns. This is a more labor intensive approach and it can take several series of
observations to gather enough data before the researcher can go into the data and start to
examine it for associations and patterns that can be tested in the next round of data collection.
II. Insights from Bruce Lee and the World of Martial Arts InteractionBruce Lee was an inspirational actor, martial artist, and social philosopher. Like
Einstein and Maxwell, he initiated paradigmatic shifts in the martial arts and the relationship
of society toward martial arts. Lees work can be seen as a dramatic shift and expansion of
earlier treatises in martial arts, such as that of Sun Tzu. Sun Tzus work is essential in
understanding social conflict but it needed the paradigmatic shift introduced by Bruce Lee to
provide the benefits we now see form Lees work. Long before Bruce Lee there was Sun Tzu,
the ancient Chinese military general who is credited by many scholars as being the author of
The Art of War.13
This noted military masterpiece provides insightful lessons on how to
effectively win battles. At first blush The Art of War is a treatise on military strategy and yet
there is much more to it than first meets the eye. It is also a brilliant philosophical foundation
for the prevention and effective management of conflict.14
This assertion may seem odd to
some in the conflict intervention field. It is not meant to be provocative or to create
dissonance. All one has to do is first be open to reading it and second doing so with a focus on
conflict prevention a prime military strategy we might add to fully understand that much of
conflict interaction involves pre-conflict activity.
11Describe grounded theory
12Describe analytic induction strengths and weaknesses.
13Some scholars believe that The Art of War was written by Sun Tzu and later expounded upon by his descendent
Sun Bin. Others believe Sun Bin is the real author while still others believe the book includes commentary from
numerous unknown authors spanning many years after Sun Tsus death.
14 There are many translations of The Art of War that place emphasis on various aspects of Sun Tzus writing. One
translation that is approachable to many people is the translation by Thomas Cleary. See, Cleary, Thomas. (1988).
The Art of War Sun Tzu. Boston: Shambhala Press.
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
7/20
7 | P a g e
In the centuries since Sun Tzu wrote The Art of War many have adopted his principles
and lessons. Some have outright plagiarized his work while others have modified or used it as astarting point for similar work.
15Sun Tzu dispensed with wisdom that applies to many forms of
interaction. His advice on tactics and strategies is seen throughout history yet many of those
employing his ideas probably never heard of him. For instance, the tactical brilliance of
Alexander the Great is legendary. In some battles he was able to lure the opposing army into a
death trap by feigning strength where there was weakness and weakness where there was
strength on his front line. This often led to swift and decisive battle with a devastating outcome
for his unfortunate opponent. This tactic was explained by Sun Tzu centuries earlier and was
designed not only to keep the other party off balance but to gain time to consider other means
of disengaging the enemy. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of this sage advice
occurred in modern day boxing when Muhammad Ali employed his now famous rope-a-dope
strategy against George Foreman. Early in the fight Ali effectively lured Foreman into throwing
too many punches that both failed to score points or deliver the much desired knockout blow.
Alis strategy was simple; he leaned against the rope and protected his head during the earlyrounds and, when the time came, Ali surprised the now exhausted Foreman by coming back
with a flurry of body blows and head shots and knocked Foreman out. Ali feigned weakness
where there was strength. Foreman took the bait and fell into Alis trap. Why did Foreman fall
for this tactic and not see the strategy unfold before him? It is most likely because he was used
to the normal strategy of going about boxing, employing tried and tested strategies and
tactics. This one instance was more than a display of tactical genius. It was a game changer or
as Thomas Kuhn (1962) wrote in is seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a
paradigm shift in boxing strategy. The old way of going about normal problem solving
abruptly shifted. The rules of the game needed to be rewritten.
Yet, there still remains some degree of opposition to the study of people like Sun Tzu.
This is, we believe, either ignorance and unenlightened or an ideologically driven rejection that
only serves to narrow the ability of intervention practitioners and conflict scholars to grasp thefuller meaning of conflict interaction.
16Fortunately, both authors have spent years teaching
military officers conflict prevention, peace building, conflict intervention and conflict systems
15An excellent example or plagiarism and reinterpretation can be found in the work of military theorist Niccolo
Machiavellis. His interpretation of war a bit more ruthless. See Machiavelli, Niccolo, (1965) The Art of War
(Revised edition of Ellis Farneworth. New York: De Capo Paperback.
16An example should help clarify this tendency to reject all things military. One of the authors designed a graduate
course in the early 1990s entitled Philosophy and Social Issues of Conflict. The course examined several
philosophical schools of thought along with specific thinkers that impacted social theories of conflict origins and
conflict mitigation/resolution. One section of the course examined the philosophy developed by several military
thinkers that served to provide, among other things, strategic military advantage over adversaries. One such
author was Sun Tzu. What was troubling was the reaction by some of the faculty who, while paying some homage
to academic freedom, applied pressure not to include The Art of War in the class materials. One quoted Einstein
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war which totally missed the point which should have been
if you understand how to prevent war then you have some knowledge on how to construct peace.
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
8/20
8 | P a g e
analysis.17
What we have learned from our students is that most are naturals at conflict
analysts as it is their job to study both the normal routine means of problem solving and toanticipate the unforeseen nonobvious crisis where systems are overloaded or the means of
engagement are radically altered. So, for the moment lets be practical. The primary reason
military officers study and continually practice military strategies and tactics is for those times
when they will be called upon to use them. These exercises also encompass methods to reduce
exposure to unnecessary risks and this incorporates preventative strategies and tactics. Lets
also be real. There are many other ways to employ that knowledge short of battlefield
engagements to effectively manage conflict interactions. Indeed, the last thing the majority of
officers want to do is take their forces into battle. If politicians and public opinion leaders can
manage the crisis and keep the forces off the battlefield then more power to them.
If we put aside stereotypes and admit that the military is but one of several institutions
that play a role in violent interaction, then if we adopt a systems approach, it is easier to
identify the common links that bind these institutions together. This includes the way peoplethink, the way they create meaning and the language they use. This helps scholars and
practitioners of various form of conflict engagement in grasping a systems approach to large
scale social conflict and to recognize that symbolic interaction acts as a means to interpret
divergent ideas and piece them together into a broader and deeper framework within which to
examine, interpret and engage in conflict interaction.
Into the Modern Era with Bruce Lee
We can learn a great deal from thinkers and practitioners of other forms of conflict
interaction who have either been ignored or never seriously considered as worthy contributors
to the further understanding of conflict origins or conflict interaction. A prime example is the
late Bruce Lee, a master and notable promoter of numerous forms of the martial arts. Lee was
an inventor and experimenter with an entrepreneurial spirit who possessed as knack for
creative thinking. Lee, himself, constantly drew analogies between martial arts and socialinteraction. He didnt see interaction so much from a set of categorical forms but more so as a
fluid evolving exchange. This interpretation of interaction was indeed different from other
martial art philosophies. We speculate that if the late Thomas Kuhn were to have been asked
he would agree that Bruce Lee created a radical paradigm shift in the theoretical backbone of
the martial arts. Lee effectively changed the rules and as such the normal way of viewing the
world, making sense of it and, more importantly, the means by which to engage and solve
problems. At the time of his experimentation with various forms his revolution in thinking
revealed to many others a less ordered system. The way to navigate through the chaos was to
embrace flexibility, ingenuity and adaptation.
17Brian Polkinghorn has been teaching a course in peace building and conflict resolution with Ambassador John
McDonald at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University for seven years. Students in
this graduate program are officers who have been tapped to assume leadership command in their home countries.
As of fall 2012 they have had students from 24 countries. Brian Jarrett has been teaching members of the armed
force
Comment [BP2]: The following is Bria
(See the Pierre Burton interview on Yout
can draw on this and actually use his soc
commentary. Maybe we talk about Kuhn
up front here instead of dumping Kuhn o
reader at the end of the paragraph. Bruc
fact the Kuhn for marital arts.).
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
9/20
9 | P a g e
Not surprisingly, during his lifetime, the fighting techniques Lee developed defied
categorization within the prevailing taxonomy of styles found at that time within the martialarts. His innovation and improvement on prior art created not just chaos and controversy but
serious rivalries among him and purists of other styles and forms. Perhaps the best thing his
innovations did was to create a sense of dissonance in regard to the way things were ordered.
Dissonance can be good because it can, perhaps uncomfortable, focus thinking on the core
beliefs and values behind actions and ideas. It can be a highly personalized introspective
exercise that can have an impact on evolving social relations.
Lee created dissonance through his deliberately produced paradigm shifts. His unique
and distinct approach can be traced all the way back to the fundamental way he viewed
fighting. He developed a simple yet, in those days, radical philosophy that intently focused on
human means ofinteraction. While this line of thinking sounds simple, bland and obvious it
fundamentally challenged the prevailing hegemony behind the martial arts of his day. The
result was the eventual shift in the way practitioners approached various styles of the martialarts. In fact, Lee came to view styles of martial arts, in and of themselves, as a
counterproductive development that did nothing more than act as an artificial means to
separate people from one another rather than advance the overall art. So too, one might
argue, this may be the case for any form of social interaction (in this case mediation) that
becomes atomized by established habits and traditions that eventually lead to a hegemony
leading to a new style. Examples abound in many fields of human interaction. For instance,
within the realm of clinical psychology there have developed multiple clinical techniques
predicated on specific theoretical concepts and associated models. Indeed, various schools of
thought have grown out of these different stylistic approaches to clinical work and therapy.
Each correctly claims to hold a unique set of ideals that act as the building blocks of the core
concepts that provide a specific focus to interaction. These conceptual lenses also act as a
means to create particular interactive traits.18
Bruce Lee recognized that various forms of the martial arts began with specific
approaches to interaction that subsequently impact style. Yet, when looking at interaction in
its totality he saw that no one style appeared to capture the essence of the totality of
interaction. The defensive martial arts were reactionary by nature. Some of these styles were
carried out not so much to fully interact with the opponent going from defense to offense and
so on but, as he said, to perform for a group of judges sitting nearby. Yet other martial arts,
while also defensive in nature, are also used more so for meditation and exercise. Still other
forms of martial arts rely on a particular set of favored tactics and associated means such as
throwing, punching, kicking or use of specific weapons. Lee came to see these forms of
interaction as being part of the larger repertoire needed to fully interact and engage others.
Lee even went outside the martial arts to study human interaction. He spent countless hours
watching and studying Mohamed Ali's boxing tapes and incorporated some of Alis footwork
and punching techniques into his skill set. Lee also observed the forms and footwork of
18(Place a footnote here a brief discussion on various clinical schools, Rogerian, Freudian, etc.)
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
10/20
10 | P a g e
champion fencers and how they were able to lunge and attack. He even observed wrestling as
another form of interaction.19
Taking from these forms he developed a more encompassingapproach to interaction. In fact, to accompany his new repertoire of interaction Lee had to
change both his strategic and tactical thinking. In many ways, Lee was creating not just a new
way to interact but along with it a new starting point for a new set of rules.
We have seen how when rules are changed radical shifts can arise in relations among
parties. In a similar line of thinking Napoleon Bonaparte studied the tactics and strategies of
the great ancient generals such as Hannibal, Alexander the Great and Scipio Africanus and
incorporated various tactics and strategies into his own knowledge base and skill set. While
Napoleon knew Alexander was a great tactician and could command at will on the battle field,
it was the ability to mix up the engagement on the field, in essence to interrupt the interaction
of battle, that Napoleon knew created strategic advantage. Indeed, while Napoleon rampaged
around Europe for several years using new tactics and strategies to defeat enemies almost at
will he did not believe as though he had actually own any battle on his own accord. He wassimply plugging in the lessons he learned from the great generals of days gone by. It wasnt
until the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805 where Napoleon led a brilliant tactical tour-de-force and
destroyed a much larger army that commanded superior strategic battle field advantage.20
Napoleon was both a tactical and strategic genius and this is the usual explanation for the
decisive, brazen and shocking victory. What is often left unstated is that Napoleon didnt play
by the so called rules of engagement. He changed the rules of engagement on the battle field
and essentially forced other armies into playing his game thus allowing him to use his tactical
and strategic game plan to his advantage.
In short, Bruce Lee developed a form of interaction that borrowed elements from many
martial arts and other forms of interaction to create a new or hybrid or improved but not
wholly unique repertoire of skills and associated rules of interaction. This form of interaction
seems to operate on several ideas. The first is that it took into consideration, as its starting
point, the interaction dynamics one is experiencing at the time and this led to the second that is
to repair back to various tactics and strategies that meet the particular interaction which could
entail a slew of defensive and offensive moves. With practice, this form of interaction can be
repetitive and similar to muscle memory. Yet, Lee goes further. His thinking also left room for
innovation and improvisation. This is where Lee changed the rules on many purists.
If we adopt interaction as Lees key focus relating to how humans engage then Kung Fu
and mediation have a lot more in common than one might think at first blush. In any physical
contest one can observe the physical waxing and waning of energy between the parties, ie., the
expression of yin and yang energy. At one instance one party may become more aggressive
19If Bruce Lee were alive today one might speculate that he would have intently studied hip hop and break
dancing.20
To be fair Napoleon took advantage of terrain and weather conditions that he took note of the night before the
battle.
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
11/20
11 | P a g e
and in another his opponent who was previously yielding may now press the action forth. This
can go back and forth through many rounds with patterns of initiation and yielding constantlyshifting with the movement of the parties.
Applying the metaphor of this exchange to mediation, we can begin to think of the
verbal and non-verbal exchanges in mediation as asserting (yang) and yielding (yin) patterns
just like one would oberve in a fight. And the pattern of yin-yang energy appears to emerge
and dissipate in complex but predictable patterns. Meeting yang energy with yang energy is
disastrous just as meeting yin energy with yin energy can be. Knowing when to yield or press
forth is the mark of the true expert in martial arts. The metaphor of Chi (or Ki) helps us to
understand that the energy of each fighter is tapped from a larger source and expressed
through each fighter. The fighter themselves are the embodiment of Chi in action as they
struggle back and forth to conquer the other.
III. Applying Insights from the Quantum Universe and Martial Arts to Mediation.(we have to add the application of the physics metaphors into this section they
parallel the martial arts insights so we can connect them here with acitivity in mediaiotn). I
think we might have three subsections in this Part III.)
Because mediation takes place in a physical field there is no reason to assume that
encounters in mediation are not subject to the same principles, forces, and patterns that are
are emerging in the discipline of new physics. At the very least, we have to admit a useful
metaphorical connection. One might even consider if it is possible to create an informed social
physics of mediation. (footnote Emile Durkheim and his failed attempt at a social physics
because of the limitation of the Newtonian paradigm) . Furthermore, the forces, waves,
patterns, complexity emerging in the quantum world appear to resonate with much thinking in
the martial arts world. We believe that practice in mediation can benefit from the application
of theoretical developments in the former.
In many respects mediation, along with the discipline of physics and martial arts. all
attempt to understand and navigate interactions. All tackle complexity with countless
variations in activity and thus there are many tactics and strategies that can be taught and
developed that impact mediation dynamics. For the mediation participants we can teach
effective communication, negotiation strategies and collaborative problem solving skills and for
the third party intervener we can add to that list further training in effective intervention
techniques and process management knowledge, skills and abilities. Now, depending on a
mediator's approach to the interaction she can, and often does, whether consciously or not,
choose to adopt a particular philosophy that frames the way she prefers to interact with
participants. From this she can choose to adopt one set of tactics over another. Likewise, she
can choose not to incorporate a set of tactics and strategies as she sees fit. The question is
why? Why do some mediators choose to adopt a particular set of tactics, skills and strategies?
Is it because it fits their philosophy of interaction? Does it fit their level of experience and skill
Comment [BP3]: Howe about if you t
at this section and then we can chat abo
the idea but am not sure how to pdoceed
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
12/20
12 | P a g e
set or their personality and character? Does it match their previous experience as a mediator?
Is it required by rules, codes of ethics or some other external mechanism one needs to abide tobe a mediator? These are reasonable and predictable areas of inquiry but less obvious is to ask
do mediators take into consideration the stated process needs of the parties when making
these decisions? Do parties drive the process in any way or are they merely passive passengers
within the process as it moves along driven by the mediatorto given outcome? If all the parties
are enfranchised and engaged is this a more desirable or meaningful way to interact?
A. Mapping the Predictable Dynamics of Interaction (and the Development ofProfessional Habitus)
It is worth noting that for every process there is an outcome and if the process is
modified we can to some degree manipulate the range of potential outcomes. So if the parties
are interacting in a way that suits their needs and this drives the process then we might
hypothesize that this interaction might produce different outcomes than those being driven
primarily by the rules imposed on them by a third party. Some argue that participant impact on
how the process operates can lead to manipulation that pre-exists between the parties. In
other words, parties can reproduce the dynamics that got them into the dispute or conflict in
the first place within the mediation session. This is party driven process manipulation and
something the field has been good about recognizing and perhaps attending too.21
For instance
asymmetric power relationships can be the source of much discord among parties. Early
theorists, such as Burton, when talking about international conflict, chided practitioners by
saying the production of artificial conditions with mediation would not change conditions on
the ground and could, in fact, be unethical. The more pressing query is if we recognize real life
conditions such as power differences exist among parties then how is it we dont recognize that
same with mediators who control the process and hence the outcome? Basic research on
reactivity (cite) impression management (cite) and even the Hawthorne effect (cite) indicates
that the mere presence of a third party is enough to cause participants to modify their
demeanor, conduct and behavior. Taking that into consideration one might open up the
debate on whether or how parties already do manipulate the process. Regardless of how these
debates conclude the primary concept that is present in all of this is interaction.
If the mediator is an agent that can choose among many forms of interactions then it
should be reasonable to assume the same of the parties. If this same ability is afforded to the
parties then the question becomes whose philosophy and rules of interaction will prevail or
how will different philosophies of interaction be moderated? Mediators can, and often do,
provide a time/space oasis (cite Klease) for parties to safely, and with dignity, work through
issues. This is the ideal circumstance to develop but what if the mediator is employing an
approach that doesn't resonate with the parties? What if the mediator is dragging the process
21
However, substituting third party hegemony onto the parties is another form of manipulation that can or likely does impact mediation interaction and outcomes. The prevailing thought is structured interaction (mediator styles aside) if handled
properly, can produce desirable outcomes but who is to say that creating an artificial problem solving environment might not
produce harm when the parties re-enter the conflict zone?
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
13/20
13 | P a g e
out sometimes over many sessions to the point the parties beg the mediator to stop and
just help them decide on issues? What then? Is the mediator, who is going through the artfulmotions of a particular style actually interfering with the resolution of the dispute as the parties
wish to have it conducted and concluded? What about other styles that impede the process as
the parties wish to have it conducted? What then?
This is precisely where the thinking of Bruce Lee comes into play and where highly
trained and fully seasoned mediators can inform the field of modifications on the art of
intervention and how this impacts the science and study of mediation. Having worked with
individuals who have had more than 40 years experience at the table it was enjoyable to see
how comfortable they were with their means of interacting and how they would quickly
moderate their interaction based on subtle cues from the parties.22
Just as in a dance some
party may wish to lead for a while on an issue and then another may step in and take over. An
inexperienced mediator may see this and want to pull the parties back into the pre-conceived
process at the stage or phase she is in at the time in order to maintain control and keep theinteraction moderated within the given mediation style. Or, the mediator may regulate parties
behavior that disrupts their ability to convey what they mean (i.e. the content and feeling of
their message) using their own language or the mediator may frame issues in a manner that the
parties are uncomfortable with or reject. Experienced mediators that we know modify their
behavior to come more into line with that of the parties rather than the other way around.
Bruce Lee, Napoleon and many mediators think a lot alike. They know the tactics and
strategies from particular styles within their specific art (martial arts, war and mediation) and
choose to incorporate them when called upon and to not let these tools drive the process.
More importantly, a seasoned mediator might let the dynamics at the table and the needs of
22A close friend of one of the authors was a highly respected practitioner with 44 years experience at the
bargaining table. Some of his exploits with (in)famous figures or high profile disputes are near legendary. With so
much time at the table he picked up many ideas, tactics and strategies that are rarely found in textbooks, trainingmaterials or even in the negotiation research. By working with him he taught the art of intervention at the master
level. However, in addition to picking up good ideas and skills used to keep the process moving along, to break
impasse and create and support turning points in the negotiation among other things, he may have also picked up,
as some in my previous department indicated, bad habits which the authors find much more instructive. These
less desirable traits were often branded as bad by faculty in the local university conflict resolution department not
because they impeded the process or led to sub-optimal agreements but because the other faculty saw his
behavior/conduct as violating the tenets of some stylistic model their teleological ideal of what the ideal
mediator shoulddo. Never mind that when working with him, and watching how he would deliberately and quite
often violate some of these sacred tenets, the parties would neither object nor did i t ever lead to impasse but
more often to a mutually agreed upon solution. This story gets worse. It ends with a struggle between the
advancement of knowledge and skill development versus orthodoxy. Under the instruction of one of the authors a
masters student wrote his thesis on the seasoned practitioner friend that had in its title Breaking All the Rules
and the response by some of the faculty, none of whom mediated, was swift, predictable and severe. They
insisted that the thesis not be accepted while others were less strident and insisted that it not be placed in the
library. The sole reason given is that the conduct of the mediator who was highly successful and sought after bydisputants in his arena of practice did not fall into line with the teachings (orthodoxy) of the department.
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
14/20
14 | P a g e
the parties dictate the utilization of a range of tactics and strategies. Through long practice in
their craft and, in conjunction with the intent study through the scientific investigation in thiscase largely experiential, Lee and Napoleon came to adopt a more flexible and intuitive form of
interaction that relies a good deal on immediate assessment of current conditions. This just in
time response to unfolding dynamics allowed them to select a high probability interaction,
perhaps independent of an alleged style of the behavior. So Bruce Lee may, in the matter of a
few short moments, show us the kicking, punching and throwing of various styles within the
martial arts as well as moves that come various styles of boxing or fencing. His hybrid adaptive
approach is predicated on a skill set that appreciates those tactics and strategies that come
from many more conditioned or disciplined approaches.
The logic here is unique to the more highly specific or specialized forms of interaction.
Some might argue that constraints need to be imposed to maintain an expectation that
consumers of mediation can understand. Basic tenets of mediation are not abandoned with
flexibility. What is being examined here more closely though is the notion that people whosteadfastly adhere to a style may rightfully, in their own mind and morals, be staying within a
given line of conduct which is consistent and therefore known. The question simply becomes
is this the most effective means of assisting parties? If it is not, then flexibility needs to become
one of the basic tenets of mediation. Lee genuinely appears to appreciate this thinking about
flexibility but instead of placing the cognitive emphasis first on the style of interaction he is
placing the focus on the interaction itself and from there choosing the most appropriate skill or
tactic to interact with others. His approach allows for function to be followed by form and not
the other way around. Adherents to more disciplined styles of mediation often put structure
ahead of function and this is where problems can arise.
B. Applying the Chi (or Ki) Metaphor in MediationDiscussion on patterned emergence waxing and waning of energy. Implications for
mediation. Ripness etc. When to mediate? Implications for activity/joint session/caucus inmediation. Etc. Kurt Lewins force field analysis. Directing energy. Notions of leadership in
mediation etc. Mediation juijitsu. Stepping out of the way. Using the energy in the parties to
steer the process. Aikido moves. We can refer a little to theories in Aikido. I have a few ideas
here I will share.
C. Implications for Reflexive PracticeHere we would end on the reflexive practice note. Everybody at the conferences where I have
been presenting love when I introduce this reflexive practice notion. Discuss how it is more
grounded and how it gives rise to greater theory development. The nothing-is-practical-as- a-
good-theory-idea.
Degree of directivness
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
15/20
15 | P a g e
Instrumentalism moves designed to produce a particular result versus moves opening the
field of problem definition.
We might want to use refer to the Riskin Grid here.
In summary, if we adopt the idea that by first taking interaction as the primary focus of
analysis and examine the dynamics of interaction within mediation, then the mediator can
adapt his mediation knowledge and skills more closely to the parties interaction and needs. In
this regard not only is form (in this case flexibility) driving function (mediation intervention) it
is also driving structure (mediator styles, mediation processes stages) and aligns more so with
the philosophy and perspective of Bruce Lee.
Conclusion
(Need to develop this here. I just put this paragraph in for now.)
We realize that we are adopting an unusual theoretical perspective to frame the exploration of
mediation interaction but in so doing we hope to recast the debate that has arisen over the last
20 years regarding mediation styles and to focus more so on the dynamics of the mediation
process. Our main hypothesis is that mediation styles can often act as rigid prescriptions on
interaction and therefore may not capture the give and take and flexible nature that occurs in a
mediation interaction. We also believe that some mediator styles are cast in professional or
ideological value systems and while this is understandable we know of no theoretical
framework that simply focuses on interaction that emphasizes flexibility. The best way to makethis point is to construct a set of properties or principles of a variety of mediator styles
(behavior frameworks) and test them in live mediation and see what consensus analysis of the
data provides.23
Another is to change the focus of investigation altogether. In this article we
have chosen the latter. In so doing we have gone outside the field of third party intervention
for inspiration to recast the debate and believe that insight from the quantum world that find
resonance in the world of martial arts are instructive for mediators and the development of
mediation theory and practice. (need to rework this significantly).
(A lot of the ideas below can be footnoted or infused under our general organization above.
Even habitus we may leave to a footnote because it is not the main thrust of the article. Your
thoughts?)
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
16/20
16 | P a g e
Rest of paper
1. What do we mean by third party? How does it differ from second and firstparties?
a. Traditional characteristics of a third partyi. Stated strengths and reasons behind these characteristics
ii. Limitations of these characteristics2. Discussion on Major Mediator Styles BRIAN this is where you can really plug
in some good stuff (and characteristic behaviors that make them distinct)
maybe we can develop a chart to show it in quick form?
a. Philosophical strengths as made by proponents3. Comparing the Art and Science of Mediation to the Branding of Styles - BRIAN
this is also a good place for us to talk. While we dont need to go into detail we
can talk about the industry that has sprung up around various styles.
a. How does adherence to a style unwittingly stymie the art of intervention?b. How does interaction impact the study of mediation (art impacts
science)?
c. How does the adoption of an adaptive and flexible approach tomediation impact the art and science of mediation? How does this type
of action research and experimentation help advance the practice?
4.
Giving it a whirl examining mediator tactics and behaviors (research results)
5. What do we mean by third party? Revisiteda. Redefining the characteristics of the third party
i. Expanding the characteristics (neutral, outsider), skills, rules,behavioral boundaries and structure of third party interaction
6. Impact on researcha. Deductive confirmation of styles measuring mediator behavior using
pre-determined codes or measures
b. Inductive examination of dynamic interaction within mediation let thepatterns, behaviors, skills one observes be used to create a series ofpatterns that lead to models. These can then be compared to the models
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
17/20
17 | P a g e
associated with mediator styles and the reconciliation process can then
occur.
c. Analytic Induction employing a deductive-inductive loop to studymediator interaction (explore, discover, cluster results, modify back to
explore, discover, cluster results, modify, and so on.)
A Final Caution Fusion and Fission
Keep an open mind, be flexible and try anything once.
Variation and experimentation are found throughout nature. It helps to maintain the
survival of species. While 95% of a species may cluster in a location that is, for the time being,
safe and meets other survival needs, the remaining 5% are off exploring other terrain to their
individual peril. Why some animals in a species explore is not fully understood but one thing is
clear; if the original colony comes under attack or the hospitable location of the colony goesbad, it is these selfless wanderers within the species who serve the vital role of keeping the
species from going extinct. So while some animals may tend to cluster and survive, others will
roam and discover. Those that cluster are undergoing a process of fusion and those that
wander are undergoing a process of fission. Both fusion (coming together) and fission (moving
apart) are necessary in the way people think and behave. The cautionary tale is that if the
practice of mediation moves too quickly toward clustering around certain styles, without the
benefit testing contextually derived ideas (e.g. needs of the parties, dynamics at the table)
then, for better or worse, the tendency will be to caste our lot in fewer options and drive the
field into limited style camps. We see this to some degree today. We see institutes, training
camps and conferences dedicated solely to one style of mediation yet we see no evidence of
mediation being expressed through the larger, broader lens of interaction. The tendency to
narrow our cognitive focus and thus limit interaction serves to limit the utility of the style.
However, in a cynical way, it also serves to distinguish one style from another. It serves tocreate a brand and, from that, a set of adherents. To develop a brand of mediation off a
particular a style and to support it as a dominant theme can, and does, come at the cost of not
realizing the benefits that other "styles" have to offer the parties in their dispute.
Theoretical Framework
Habitus Yes, I think we can develop habitus and expand it as norms like Durheim might have
thought about that. Norms relating to how professional capital is developing in the mediation
field. Instead of social rules we can develop the idea of practice rules and demonstrate that
while sometimes useful they can overly restrict practice and protocol.
Pierre Bourdieu developed the theoretical construct of the habitus which can bedefined as the set of socially learned dispositions, skills and ways of acting that are often taken
for granted, and which are acquired through the activities and experiences of everyday life.
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
18/20
18 | P a g e
Habitus applies to many forms of interaction largely at the social group level. The theory states
that teachers, police or construction workers develop a shared habitus with others in their fieldas do some members of ethnic, gender or racial groups. Habitus can be applied to institutional
cultures such as religious communities or educational institutions where the regulation of
interaction tends to develop over a period of time to include not only formal rules but informal
traditions that predispose people to act and behave in a certain manner.
The notion of habitus can also be applied to professional groups such as lawyers, social worker
and physicians wherein professional norms and rules are present alongside a set of traditions
that regulate the conduct of those in the profession as they go about their business. In fact,
other institutions often reinforce these norms through external certification and licensure or by
the establishment of laws. In many regards habitus can be applied to many individuals who
partake in some organized group activity and mediators are no exception.
Even though there is a rather wide variation in the practice of mediation, not just in skill but in
the background of the practitioners, one can often detect the habitus by simply asking
mediators what they do. However, just as in the clinical psychology realm, mediators may
provide a general description of what they do as well as perhaps some specific activities, tactics
for skills that may place them in a sub-set of a mediator. This is one way to begin to assume
first a common thread among mediators and second to begin to appreciate the development of
different styles or schools of thought on the practice of mediation.
Each mediation style has a set of values that underpin the reasoning or justification for the
conduct and activities of the mediator. So, in one sense, the distinction between various
mediation styles may have less to do with what tools are being used but more so with the
reasons behind why certain mediation tools or skills are being chosen to be used in the first
place.
In this sense these rules can establish a subset of the overall mediation habitus that can beexpressed both as a conscious set of rules as well as a set of ideas that may not be fully
articulated but that are nonetheless present and impact the dynamics of the mediation setting.
In some sense then, the mediation habitus is formed as much by formal indoctrination as it is
by the practice of direct sensory interaction.
From Habitus to Hegemony cautionary tale #2
Here is another theoretical underpinning that may lead to unintended consequences.
Mediation styles can evolve into brands by manipulating aspects of the habitus and turning
desired parts of it into hegemony. This hegemony in turn serves to create orthodoxy within
certain fields of mediation that then generates the development of specific theoretical lenses
and associated language and perhaps even into dogma. Then, from this lens we see why
mediators of certain alleged styles do what they do.
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
19/20
19 | P a g e
We can then also caution that these lens not only impact how interaction is interpreted but
how mediators act and influence the dynamics between the parties which means we doproduce reactivity even if we dont want to admit it. We do, through our mediation styles,
impact the process dynamics and outcomes. We do, through interaction, influence parties.
7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett
20/20
20 | P a g e
References
Cropper, William (2001). Great Physicists: The Life and Times of Leading Physicists from Galileo
to Hawking. New York: Oxford University Press.
Glaser, Barney and Anselm Strauss (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company
Heisenberg The Uncertainty Principle
Isaacson, Walter. (2007). Einstein: His Life and Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kuhn, Thomas. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second Edition. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Mann, Michael. (2012). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Line.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Popper, Karl. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations, London: Routledge and Keagan Paul.
Sapp, Jan (1999). What is Natural? Coral Reef Crisis. New York: Oxford University Press.Schroedinger (we may mention)
Znaniecki, Florian. (1934). The Method of Sociology. New York: Rinehart.
Recommended