For a few decades now, interactive problem solving and dialogue, with their many variations and adaptations, have been central forms of conflict resolution practice worldwide. These methods focus on the process of relationship building between or among the conflict parties or on interactive forms of generating new solutions for addressing existing problems. One taken-for-granted assumption in all these methods is the presence of identifiable parties to conflict.
Many contemporary conflicts, however, are fully or partially fought not between but within states and the identities of the parties involved are not clearly delineated or defined. Somalia and Colombia come to mind as such cases, as do most of the recent conflicts in the Middle East broadly associated with the Arab Spring. The question this dissertation aims to answer is: how can the interactive problem-solving or dialogue be adapted to the contemporary intra-state conflicts where sizable parts of the population do not identify themselves with any of the parties engaged in violent conflict? How can the voices of these populations be brought into the conflict resolution process without assigning them to either of the sides that perpetuate violence? What could be some of the principles guiding such multi-party dialogues to ensure that the intervention, which helps constructively address existing divisions, does not force anyone into pre-defined categories and does not contribute itself to deepening of divisions? And what can this non-dualistic approach contribute to problem-solving in presumed two-party environments?