Conceptual and Research Directions

Theoretically, the social ecological frame­work may be used in conjunction with other intercultural/interpersonal communication theories such as expectancy violations the­ory (Burgoon & Ebesu Hubbard, 2005), coordinated management of meaning the­ory (Pearce, 2005), communication privacy management theory (Petronio & Durnham, 2008), and/or conflict face negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, 2005b).

From the macrolevel analysis, how does globalization shape the changing nature of global versus local cultural values and how does the change translate downward to the interpersonal conflict response level? What are some shifting cultural value dimensions that created further face threats along each macro, exo, meso, micro, and intergenerational level? How do the contrastive religious and politi­cal ideologies between two enemy nations or polarized cultural communities affect their assessments of fairness, justice, power, duties, obligations, and rights’ issues? How does intergroup history affect the interpretation of the particular conflict case and filter down­ward to taint the prejudiced lens of out-group and in-group members? How do individuals in a cultural community assert movement and change upward at each level and demand social justice and equality for societal disen­franchised groups?

On the exolevel, for example, how does the courtroom system project and deliver legal fairness and justice to the alleged accused and the victim? What role does the law enforce­ment perform from the neighborhood com­munity standpoint? What role does the social media play in shaping or priming the opinions of the mass public concerning a conflict news case? What constitute some critical turning point of “face-threatening or face-honoring” events that contribute to the developmen­tal face negotiation processes of the under­privileged or the marginalized groups in this conflict case? Who form alliances with the disenfranchised group and what are their membership motivations? Who are framed as the in-groups or out-groups in this particular conflict situation?

On the mesolevel, how does the immediate community or family members rally around the conflict members? How does the immedi­ate neighborhood react in support or rejec­tion of the alleged accused or conflict victim? What are the multiple voices that are being expressed in witnessing this particular con­flict case? What are the multiple voices that are being muted or remained silenced? How do the various family members decode the emerging conflict events and news and what respective roles do they play in the conflict intervention process?

On the microlevel, how do the conflict parties themselves view the unfolding con­flict turning points? How do they engage in strategic intercultural facework negotiation? What parts do ethnocentrism, prejudice, and privileged lens play in the negotiating of an intergroup team conflict process? How do team members or different status role mem­bers manipulate power or gain power pro­ductively? How do they engage in dialogue or monologue in the conflict negotiation process?

Furthermore, we believe that it is not enough to merely include contextual features in the new intercultural conflict model. We need to further understand and explain the hows and the whys and under what conditions the bottom-up effects are the most effective in cueing construc­tive peace-building processes and movements at the macrolevels.

Methodologically, since social ecological theorizing processes are still at its fermenta­tion stage in the intercultural conflict com­munication field, we believe interpretive, critical, and quantitative methods are all well suited to address different levels of conflict analysis pending on the research questions asked (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2011). More important, a social ecological lens attempts to add breadth and depth of understand­ing the nuanced complexities of conflict communication from a situated, multiple voice perspective. Both international insider and outsider research collaborative efforts are needed to understand the rich fabric of the different designs, patterns, and colorful threads that constitute the interdependent social ecological system in which the particu­lar intercultural conflict occurs. Indigenous narrative, critical action, cross-cultural com­parative, and intergroup perspectives are urgently needed for us to truly understand the multiple voices, stories, and dynamics of competent versus incompetent conflict nego­tiation practice.

Conclusions

By applying some of the core principles and themes of the social ecological framework, the framework focuses our attention toward the “holistic picture” and the “layering, embed­ded contexts” that frame the various con­flict dynamics, decisions, and outcomes. Core theoretical concepts such as top-down effects, bottom-up effects, sideway effects, and inter­action effects help fill in the complex, inter­dependent nature of the links and loops in a complex intercultural conflict case history.

It appears vital that international and inter­ethnic researchers and practitioners should come together to listen, to dialogue, and to inquire about the potential promises and challenges of the newly developed CBSECM.

Intercultural conflict intelligence demands conflict parties to use a transformational out­look in analyzing the conflict situation from a multiple-layering perspective. It emphasizes the importance of communicating appropri­ately, effectively, and ethically in approaching culture-based conflict crises with wisdom, courage, and humanism. It demands self­reflexivity and other reflectivity on multiple levels of mindful conflict analysis. It prompts conflict parties to develop their imaginative capacities to feel, to see, to listen, to learn, and to dialogue from the borderlands and the mul­tidimensional (i.e., micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrolevels) spaces in understanding the deep layered meanings and the embedded sociohis- torical messages of a complex intercultural- intergroup conflict case.