1. MA Community and Youth Work Dissertation
Title:
Structured Online Intergroup Contact Using Pictures
Through a Third Party
“An action research; investigating a structured online intergroup
contact using pictures, between a young person from Palestine and
a young person from Israel, through a young person from the UK.”
Student code: Z0966218
Word Count: 10,947
Date of Submission: September 2016

2. 2
Acknowledgments
I acknowledge that this dissertation is my work, and I assure that my personal background and
nationality did not affect the way participants, their data or the findings and discussions are
dealt with.
I am very thankful for everyone whom I met in my life so far, without you I would not be able
to learn, question and break the structures in my mind.
I am very grateful for my family and friends for supporting me in this journey. I acknowledge
that this dissertation was the most interesting academic learning experience I ever had. Special
thanks to my supervisor Andrew Orton and all the people working in the Department of
Community and Youth work at Durham University for their support during this year.
Finally, Thanks for the individuals and organizations that were brave enough and
wholeheartedly contributed to my data collection: The British Youth Council North East in the
UK, Peace and Freedom Youth Forum in Palestine and The Jerusalem Intercultural Center in
Israel.

3. 3
Abstract
This research was initiated with a motivation to investigate a structured online contact between
two young persons, one from Palestine and the other, Israeli, via a young person from the UK.
Six young people (2 from each country) participated in the application of the Structured Online
Intergroup Contact model, and they were put into two groups. In each group the participants
pretended to be working in a news agency. The UK young person takes the role of an editor,
who sends tasks using a predefined text via emails to both the Palestinian and the Israeli
Journalists. Both Journalists have to find the meaning of each task using pictures and send it to
the editor. The editor had to exchange the responses of both participants.
This concept is relevant to the online use of Contact Hypothesis between conflicting reduce
intergroup biases. The use of the third party to start the contact and the use of pictures to create
an online dialogue concerns the building of consciences in Critical Pedagogy theories.
The four main findings of the research:
1- The problems of online learning that uses pictures only.
2- The potential of using Image Theatre for self-reflection and online dialogue in small
groups.
3- The advantages of making a contact between one Palestinian and one Israeli via a third
person in reducing ingroup-outgroup anxiety.
4- The potential of using this concept as a new tool for non-violent online activism for the
third party.
The conclusion and the recommendations of the research are presented as an imagination of
structured online platform for intergroup contact by creating groups of one Palestinian, one
Israeli and one international.

4. 4
Table of content
Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................... 2
Abstract......................................................................................................................................3
Table of content.......................................................................................................................... 4
Acronyms and Abbreviations......................................................................................................5
Chapter One: Introduction.........................................................................................................6
Chapter Two: Methadology........................................................................................................8
Chapter Three: Theoritical Freamework and Literature Review............................................. 16
Chapter Four: Findings and Discusion..................................................................................... 23
Chapter Five:Conclusion and Recommendations...................................................................... 34
References:............................................................................................................................... 35
Appendices:.............................................................................................................................. 42
Appendix I: Structured Online Intergroup Contact Model................................................... 42
Appindex II: Tables .............................................................................................................. 51
Appendix III: InterviewGuid ............................................................................................... 52
Appendix IV: Palestinian and Israeli Particpants Interviews................................................ 53
Appendix V: UK Participants Interviews.............................................................................. 59
Appendix VI: Consent Form................................................................................................. 64
Appendix VII: Particpant’s Information Sheet..................................................................... 67
Appendix VIII: Approved Ethical Form............................................................................... 70

5. 5
Acronyms and Abbreviations
SOICM: Structured Online Intergroup Contact Model.
AR: Action Research
CMC: Computer Mediated Communication
IT: Image Theatre
CP: critical pedagogy.
IDF: Israeli Defence Forces
FtF: Face to Face

6. 6
Chapter One
Introduction
I. Introduction and Research Problem:
Creswell (2003) encouraged qualitative researchers to include in the research reports their
feelings, thoughts, biases, and motivations.
In July 2014, I participated in organizing a march from Ramallah toward Jerusalem using
a social media campaign; the march was called 48thousands March. It aimed to show
solidarity with people in Gaza. It was the biggest rally in the West Bank since 20 years.
The Israeli military handled the March with excessive use of armed force. That night turned
into a nightmare with the death of a 17-year-old Palestinian, and over 200 injuries among
the Palestinian protestors (972mag.com, 2016)
I will never forget that night: experiencing the power of the people when they come
together, yet mixed with the pain and the guilt of bloodshed. I have no power to protect the
people whom I called to participate. What can we do to change the reality? Till when could
we stop losing innocent lives in face of this illegal occupation according to the international
law (see Securitycouncilreport.org, 2016)? How to protect vulnerable and innocent people
from both sides? Hundreds of questions were running through my head for the next months
in retrospect, until one idea diverted me to progress in thinking again: ‘Maybe the Israelis
cannot hear us? Maybe they are brainwashed by their media and politics? How can we
make them see our perspectives?’
These questions forced me think that we need to create mass communication with the
Israelis. However, how is this possible when there are walls and checkpoints, when there
is no common language, when there are hatred and propaganda from both sides. This is a
profound and complex historical conflict with religious, cultural, social and international
dimensions and roots. In November 2015, I did a talk about student movements in Palestine
at Durham University, and a person from the audience asked me: “What we can do as an
international community to help solve this conflict?” I answered her immediately: “I do
not know.” Reflecting on her question alongside my idea of creating communication
between Israelis and Palestinians using social media, I came up with the concept of this
research: What if an international third-party created this communication?
From that moment, I decided to dedicate my MA research in community and youth work
to investigate the experience of establishing this communication with young people aged
18 to 29 from UK, Palestine, and Israel.
II. Relevance of the research:
I believe that this investigation is relevant to youth work purpose, whereas, creating online
informal contact between young people can “[encourage] their personal, social and
political development by enabling and empowering them to have a voice and influence in
their communities and society” (NYA, 2016, p.3)

7. 7
III. Research Aim and Objectives:
Aim:
The purpose of this research is to analyze the perspectives of 6 young people, aged 18 to
29, from Palestine, Israel, and the UK, about their experience in the application of the
Structured Online Intergroup Contact Model (SOICM). I designed SOICM specifically for
this research, with an aim to create an indirect contact between two young people from
conflict groups (Palestine and Israel) through a third party (a young person from the UK).
Objectives:
1- To apply the SOICM with six young people from Palestinian, Israeli and UK.
2- To analyse and discuss their perspectives about their experience in the SIOCM.
3- To conclude and suggest recommendations for future research and applications that
are interested in creating online intergroup contact between Palestinians and
Israelis.
IV. Research questions:
Marx (1997) suggested different possible sources that can help formulate the research
questions. One of these sources can be the motivation of the researcher and a social
problem. Therefore, the question of this research is built based on my personal experience,
motivation, and a social issue (how to create a new contact between Palestinians and
Israelis young people).
Main question:
What are the perspectives of those six research subjects? Who participated in indirect email
communication, using pictures and predefined text, between a young person from Palestine
and a young person from Israel via a young person from the UK. While, pretending to be
journalists appointed by the young person from the UK, to make visual reports about four
topics: (Love, Fun, Freedom and their future)?
Sub-questions: See the interview guide in Appendix (III)
V. Structure of the research:
The following Chapter will discuss the methodology of research by explaining what
philosophy, approaches, and methods are employed, and how population sampling, data
collection, and analysis are designed. In Chapter three, I shall shape the theoretical
framework and present relevant literature. In Chapter Four, the data is analyzed from which
the findings are stemmed. Finally, in chapter five, I shall conclude and offer
recommendations for researchers and practitioners.

8. 8
Chapter Two
Methodology
I- Introduction:
This chapter is about outlining and justifying the philosophy and the methods I used in this
research. I will highlight the ethical considerations I took to protect myself and the
participants.
Two factors have shaped the philosophy and the methodologies in this research:
1- Limitation of the Study:
This research is limited to only 11,000 words and five months’ duration from the
moment of having the ethical committee approval till the submission date.
2- Participants involvement:
I tried to find out if there is an existing model that was applied to create online contact
between Palestinian and Israelis with the support of a third party. Since I found no such
example, I thought about designing it in cooperation with the participants, or with other
practitioners. However, this will make the research more complex, as it will lead to
generating two types of primary data: the data about the model designing process and
the data about the application of the model, which I cannot do in such a small research.
Therefore, I chose to focus on the data produced by the application of the model, as this
is more connected to my aim and I was able to design the model by myself.
II- Research Approach:
A- Paradigm
Research is a harmonic and consistent process of investigation (Burns, 2000; Mackenzie
and Knipe, 2006). Before discussing the methodology of this study, it is worth defining the
philosophical framework of the research or what is called “Paradigm” (Mertens, 2005;
Bogdan and Biklen, 1998). Guba and Lincoln (1994, p.105) defined paradigm as “basic
belief system or worldview that guides the investigation”. Mackenzie and Knipe (2006)
advice new researchers to set the paradigm as the first step to help in deciding the
“methodology, methods, literature or research design, as it affects the way of studying the
data.”
According to Creswell (2003, p.8), interpretivist/constructivist paradigm depends on
“participant’s views of the situation being studied”. In addition to their background and
experiences (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006). Moreover, Constructivist researchers “generate
or inductively develop a theory or pattern of meanings" (Creswell, 2003, p.9). For this
reasons, I decided to use interpretivist/constructivist paradigm with an inductive approach,
because it is consistent with the aim of the research to investigate the participant’s views
about their experience in the SOICM.
On the contrary, I have no theory or hypothesis to test, to depend on a Positivist paradigm
or deductive approach (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006). The scope of the research is too small
to affect policies or the political agenda to call it “Transformative” paradigm (Creswell,

9. 9
2003, p.9). Moreover, I am not applying different approaches to the research problem,
which in this case is a “Pragmatic” Paradigm (Creswell, 2003, p.11).
B- Qualitative Vs Quantitative
The two famous approaches are tending towards the method of collecting data and
analyzing it, not the theoretical approach of the research (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006).
Making a decision of which methodology to use should be based on the research questions
(Bryman, 1988). Cavaye (1996) argued that the phenomenon of interest decide which
methodology to use, not the opposite. Ritchie and Lewis (2003, p.27) defined qualitative
research as “facility to describe and display phenomena as experienced by the study
population, in fine-tuned detail and the study participants”.
I started this research by defining the aim and the research questions. Bryman (2012, p.409)
stated that questions in quantitative research are more “specific”, while they are more
“open-ended” in qualitative research. My research questions can be categorized as open-
ended questions, using (what and how), and this factor decided the use of qualitative
methods in this research.
Also, a quantitative approach was not suitable for the research questions, as the population
is only the people who participated in the experiment of the SOICM.
III- Research design:
After defining the aim and the question of the study, the next step is to identify the design
and the strategy that will help in achieving the aim. The design has three primary stages,
the first stage is designing the SOICM, the second stage is applying the model with six
young people from Palestine, Israel, and the UK, and the third stage is collecting the data
and analyzing it. The first and second stages are crucial to give the participants an
experience that will help them diagnose the problems, and create perspectives that served
as primary data. I can claim that such design can be called Action Research (AR) design.
Action research according to (Glassman et al., 2013) is a form of social investigation
through the interaction between members of social groups, involve in open dialogue about
their intergroup relations, and participate as an equal collective in a learning process to
create social change. In this research, the SOICM is designed to create the interaction
between participants who belong to different groups, and it allows them to investigate each
other’s’ lives by communicating through pictures that reflect their views.
The word “action” in Action Research is about bringing changes to the social rules through
engaging community members in a dialogue, the research will be challenging the
participant’s habits and influence their boundaries (Glassman et al., 2013). In the context
of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the ordinary habits, and norms that people from both
sides are not communicating or interacting with each other due to the deep-rooted conflict,
and physical, social and mental boundaries that created hatred, anxiety, prejudices, and
stereotypes. I believe that the participants broke their habits by entering a contact with each
other. Including the participants of the UK, whit their unusual role as a third party.
Small and Uttal (2005) argued that AR is more interpretive than a positivist way of creating
epistemology, which is consistent with my inductive approach. Some academics reject AR

10. 10
for lacking firmness and for being too biased. However, it is advocated by some researchers
because of its commitment to involve people. (Bryman, 2012).
III. Research design (?)
A. Sampling
The sampling in this research was a criterion purposive sampling, which means “Sampling
all units (cases or individuals) that meet a particular criterion” (Bryman, 2012, p.419). I
used this sampling method since there are no previous Interventions similar to the SIOCM.
Therefore, my sample was all the people who participated in the SOICM.
In general, small and purposive sample are very common in qualitative research (Sullivan,
2012). Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2006, p.70) explain this: “the goal is to look at a process
or the meanings individuals attribute totheir given social situation, not necessarily tomake
generalizations.”
Research duration and nature put a limitation of how many people may be involved in the
model. So, choosing a group of six young people only (two participants from each country)
was rational. I used a strategy of selecting the participants through organizations with
specific criteria for both the organization and the young people.
Organizational level:
The British Youth Council North East as a UK organization, Peace and Freedom Youth
Forum as a Palestinian organization and The Jerusalem Intercultural Centre as an Israeli
organization were selected as supporting partners in this research. The reason of having
criteria for the organizations was to help in recruiting participants in such a global research,
depending on robust and legal structures that can protect and support the participants. The
criteria for selecting the organisations are listed in Appendix (VIII and III).
Young people Level:
The selection criteria for the young people participating in the model application and the
research was done by the selected organizations. I explained the criteria I used for selecting
the young people in the ethical considerations section and Appendix (VIII and III)
B. Data generation:
I designed and used the SOICM in (Appendix I) as a tool to generate perspectives for the
participants, and these perspectives served as primary data.

11. 11
What happened during the model application?
After selecting the participants, I put them randomly in two groups. I will refer to the
participants with the nicknames: P1, I1, and UK1 for group1, and P2, I2 and UK2 for
group2. P1 and I1 were males, while the rest of the participants were females. Each
participant received a document with instructions and information about their role in the
SOICM (See Appendicies I, VII). After that, I created email addresses for all the
participants, and I gave the UK participants the email addresses of the Palestinian and
Israeli participants in their group. I had access to these email addresses with the approval
from all the participants, to be able to observe the interaction between the participants and
interfere if needed. Once I had the approval from the Research Ethics Committee to start
the process, I gave the green light to the participants to launch the interaction. In the
instructions for the Palestinian and the Israeli participants, they had to pretend that they are
a journalist in their area contracted by an editor working in a news agency in the UK. The
UK participants had to claim that they are the news editor, and they have to send a weekly
task for the Journalists. The Palestinian and Israeli participants had to complete their
missions about their real life using pictures or drawings. Once the tasks were sent to the
Editor in the UK, He/she will exchange their responses between them, and send them the
new task. During the application, there were some delays in accomplishing the tasks which
affected the duration of the process from one month to one month and a half. In some cases,
I interfered to notify the participants to send the tasks. Only one time, I1 did not submit the
task, and after asking him, he suggested to move to the next one. There was no evidence of
any offending, hatred, or insulting text or pictures during the interaction. This is not an
indicator that the model is preventing hatred or heated communication in intractable
conflicts, it is more because the participants know that this is a controlled research, not a
real life event, so their representation of themselves cannot be considered authentic.
C. Data Collection:
Since this was the first time to use the model, it was hard to decide what questions to ask.
Moreover, the research question is open-ended with a lot of possibilities, which can be
better investigated by having a conversation with the participants. Therefore, interviews
were the most suitable as qualitative data method as suggested by Bryman (2012) in this
conditions. Mack et al. (2005) defined interviews as a tool to investigate what the
participants felt, experienced and understood from the social context. Bryman (2012, p.469)
highlighted two main types of qualitative interviews “unstructured interview and the semi-
structured interview.”
Bryman (2012) advised using semi-structured interviews since it depends on both the use
of predefined questions which serve as a guideline and the freedom of interaction between
the participants and the researchers.
Concerning my research aim and questions, I needed a guideline. Otherwise, the interviews
might be driven toward political discussion more than the experiences of the participants.
For this reason, I chose semi-structured qualitative interviews for data collection using face
to face meeting with the UK participants and Skype meetings with the Palestinians and the
Israelis participants. I depended on both a prepared agenda of questions guided by the aim
of the research, and I created an environment during the interviews that allowed me and the
participants to have a conversation and discuss any issues related to the topic. The guideline
for the Semi-structured interviews is in Appendix (III)

12. 12
D. Ethical considerations:
I used the internet for skype interviews and for generating data. Sullivan (2012) believes
the use of internet in research poses ethical questions of anonymity, authenticity, and
consent since it is hard to make sure that participant’s information are not leaked to the
public and cause harm to them. I was aware of these challenges, and Appendix (VIII) shows
all the ethical considerations including the mitigated risks on the participants and myself,
and the strategy I used to prevent these risks.
The three organizations cooperating in this research provided a mentor to support the
participants in case they needed anything, especially translation. The age of the participants
was set above 18 to avoid safeguarding issues. Unfortunately, considering the limitations
on my capacity to provide support for participants with special needs in such global
research, I made a decision to exclude them, to avoid any ethical issues of not being able
to support them equally as others, which might also affect the data.
I acknowledge that all the ethical considerations were followed concerning the approved
ethical form, and no harmful incidents occur during the research for me or the participants.
E. Data analysis
Bryman (2012) acknowledged that there is no development yet for a clear set of rules for
analyzing qualitative data. Merriam (1998) described this process as in interaction between
the researcher and the data trying to use analytical skills to transform these data into
findings. However, what is available and can help researchers are guidelines in the shape
of “strategy” and “basic operations” for data analysis (Bryman, 2012; p.565).
Using inductive philosophy approach demands an inductive data analysis strategy.
According to (Thomas, 2006) inductive data analysis serve the aim of allowing research’s
findings to unfold from the data without any constraint of the methodology. Table (2.1)
taken from (Thomas, 2006; p.240) explains the different inductive approaches for data
analysis. I chose the ground theory approach since it is more suitable for my research aim
and question, and my assertion that new concepts might result from this research.
On the contrary, the general inductive approach is more appropriate for evaluation than
research, and the discourse analysis and phenomenology approaches are not convenient to
my design.

13. 13
Table (2.1) taken from (Thomas, 2006, p.240)
Strauss and Corbin (1998) and Brayman (2012, p.569) defined three main stages in
analyzing data using the ground theory strategy:
1- “Open coding”: generating the concepts and categorize them.
2- “Axial coding”: finding the links and interaction between categories.
3- “Selective coding”: selecting core categories and finding links between them, to
produce a concept or theory.
My first strategy for data analysis was to follow these three steps. The second strategy was
about dividing the participants into two different categories which should be seen with two
different lenses:
1- Palestinian and Israeli participants: They both belong to intractable conflict.
2- The UK participants: They are not part of the conflict, and they have a role in facilitating
the contact between one Palestinian and one Israeli.
I will show here an example of how I analyzed the data using the two strategies. First, the
questions in the interview formed an initial categorization for the areas of investigation,
(e.g., the role of the third party). Then, using the lens of the Palestinian and Israeli
participants and the literature, I tried to find new categories that I was not aware of; like the
role of the third party in reducing their anxiety during contact. And how it is related to other
categories. In addition to, how important is this category for different participants. The next
step was to select the core categories that led to define my main findings.
Each finding is supported by quotations from the participants, and I am attaching parts of
the transcripts of the interviews in Appendices (IV and V). The reader will be able to judge
my analysis, and if the data analysis was affected by my personal preferences, which is
called the problem of “anecdotalism” according to Silverman (1999) cited in (Silverman,
2010, p.276).

14. 14
Finding the literature was delayed till I did the data analysis, and this is one of the
disadvantages of using the ground theory; since researchers cannot be sure what they are
investigating (Bulmer, 1979). I was unable to make any “iterative “approaches because of
the academic nature of the research, which is the process of jumping between data
collection and data analysis while applying needed modifications (Bryman, 2012, p.566).
H. Research evaluation: Validity approach
Table (2.2): “Validity Procedures Within Qualitative Lens and ParadigmAssumptions” taken
from (Creswell and Miller, 2000, p.126)
I used table (2.2) taken from (Creswell and Miller, 2000, p.126) to choose a method to give
validity and credibility of my findings. This decision is very logical as I defined the
paradigm from an early stage to be constructivist/interpretative, and there was a relatively
long interaction between the participants in the application of the SOICM that lasted for
one month and a half, with available records and observation that can be used to validate
the findings. The three procedures that can be used to evaluate the validity and credibility
of my findings are:
1- Disconfirming evidence:
This procedure depends on the researcher’s lens, which is, for constructivist, a lens to view
reality in a “multiple and complex”way (Creswell and Miller, 2000, p.127). The procedure
relies on the researcher ability to show the different perspectives for each theme or
category, including negative or discomforting evidence (Miles and Huberman, 1994). This
procedure alone is not credible as most researchers by nature find it easier to talk about
confirming instead of disconfirming evidence (Creswell and Miller, 2000). Appendices
(VIII and IX) will help the readers to assess the credibility of this lens.
2- Prolonged engagement in the field:
According to Creswell and Miller (2000, p.128); observations helps the researcher create
more holistic perspectives and understanding for the participant’s views and their context.
The application of the SOICM lasted between mid-April until the beginning of June 2016.
I agreed with the participants to have access to their emails which was only designated for
the research; this allowed me to observe the pictures they were exchanging. This insight on
their interaction helped me in the interviews and the data analysis. However, these
observations were not used as a source of data.

15. 15
3- Thick, rich description:
This procedure relies on the lens of the reader, by “establishing credibility through
describing the setting, the participants, and the themes a qualitative study in rich details”
(Creswell and Miller, 2000; p.128). In this research, I tried to be reflective and descriptive
about my motivation and background, at the same time the nature of the research is built
on personal reflection of the participants. Creswell and Miller (2000) argue that rich
description provides the readers with a tool to judge the credibility and how applicable are
the findings to different settings and contexts.
I. Reflexivity:
According to Bryman (2012, p.393) reflexivity is related to understanding the rooted
meanings of “speech and actions.” Flick et al. (2007, p.11) believed that the researcher's
experiences and their reflexivity are part of the study. My knowledge and expertise played
a crucial role in this research. First, because I am Palestinian, and I lived my life in the
world being study, including experiences of normal contacts with Israeli’s, which helped
me a lot in recruiting the participants. Second, I could not design the SOICM without broad
experience in Europe and the Middle-East and knowledge about youth work practices and
values. Finally, my personal motivation is to contribute to peace building, and to do so; I
was very critical, and I tried to avoid giving any personal political opinions or showing any
biases.

16. 16
Chapter Three
Theoretical frameworks and Literature review
I. Introduction:
This Chapter serves in creating a conceptual framework and presenting the latest
advancement of theory and researches related to the research questions. Wiersma (1995,
p.406) highlighted the value of literature review in research: “The review of the literature
provides the background and context for the research problem. It should establish the need
for the research and indicate that the writer is knowledgeable about the area”.
The inductive nature of the research made it difficult for me to decide where to start and
what literature should be studied and searched. For this reason, my search for literature was
guided by the core categories of the data analysis in chapter four. This chapter will start
with defining the two main theories that were used to discuss the findings, then the recent
research, projects, and articles.
II. Theoretical framework:
3.2.1 Critical Pedagogy (CP):
Asking the participants to find meaning for words and concepts using pictures is rooted in
the idea of CP theory. In my findings, I argue that the role of a young person from the UK
can be identified as grassroots online activism for peacebuilding by facilitating the contact
between one Palestinian and one Israeli. I used John Paul Lederach’s (1995) model for
grassroots peace building in his book “Preparing for Peace” to explain this finding.
Lederach’s model was also influenced by Paolo Freire “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”
(Ramsbotham et al., 2011).
According to Darder et al. (2009) CP is about the philosophy of questioning the reality,
structures, and power, and their relation with pedagogy. The concept was influenced by the
work of many philosophers like Carl Marx, Frankfurt critical thinking school, Gramsci,
Giroux and Freire (Breuing, 2011).
Kincheloe (2005) defined three key features of CP:
 Create a vision for Justice and Equality
 Create a political education.
 Contribute to minimize dehumanization.
The aim of CP in (Ellsworth,1989) is to practice critical democracy and freedom to achieve
social justice and social change. Ledwith (2011) asserted that social justice and social
change start when individuals share their experiences, reflect on it, and question its
contradictions. Freire (2000) called this process of learning “conscientizacao.” Dialogue
for Fieri is a praxis of reflection and action. It is the dialogue that reveals the reality and
allows the consciousness to emerge.
More about CP and its critiques will be included in the discussion.

17. 17
3.2.2 Intergroup Contact Hypotheses:
Coleman (2011) argued that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be described intractable.
Ramsbotham et al. (2011, p.103) characterized intractable conflict as: “antagonistic group
histories, exclusionist myths, demonizing propaganda and dehumanizing ideologies”, these
characteristics cause intergroup biases.
According to social categorization theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986; Turner, 1975;
Turner et al., 1987 ), there are connections between intergroup biases in conflicts and social
group identities. People labels themselves not as individuals only, but also according to the
social group to which they belong (ingroup), which will lead to the categorization of
ingroup against outgroup, especially when there are differences in “interest, values, and
beliefs” (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013; p221).
Having one Palestinian, one Israeli and one UK young people in online communication,
with a pre-written and structured communication using text and pictures can be categorized
as intergroup contact through computer-mediated communication, which is rooted in the
framework of the contact hypothesis (Brown, 2000). According to Pettigrew (1998), the
hypothesis states that positive influence in reducing intergroup stereotypes and mutual
prejudices, including conflicting groups, relies on providing certain conditions and control
before, during and after the making of the intergroup contact.
Allport (1954) introduced this hypothesis to continue the work of Kurt Lewin (1947)
“Frontiers in Group Dynamics”, which describe change process in small groups (Bargal,
2006).
Amir (1969) cited in (Maoz,2011; p.116) summarized Allport (1954) conditions:
“
1- Equal status of groups in the contact situation;
2- The ongoing personal interaction between individuals from both groups;
3- Cooperation in a situation of mutual dependence, in which members of both groups
work together toward a common goal;
4- Institutional support – consensus among the authorities and the relevant institutions.
”
Cook (1962) quoted in (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013; p222), added “acquaintance
potential” as an essential condition for building interpersonal relations. (Hewstone and
Brown, 1986; Riordan and Ruggiero, 1980) asserted that hundreds of studied proved the
effectiveness of the positive change in attitude if the conditions were met. However, most
of the studies showed that this positive change does not necessarily change how we judge
all other outgroup members, nor how we transfer our positive change to other ingroup
members (Hewstone & Brown, 1986 for a review).
Pettigrew and Tropp (2000) argue that it is challenging to provide all the conditions
proposed by Allports (1954), and sometimes mere contact is sufficient and can outreach
beyond the individual contact.

18. 18
According to Amir (1969, p.178): ‘‘the assumption that contact always lessens conflicts
and stresses between ethnic groups seem naïve’’. He explains this with the planted image
we have about the outgroup in our minds at an early stage of life. Therefore, the conditions
should be studied very carefully for each context and personalities using different variables.
Otherwise, the contact might confirm the prejudices about the outgroup. He added that the
dependency of personality, background, and the environment make it difficult for
developing policies and programs that can apply to everyone in the society.
Pettigrew and Tropp (2008) suggested directing the focus now to when and how intergroup
contact can be more efficient. With the current developments in information technology
and the development of theories of computer-mediated communication (CMC), a new
window opened for researching intergroup contact hypothesis in online settings.
III. Literature review:
A. Models for Face to Face (FtF) intergroup contact in the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict:
Moaz (2011) made an analysis of different research and interventions that used FtF
intergroup contact between Jews and Palestinians livening in Israel between 1988 and 2008.
The relationship between both groups can be labeled as majority/minority, with clear power
and control for the Jewish majority (80%), and it is also deeply related to the Palestinian-
Israeli conflict (Moaz, 2011).
Based on this analysis, Moaz (2011, p.118) identified four major models that shaped all the
interventions:
“
1. The Coexistence Model,
2. the Joint Projects Model,
3. the Confrontational Model,
4. and the Narrative/Story-Telling Model. ”
(Moaz, 2011; Bekerman, 2007; Dixon et al., 2005; Maoz, 2000) argued that ethical
dilemmas can arise from the “we are all human” approach when using the coexisting model,
or from the task-oriented approach when using the joint projects model. These dilemmas
are because both models are avoiding discussing the conflict. This might be understood as
an approach promoting to keep the status quo, as changing intergroup bias alone is not the
core cause of the conflict and is not enough to lead to social change.
The Confrontational model is built based on the Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986),
where the intergroup interaction not the interpersonal is the core of changing the intergroup
bias (Moaz,2011). (Maoz et al., 2007) argued that this approach might lead to destructive
communication, negative attitude and decrease intergroup trust.
The storytelling model was introduced by the Israeli Psychologist Bar-On, and it combines
both the interpersonal and intergroup contact by depending on story-telling (Bar-On, 2000,
2002, 2006, 2008; Bar-On and Kassem, 2004). This model reduces the disadvantages in
the coexistence and confrontational models and utilizes their advantages (Moaz, 2011).
However, defining what is a transformative story stays a dilemma in this model
(Ross,2000).

19. 19
B. Intergroup contact and CMC:
Amichai‐Hamburger and McKenna (2006, p.825) listed three greatest challenges for the
intergroup contact:
“
1- practicality
2- anxiety
3- generalization: success tends to be limited to the context of the meeting and the
participants.
”
In the Palestine - Israeli context we can add an endless list of challenges that will make it
more challenging for contact to start, including physical segregation between territories,
life threats, and risks to be socially abandoned by other in-group members. In such case,
intergroup contact using computer-mediated communication (CMC) can have much more
advantages over face to face (FtF).
CMC is defined as “the process by which people create, exchange, and perceive
information using networked telecommunications systems that facilitate encoding,
transmitting, and decoding messages” (December, 1996). Amichai‐Hamburger and
McKenna (2006) argued that CMC intergroup contact can help us to utilize the intergroup
contact effectively and overcome its challenges. Moreover, the internet can inhabit all the
conditions of Allbort’s (1954) for effective contact (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013). Amichai-
Hamburger and Hayat (2013) cited in (Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2015; p.517) defined
seven characteristics for enabling effective environment for reducing intergroup anxiety
and shape the concept of structured online contact in CMC intergroup contact:
“anonymity, control over the physical exposure, control over the interaction, ease of
finding similar others, universal and constant availability and accessibility of the Internet,
equality, and fun.”
Amichai-Hamburger and Furnham (2007) believe that structured online contact can go in
different stages and sometimes lead to FtF contact. However, in the case of serious conflic ts
the structure might include an expert supervisor and predefined program (Amichai-
Hamburger et al., 2015)

20. 20
1. Unstructured online Intergroup Contact:
Ruesch (2011) made a content analysis study for informal intergroup contact between
Palestinians and Israelis. The study analyzed the content of 770 Facebook groups related
to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Ruesch (2011, p.10) concluded that these groups are
“highly fragmentized, polarized virtual sphere with little intergroup interaction”; Only
14.4% of the groups were designated for peacemaking and dialogue, while the rest of the
groups were set for ingroup purposes. It worth’s mentioning, the moderate or peace-making
groups were more active than the extremist groups (Ruesch, 2011). Moreover, both groups
showed evidence of the opportunity provided by the internet to give space for marginalized
voices and help them in finding people with similar perspectives, which can be helpful for
moderate and marginalized views to challenge social norms (Ruesch, 2011). Finally, the
study raises the question of whether the extremist views and hate speech on the internet are
useful for democratic deliberation, emancipation, conflict resolutions, and might as well
reduce the physical violence (Ruesch, 2011). Eliss and Moaz (2007) did another study for
unstructured online contact between Palestinians and Israelis, and they doubted if
unstructured online discussions can change positively intergroup biases.

21. 21
2. Structured online Intergroup Contact:
In Appendix (II), Hasler & Amichai-Hamburger in (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013; p.240)
provided a list of the projects that used structured online intergroup contact with conflicting
groups. I made Table (3.1) to show a brief analysis for these interventions.
Table (3.1)
Intervention Target groups and relevant conclusions
Breaking
Boundaries
Target group: Catholic and Protestant schools in Ireland
Conclusion:
1- Austin (2006) recommended starting with online tasks that enhance
cooperation between the groups, rather than sensitive topics.
2- Austin (2006) asserted the crucial role of the teachers and schools
support.
Centre of
multi -
culturalism
and
technology
Target group: religious and secular, Jewish and Arab teachers in colleges in
Israel.
Conclusion:
Hoter et al. (2009, p.10) concluded that structured online intergroup contact
“interventions “could reduce bias, stigmas, and ethnic prejudice among
prospective teachers,” this was because of the following reasons:
1- Avoiding conflict-related topics.
2- The long duration of the contact.
3- The used of different phases of communication until reaching FtF
meetings.
4- The teachers were from different cultural groups.
Feeling close
from distance
Target group: Arab and Jewish teenagers in Israel.
Conclusion:
The change in perspectives about the outgroup was much higher in the Jewish
participants compared to the Arab (Yablon and Katz, 2001).
Project for
Arab-Jewish
Dialogue
Target group: Israeli Jews and Palestinian University Students
Conclusion (Mollov, 2006):
1- Knowledge increased about each group religious practices
2- No statistical evidence about change in attitude toward the other group,
because it was positive before the contact started.
3- The participants did not discuss the structured topics only but also
exchanged personal emails.
4- Combining online with offline contact can have more impact.
5- Avoiding political and historical topics leads to positive outcomes.
Good
Neighbors
Blog
Target group: Bloggers from the Middle-East representing different political,
religious and nationalities
Conclusion (McKenna et al. (2009):
1- Content analysis for the blogs showed a change in bloggers attitude and
their views.
2- Even with securing anonymity for the bloggers, it was hard to recruit
them. Due to, language barriers, and fears from potential risks within their
societies, as some will consider it a collaboration with the enemy.

22. 22
Hasler and Amichai-Hamburger in (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013) asserted that there is a lack
of empirical studies about online intergroup contact, and these projects do not show validity
or generalization to other conflicts. Also, most of the participants represent a moderate
minority in their societies.
Moreover, they believe that future research should focus on the facilitator's roles, choosing
between sensitive topics approach or humanistic approach, the challenge of language
barriers and how to employ new technology to avoid it, and the effect of the duration of the
contact on intergroup interaction. Aiken et al. (2013) suggested that language barriers can
be resolved using translating software. (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013; Yablon and Katz,
2001) argued that the facilitators should be well trained in conflicting intergroup contact.
Walther (2009) concluded that long contact duration has more potential to succeed,
although, it is challenging to ensure the involvement of participants for long periods.

23. 23
Chapter Four
Findings and Discussions
I. Introduction:
It is not the purpose of this research to assess if the intergroup biases have changed or not,
and I did not use any tools or indicators to evaluate that. The aim and the questions were
guided by the participant’s perspectives, and its relation to the facilitation tools I used in
my design for the SOICM. Problem-solving approach guided the design of the SOICM.
The use of pictures was to avoid language barriers and heated conversations. The role play
was to give anonymity and justify their relation with each other. The third party, to reduce
the anxiety of direct contact. I chose love, fun, and freedom tasks from an exercise in
(IREX, 2016, p.27) which aim to bring the discussion about basic needs and values in
relation to conflicts. Then I added the future task, as I thought it would be interesting for
the particpants to build an image for the future.
The structure of this chapter will start first with an overview of how I analyzed the data,
then a discussing and conclusion for each finding.
II. Data analysis:
A. The participant Lens:
As I mentioned before in Chapter two, I used the grand theory approach in (Brayman, 2012)
for the data analysis, using three encoding processes:
1- Open coding:
Initial categories were: motivation, anxiety, safety, anonymity, self-disclosure, peace-
building, learning about self and others, role playing, visual communication, reflection
through self-expression, and the role of the third party.
2- Axial coding:
Dealing with the participants as two different groups with different experiences, roles,
context, and motivation during the process. This helped me to look at the findings from
two broad categories:
 Intergroup contact between the Palestinian, Israeli and UK participants.
 The role of the UK participant in establishing the contact.
3- Selective coding:
To produce the final findings, I tried to find links between the categories from the open
coding, and the two main categories of the axial coding.

24. 24
B. The Theoretical Lens:
Figure (4.1) taken from (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013, p.229): “An integrated model of Allport’s (1954)
conditions, and moderators and mediators of intergroup contact effects”.
The first theoretical lens is about the mediator's effects; which refers to the psychological
components that affect reducing intergroup biases in the integrated model of Allport’s
(1954) conditions (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013, p.229) in Figure (4.1). The data analysis of
the interviews highlighted two mediator effects: increasing knowledge and reducing
anxiety. Increasing knowledge is relevant to participant's views on what they learned from
the other participant’s pictures. While reducing anxiety was used to explain the Palestinian
and Israeli participants perspectives on the indirect online contact via the third party.
The second theoretical lens is the use of Critical Pedagogy theory. CP was used to explain
the participant's perspectives on the use of pictures to find meanings for the four tasks. In
addition to explaining the UK participant’s perspectives on their role in peace-building.

25. 25
III. Findings and discussion:
1. Problematic learning about others.
This finding explains how the participants understood what the other person wanted to tell
them using pictures.
Palestinian and Israeli participants:
I2: “Well, I think that I enjoyed the parts that were showing something of their unique
situation like hobbies. Some of the images were generic; any person would love candy
for instance, and some images say this is who I am, and I will show you a piece of me. I
am not sure if I read the correct meaning of all of them which the other person wanted to
communicate, but it was very nice to see them. You would know that the other person
might be a friend if we do not have conflict or barriers. I think we are very similar in our
mindset, maybe not in details.”
The motivation of both participants, especially the Israeli participants can be described with
one-word {curiosity}, to learn and understand the other group as individuals. The
Palestinian participants focused more on showing their human perspectives for both the
Israeli and the UK young persons. Almost all the participants have agreed that the use of
pictures alone without the option to give feedback, interact or ask questions about the
meaning of pictures, have limited their ability to make an opinion about the other person.
However, some images were clear.
P1: “When I received his response of the last task about the future, it made me smile. It
was a picture of Israeli soldiers hiking up toward the sunset and another picture of a
science museum. I felt he sees the Israeli soldiers as his backboard. I felt that I saw my
enemy. As he sees the people who are occupying us as his protectors.”
UK participants:
UK1: I think it is an interesting concept to have perspectives from two different people
in another part of the world, to be able to see and have some insights into their life...I
found it fascinating to start generating ideas of who this person might be. It was an eye-
opening as this person could be just like me, or I know someone similar to them.
UK2: I have never been out of this country. I wanted to find out what is it like for other
people having different beliefs and religions and to see how different they are from me.
I did not have any knowledge about the conflict or the history of that area. I did not have
political motivation to participate, or to know more about the conflict…. When you see
their responses, you come to realize that they are not different. You can tell they are
massively similar; I could not recognize if they are in a conflict or not.
The UK participants were mainly receivers in this communication; however, what they
received had an impact on them. They received two different perspectives from two young
people who gave them an insight into their life. These images helped them to increase their
knowledge about the two outgroups.

26. 26
Discussion:
The cognitive component of intergroup bias is about categorizing the outgroup members
with a homogenous identity using prejudices and stereotypes (Linville and Jones, 1980;
Linville et al., 1989). Learning about the outgroup is a paramount cognitive mediator to
decrease intergroup bias (Pettigrew, 1998). The more people receive information and
process it about others, the more they can see each other as individuals or humans, what
allows finding similarities (Pettigrew, 1998) and creating a new image for the outgroup
(Kawakami et al., 2000). However, studies showed that increasing Knowledge alone about
the outgroup is not enough and considered a weak mediator (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2008).
From the two quotes of the UK participants, we can claim they learned something about
the Palestinian and the Israeli in their group. However, UK2 have highlighted an ethical
issue in learning about the others in intergroup contact, especially when there are political
elements in this learning. If only pictures without any indication or explanation of the
conflict were exchanged, then the third person learning about the conflict will be shaped
with “we are all human” concept, similar to the “coexisting and joint project model” in
(Moaz, 2011). The UK participant might create an image that everything looks perfect for
those people, without understanding the real struggles they live, and the need to bring social
change to the current status quo (Moaz,2011).
Moreover, Rouhana and Korper (1997) asserted that in such interventions it is important to
tackle the conflict and the power asymmetry; otherwise, it might create unintentional
support by the third party to the group with higher power. Finding Similarity with one group
and differences with the other might create a new set of intergroup bias and delusive
learning about the conflict for the third party.
Vegh (2003, p.136) called this challenge the “acceptance of normative acceptability of
rightness,” which can be caused by “laziness to verify the information,” “lack of shared
lifeworld”, or “shared cultural background.” For example, when both P1 and I1 sent
pictures of mountains, UK2 who never traveled outside the UK, received new information
about the geography of that area. However, she did not recognize that P1 sent a picture of
internationally recognized illegal Israeli settlement (see:Securitycouncilreport.org, 2016),
which he wanted to show as a challenge for his freedom. She cannot be blamed for that, as
she does not share their lifeworld.
Even if both participants have shared pictures revealing their views about the conflict
clearly, this might lead to destructive communication between them and confuse the
learning of the third person. Such challenge is similar to the “confrontation model” in
(Moaz,2011), especially if the third party person is not trained to facilitate such dialogue.
Conclusion:
Considering the problematic learning, the suggestions of the participants and the four
models in Moaz (2011). We can conclude and suggest that; in structured online intergroup
contact between conflicting groups using a third party, the “storytelling model,” similar to
FtF intergroup contact in (Moaz,2011), might be effective for increasing knowledge about
the outgroup.

27. 27
The Storytelling model combines the advantages of both the coexistence and the
confrontation model and decreases their disadvantages (Moaz,2011). Moreover, the
participants suggested the use of more instructions or specification of the tasks and allowing
them to interact with each other's pictures. Using the storytelling model, we can guide the
participants to make personal stories or meanings using the pictures. They can explain both
their human and political thoughts and feelings. They can utilize the advancements of CMC
to give them the ability to create a structured dialogue related to the stories only. Also, as
Amichai-Hamburger (2013) suggested, providing information about the conflict for the
young people playing the third party before or after their contact can contribute to their
reflection and learning. To realize; yes, both of them are human, but their reality needs a
change.
2. The possibility for online Image Theatre (IT) through finding meanings and self-
discovery dialogue:
This finding is related to the question of what perspectives the participants had while
thinking and deciding of what pictures to send? And the UK participants’ self-reflection of
what they could have responded to the task?
Palestinian and Israeli participants:
The journey of finding meanings of the four tasks and expressing them using pictures was
different from one person to another. For example, I1 felt it was more an investigation more
than learning. I2 commented that she is always thinking about these topics.
Most of the participants agreed that it was not easy to express freedom and future tasks,
and made them think deeply about it.
P1: This research helped me to set down and think about the things I have in my life,
simple things I never noticed. I think the most important tasks were freedom and future.
I sent many pictures; one of them was a settlement in the mountain, which made me
realize that my freedom is limited.
P2: Every task forced me to think carefully about my life, what I want, how I see
things. Freedom task was hard. Being a woman in restricted society and living under
occupation made me realize the different meanings for freedom, and I felt I’m roped
from all of them...The future task made me think about making a change in my life.
UK participants:
UK1: When I was sending the tasks I was thinking about it, and how I would respond
to it. The future task made me stuck quite a bit. It forced me to reflect on my life, and
compare it with what they have sent, and ask myself; would I have done the same as
they did? It was eye opening...The fun task made me decide to do more fun activities.
UK2: This questioning helped me to make a decision in my life, which I was not going
to do without this reflection.

28. 28
Discussion:
I found similarities between the concept of finding meanings for the four tasks using
pictures and the idea of Image Theatre (IT). IT is “a process in which participants make
still pictures of their lives, feelings, and experiences, using nonverbal communication to
reveal truths about society” (Shank and Schirch, 2008, p.230).
I can argue that there is an opportunity to use this method in online intergroup contact,
although this approach is used so far using body performance to represent “word, meaning
and concerns” in small groups (Spratt et al., 2000, p.118).
IT is rooted in the concept of critical pedagogy theory. The Brazilian theatre theorist and
practitioner Augusto Boal introduced it in his book “Rainbow of Desires”. Most of Boal
work including IT was influenced by the “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” for Paolo Freire
(Spratt et al., 2000, p.118). For Freire (2000), the transformation is about empowering
individuals by allowing them to discover their world and words critically. Razack (1993,
p.68) made it very simple: it is about asking the question of “how we know” rather than
“what we know.”
Using information technology in small groups with facilitation and instructions can lead to
a critical dialogue. The important part that was missing in the SOICM to call it “IT” was
allowing the participants to interpret the meaning together, and then collectively try to build
an image of how they want to see this meaning (Spratt et al., 2000). When P1 said that he
saw his enemy, commenting on the picture of the Israeli Soldiers, he did not have the chance
to tell I1 how he understood the picture and ask him why he chose this picture? The next
step might be asking both of them to create a picture together (Spratt et al., 2000). Of
course, this is not easy from practical aspects, and also might lead to negative dialogue
rather than meaningful one. However, according to the method, enough trust in the small
group is crucial to start an effective dialogue and discussion (Spratt et al., 2000). This
happened in the case of I2 and P2. They found lots of individual similarities; that led to
creating trust. That little confidence was demonstrated by their mutual request to exchange
email addresses after the research ended to discuss the pictures more.
We can forecast some of the challenges for using IT online from the ones are facing CP.
Ze'ev in (Gur-Ze'ev, 1998; p.10) argued that when people reflect on their experiences they
might conclude “false consciousness.” Westoby and Dowling (2013, p.93) also pointed to
the possible crash between critical questioning, and ideology and culture that will lead to
“non-reflexive dialogue”. Gur-Ze'ev (1998, p2) called this the “violence of self-evidence
and power.” According to Freire (2000, p.157), this is a natural process, especially if the
learners are used to “non-dialogical” practices, and once they enter a dialogue, they try to
defend they know rather than being critical of it.
Conclusion:
The participants asserted that they did not feel they had a complete dialogue, and it was
hard to express their meanings using pictures alone. Moreover, it was difficult to understand
the meaning of the other people pictures in the first finding.

29. 29
There is an opportunity to use IT online. However, there is the dilemma of finding the
indicator for the readiness of participants to enter a constructive and empowering dialogue.
The suggestion might be to mix the practices of the contact theory gradually with the
practices of CP. Contact theory practices will support building trust, then using IT or other
CP practices to start the dialogue and increase knowledge about the other group.
For example, we can make an online platform to make the contact and the self-discovery
journey experience for the participants, then the reflection and the dialogue can be
facilitated in each country by practitioners with knowledge about the context. In a similar
way to my role in this research by doing the interviews and having the knowledge about
the three contexts. In turn, they might be ready to enter a dialogue with each other.
3. The role of the UK young person (Third party) have contributed in reducing
outgroup and ingroup anxiety:
In this finding will discuss the Palestinian and the Israeli perspectives about the role of the
UK young person in creating indirect communication between them.
Discussion:
P2: If I have a direct dialogue with an Israeli it will be considered normalization and
co-existence with the occupier, I’m against that, to be honest. I have nothing against
the Israelis, but I’m against the idea that we should normalize our relation with them
while we are under occupation. Like, let hug each other and be friends, while the status
quo is not changing. However, I do not think there is normalization when the dialogue
is indirect, and the mediator is there.
P1: It is vital for us as Palestinian people living under oppression to show the world
our life and our feelings. If someone international puts effort and energy to mediate
dialogue between a Palestinian and Israeli, it will be an interesting and a learning
experience for him/her and a good way for us to express ourselves to the world and the
other side of the conflict.
An intractable, protracted, and asymmetric conflicts like the case in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, are full of intergroup bias and negative prejudices and stereotypes, which cause
anxiety, lack of confidence or sympathy toward outgroup members (Stephan & Stephan,
1985). This is known as the effective psychological component of intergroup biases
(Pettigrew, 1998). Because of anxiety; individuals are not motivated to start contact
voluntarily with an outgroup member, they fear actual or imagined risks from the outgroup
on their lives or interests (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Anxiety can cause, uncertainty,
distrust, miscommunication during and after the contact (Dovidio et al., 2002). Evidence
from Several studies showed that reducing anxiety can have a positive impact on the
contact. (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2008).
I1: It helps you to expose yourself without feeling you are exposed. The fact that there
was someone in between is crucial. It is not about safety; it is about direct exposure. If
you have direct communication with someone else, you feel very exposed and very
personal with that person. It is very easy to shut yourself off and to stop. It is easier to
open up when you have someone in between.

30. 30
People feel less anxious in CMC compared to FtF contact for several reasons: the feeling
of privacy while using the internet, the ability to control their exposure, anonymity, and
flexibility in choosing the way they express themselves and their views without the pressure
of immediate response (Amichai-Hamburger, 2008; Amichai-Hamburger, 2005; McKenna,
2007; McKenna and Bargh, 2000).
On the other hand, (Brewer, 1999; Otten and Moskowitz, 2000 ) asserted that anxiety from
the outgroup is having a direct influence on individual’s relation with their ingroup.
Individuals develop feelings and attitudes of belonging, trust, finding similarities, and
sympathy toward other ingroup members. These feelings become stronger in the case of
possible threat from the outgroup.
In the event of conflicts, groups develop general norms and guidance of what is acceptable
and what is not in relation with outgroups members, to avoid possible harms from this
contact. For example, when P2 talked about normalization, which is defined by Mi'Ari
(1999, p.339): having a normal relation between two ethnic groups, especially “occupied
and occupier,” despite the conflict, the social distance, stereotypes, and prejudices. Mi'Ari
(1999) made a study with 270 students at Birzeit University in the Occupied Palestinian
Territories in 1994, one year after the Oslo peace agreement (for more info see:
History.state.gov, 2016). The study concluded that normalization with the Israelis is
supported by significant responses of the population, without the condition of ending the
occupation. The study also showed that this support was much stronger among students
coming from working class families, where big numbers of these families were working
inside Israel at that time.
Nowadays, it is still acceptable in the Palestinian society to work in Israel. However, due
to the failure of the peace process, most of the activities that bring together Palestinian and
Israelis is faced by a strong anti-normalization movement, with a general accusation that
such activities aim to keep the status quo (Barakat and Goldenblatt, 2012). The Anti-
normalization movement now is setting the general guideline for Palestinian individuals of
what is acceptable and what is not when contacting Israelis. These guidelines are debatable
and not clear for individuals, which cause uncertainty, fear, and anxiety for Palestinians.
They fear to break their ingroup norms if they enter a contact with Israelis. For the same
reason but with less effect, there are also groups in Israel that are often neglecting the
occupation, or does not recognize the legitimacy of the Palestinian rights or believe in the
possibility of peace. These groups marginalize peace activist in Israeli and put ingroup
anxiety on them (Barakat and Goldenblatt, 2012).
Conclusion:
Having a third person from the UK to start the contact reduced the anxiety of the
participants and increased the safety of the online environment. The anxiety is caused by
both ingroup and outgroup fears. Many empirical studies proofed that third party
intervention have an influence on the interaction between conflicting intergroup members
(Bartunek, Benton & Keys, 1975; Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992; Notz & Starke, 1978), and can
affect their attitude and behavior toward each other (Ramsbotham et al., 2011). I can also
add in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict the third party can also reduce anxiety

31. 31
from ingroup. This can be explained by referring to the precondition of having the support
of authorities in (Allport, 1954) model. According to this condition, support from leaders
or organization for individuals to take part in intergroup contact can reduce the anxiety. P2
is following her group norms of avoiding any contact with Israelis, however, having the
third party can be a protection for here from any ingroup anxiety, by claiming that she is
not in a direct contact with the Israeli.
The other explanation is related to the nature of the role and motivation of the young person
from the UK. This role is not similar to expert third parties, or state third parties in conflict
resolution, where their intervention might have an agenda of interest. The role of the third
party was understood by the Palestinian and Israeli participants as normal citizens to
citizens intervention. In other words, it can be called grassroots online activism for peace
building. Acknowledgment of this motivation by the Palestinian and the Israeli make them
feels safer that there are no hidden agendas rather than learning and contributing to peace
building.
4. The possibility for a new tool for non-violent online activism for peace building
This finding is from the perspectives of the UK participants about their role in making
structured online contact between one Palestinian and one Israeli.
Discussion:
UK1: I know that direct communication can put them in danger or put consequences on
them or their family. So a mediator using anonymous system could be efficient in the
short term.
UK2: It made me feel like a superhero. I just felt I closed a little gap there; it might not
be massive with two people in a month. Imagine what would happen with thousands of
people in a year.
Figure (4.2) taken from (Gallo and Marzano, 2009) represent Curle (1971) and Lederach
(1995) model for transforming asymmetric conflict. Curle (1971) and Lederach (1995) used
the conscientization concept from Freire in the “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” as the first
step to change the structure of the conflict (Ramsbotham et al., 2011). This model depends
on the role of the third party to influence the power structure through grassroots
movements, either by putting pressure on the one with more power or supporting the one
with less power (Ramsbotham et al., 2011).
Galtung (1989, p.20) advocated using third party nonviolent activism in the case of
asymmetric conflicts. Individuals and organizations from powerful countries or opponent
group of the oppressing regime can play this role (e.g., Israeli anti house demolishing
committee, Israeli anti-occupation groups, breaking the silence).

32. 32
Figure (4.2) taken from (Gallo and Marzano, 2009): “The phases of a structurally asymmetric
conflict.”
Rodriguez (2013, p.9) argued that there are two main strategies for this dispute resolution:
“continued mediation through the United Nations and other State actors, and nonviolent
activism.” He proceeds that the first strategy has failed several times due to the United
States power in the general assembly to prevent any resolution according to the
international law. Therefore, it is important to consider the non-violent activism as a
strategy to change the conflict hegemony or States policies toward it.
There are different forms of nonviolent activism, among them is online non-violent
activism. Vegh (2003, p.71) defined online non-violent activism as “a politically motivated
movement relying on the internet. Activists now utilize the technologies and tools offered
by the web to achieve their goals. Their strategies are “either internet enhanced or internet
based”.
Online activism can be classified into three broad categories: “awareness/advocacy;
organization/mobilization; and action/reaction” (Vegh, 2003; p.71) The Internet has
provided activists with inexpensive, interactive, and global dimension and outreach (Vegh,
2003). This activism can take the form of: “spreading messages, recruiting people, raising
funds, lobby for politicians, mount petitions, and other forms” (Marmura, 2008; p.250).
Conclusion:
Regardless of the problems related to learning and raising awareness; UK1 and UK2 are
simple examples of people around the world, excluded from being online activists toward
building peace between Palestinians and Israels because of the lack of tools that motivate
and suit them. To be motivated to support one side, or to put pressure on the other one in

33. 33
such long and complex conflict demand to have the knowledge and thorough understanding
of the different perspectives. UK1 and UK2 did not need that; they just can feel active and
empowered if they let a Palestinian and an Israeli make contact. Online activism in such
case is employing the potential of online social networks to give voice and empower
individuals from one hand (Doan et al., 2011). From the other hand, it will fit the strategy
of the new social movements: “collective identities, knowledge, and information” in “non-
hierarchical, open protocols; open communication; and self-generating information and
identities” (Vegh, 2003; p.129). However, such tool demands a careful study and support
from organizations and states, to ensure the safety of the participants.

34. 34
Chapter Five
Conclusion and Recommendations
In a world full of global conflicts and increased extremisms, researchers and practitioners
should take actions to promote diversity, inclusion, equality, equity and peace. Social
problems of societies are moving to the internet world, thus researchers and practitioners
need to utilize the internet and their practices effectively to create social change. The
findings of this research require more investigation using more advanced computer-
mediated communication systems with a larger population.
I will use this chapter to create an imagination for an online platform that summarizes the
conclusion and the recommendations of this research.
A war with pictures is a better option than a war with weapons:
Imagine a platform with three categories of profiles: Internationals, Palestinians and
Israelis. Organizations like schools, Universities, and NGOs can recruit young people
locally to sign up. Your profile is anonymous, and you can even create an avatar for your
profile. The platform randomly set the young people in groups of three. If people accept to
be in a group, they can access features and games that use pictures to find meanings of their
world or make a story. The features are icons; once you press it you send the task to the
other two people in your group, or you start a pictures game with them.
The international person starts the process of the contact. This person’s role is to decrease
outgroup and ingroup anxiety for the Palestinian and Israeli participants. The international
person can also participate in sending pictures for the tasks or the game. The other two
participants have the options to use the features to send tasks or start a game. The three
participants can interact with or question the other participant's responses, and then maybe
discuss how to create a picture together for this meaning. People can leave the small groups
whenever they want, and they can join other groups.
Organizations can facilitate FtF discussions locally before and after the participant's
experience in the online platform, and can provide information about the conflict or the
cultures.
This Platform might not be for everyone, and maybe some will use it to insult the others or
try to cause harm to them. Future Research should focus on protection policies to ensure
the safety of the participants, how to make it inclusive and meaningful for the participants
and what other practices can be carried to such online intergroup contact to make it more
effective.

35. 35
References:
1- 972mag.com. (2016). ‘The largest West Bank protest in decades’ | +972 Magazine. [online] Available
at: http://972mag.com/the-largest-west-bank-protest-in-decades/94280/ [Accessed 7 Aug. 2016].
2- Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Web. [Accessed 15
Aug. 2016].
3- Amichai‐Hamburger, Y. and McKenna, K.Y., 2006. The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interacting
via the Internet. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 11(3),pp.825-843. Web. [Accessed
15 Aug. 2016].
4- Amichai-Hamburger, Y. and Furnham, A., 2007. The positive net. Computers in Human
Behavior, 23(2), pp.1033-1045. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
5- Amichai-Hamburger, Y., 2008. The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interacting via internet:
Theoretical and practical aspect. Psychological aspects of cyberspace. Theory, research, applications,
pp.209-222. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
6- Amichai-Hamburger, Y. and Hayat,Z., 2013. Internet and personality. The social net: Understanding
our online behavior, p.1e20. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
7- Amichai-Hamburger, Y. ed., (2013). The social net: Understanding ouronline behavior. OUP Oxford.
Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
8- Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Hasler, B.S. and Shani-Sherman, T., 2015. Structured and unstructured
intergroup contact in the digital age. Computers in Human Behavior,52,pp.515-522. Web. [Accessed
15 Aug. 2016].
9- Amir, Y., 1969. Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological bulletin,71(5), p.319. Web.
[Accessed 15 Aug. 2016]. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
10- Aiken, M., Wang, J., Gu, L. and Paolillo, J., 2013. An exploratory study of how technology supports
communication in multilingual groups.Interdisciplinary Applications of Electronic Collaboration
Approaches and Technologies, pp.17-29. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
11- Austin, R., 2006. The role of ICT in bridge‐building and social inclusion: theory, policy and practice
issues. European Journal of Teacher Education,29(2), pp.145-161. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
12- Bar-On, Dan (2000) Bridging the Gap. Hamburg:Koerber.
13- Bar-On, Dan (2002) Conciliation through storytelling:Beyond victimhood. In: Gavriel Salomon &
BaruchNevo (eds) Peace Education:The Concept, Principlesand Practices around the World. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 109–116. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
14- Bar-On, D., 2006. Tell your life story: Creating dialogue among Jews and Germans, Israelis and
Palestinians. Central European University Press. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
15- Bar-On, D., 2008. The others within us: Constructing Jewish-Israeli identity. Cambridge University
Press. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

36. 36
16- Bar‐On, D. and Kassem, F., 2004. Storytelling as a way to work through intractable conflicts: the
German‐Jewish experience and its relevance to the Palestinian‐Israeli context. Journal of social
issues, 60(2), pp.289-306. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
17- Barakat, R. & Goldenblatt, D. 2012, "Coping with Anti-Normalization", Palestine - Israel Journal of
Politics, Economics, and Culture, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 86-95. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
18- Bargal, D., 2006. Personal and intellectual influences leading to Lewin’s paradigm of action research
Towards the 60th anniversary of Lewin’s ‘Action research and minority problems’(1946). Action
research, 4(4), pp.367-388. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
19- Bartunek, J.M., Benton, A.A. and Keys, C.B., 1975. Third party intervention and the bargaining
behavior of group representatives. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 19(3),pp.532-557. Web. [Accessed
15 Aug. 2016].
20- Bekerman, Z., 2007. Rethinking intergroup encounters: Rescuing praxis from theory, activity from
education, and peace/co‐existence from identity and culture. Journal of Peace Education,4(1), pp.21-
37. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
21- Boal, A. (1995). The rainbow of desire. London: Routledge.
22- Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
23- Breuing, Mary.(2011)."Problematizing Critical Pedagogy". InternationalJournalof CriticalPedagogy
Vol 3.(3). pp 2- 23. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
24- Brewer, M.B.,1999. The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate?. Journal of social
issues, 55(3), pp.429-444.
25- Brown, R., 1988. Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups. Basil Blackwell.
26- Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods 4e. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27- Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Unwin Hyman.
28- Burns, R. (2000). Introduction to research methods. London: SAGE.
29- Bulmer, M., (1979). Concepts in the analysis of qualitative data. The Sociological Review, 27(4),
pp.651-677. Available at:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1979.tb00354.x/full
[Accessed 8 Aug. 2016].
30- Carnevale, P.J. and Pruitt,D.G., 1992. Negotiation and mediation. Annual reviewof psychology,43(1),
pp.531-582.
31- Cavaye,A. (1996). Case study research:a multi-faceted research approach for IS. Information Systems
Journal, [online] 6(3), pp.227-242. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-
2575.1996.tb00015.x/abstract [Accessed 8 Aug. 2016].
32- Creswell, J.W. and Miller, D.L., (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into
practice, 39(3), pp.124-130. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2?journalCode=htip20 [Accessed 8
Aug. 2016].

37. 37
33- Creswell, J. (2003). Research design. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
34- Coleman, P., (2011). The five percent: Finding solutions to seemingly impossible conflicts.
PublicAffairs.
35- Cook, S.W., 1962. The systematic analysis of socially significant events: A strategy for social
research. Journal of Social Issues, 18(2), pp.66-84. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
36- Curle, A., 1971. Making peace. Tavistock Publications.
37- Darder, Antonia, Marta Baltodano, and Rodolfo D Torres. (2009). The Critical Pedagogy Reader
second edition. New York: RoutledgeFalmer,. Print.
38- December, J. (1996). What is Computer-mediated Communication? From
http://www.december.com/john/study/cmc/what.html
39- Dixon, J.,Durrheim, K. and Tredoux, C.,2005. Beyond the optimal contact strategy: a reality check for
the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist,60(7), p.697.
40- Doan, A., Ramakrishnan, R. and Halevy, A.Y., 2011. Crowdsourcing systems on the world-wide
web. Communications of the ACM, 54(4), pp.86-96.
41- Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.E., Kawakami, K. and Hodson, G., 2002. Why can't we just get along?
Interpersonal biases and interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(2),
p.88.
42- Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L. and Kawakami, K., 2003. Intergroup contact: The past, present, and the
future. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,6(1), pp.5-21.
43- Dudouet, V., 2008. Nonviolent resistance and conflict transformation in power asymmetries.
44- Ellis, D.G. and Maoz, I., 2007. Online argument between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Human
Communication Research, 33(3), pp.291-309.
45- Ellsworth, Elizabeth. (1989)."Why Doesn't This Feel Empowering? Working Through The Repressive
Myths Of Critical Pedagogy". Harvard Educational Review 59.3: 297-325. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug.
2016].
46- Flick, U., Kvale, S., Angrosino, M.V., Barbour, R.S., Banks, M., Gibbs, G. and Rapley, T., (2007).
Doing interviews. SAGE Publications Ltd, London
47- Freire, Paulo. (2000). Pedagogy Of The Oppressed. New York: Continuum,. Print.
48- Gallo, G. and Marzano, A., 2009. The dynamics of asymmetric conflicts: the Israeli-Palestinian
case. Journal of Conflict Studies,29. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/15231/19943
49- Galtung, J., 1989. Nonviolence and Israel/Palestine. University of Hawaii Institute for Peace.
50- Glassman, M., Erdem, G. and Bartholomew, M. (2013). Action Research and Its History as an Adult
Education Movement for Social Change. Adult Education Quarterly, [online] 63(3), pp.272-288.
Available at: http://aeq.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/02/28/0741713612471418.abstract [Accessed
8 Aug. 2016].

38. 38
51- Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.
52- Gur-Ze'ev, Ilan. "TOWARD A NONREPRESSIVE CRITICAL PEDAGOGY". Educational Theory
48.4 (1998): 463-486. Web. 14 Mar. 2016
53- Hesse-Biber, S. and Leavy, P. (2006). The practice of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications.
54- Hewstone, M.E. and Brown, R.E., 1986. Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters. Basil
Blackwell.
55- History.state.gov. (2016). Milestones: 1993–2000 - Office of the Historian. [online] Available at:
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/oslo [Accessed 1 Sep. 2016].
56- Hoter, E., Shonfeld, M. and Ganayim, A., 2009. Information and communication technology (ICT) in
the service of multiculturalism. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 10(2).
57- IREX. (2016). Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation Toolkit. [online] Available at:
https://www.irex.org/resource/conflict-resolution-and-peer-mediation-toolkit [Accessed 1 Dec. 2015].
58- K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
59- Kawakami, K.,Dovidio, J.F., Moll, J., Hermsen,S. and Russin, A., 2000. Just say no (to stereotyping):
effects of training in the negation of stereotypic associations on stereotype activation. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 78(5), p.871.
60- Kincheloe, Joe L. (2004). Critical Pedagogy Primer. New York: P. Lang. Print.
61- Lederach, J.P., (1995). Preparing for peace. Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. New York.
62- Ledwith, M. (2011) Doing community development. In Margaret Ledwith, Community Development:
a critical approach, Bristol: Policy, p. 53-76.
63- Lewin, K., 1947. Frontiers in Group Dynamics, II: Channels of Group Life; Social Planning and Action
Research. Human relations, 1, pp.149-157.
64- Linville, P.W.andJones,E.E.,1980. Polarized appraisals of out-group members. Journalof Personality
and Social Psychology, 38(5), p.689.
65- Linville, P.W.,Fischer, G.W. and Salovey, P.,1989. Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-
group and out-group members: empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of personality
and social psychology,57(2), p.165.
66- Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K.M., Guest, G. and Namey, E., (2005). Qualitative research
methods: a data collectors field guide.
67- Mackenzie, N. & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues
In Educational Research, 16(2), 193-205. http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html [Accessed 7
Aug. 2016].

39. 39
68- Maoz, I., 2000. Multiple conflicts and competing agendas: A framework for conceptualizing structured
encounters between groups in conflict—the case of a coexistence project of Jews and Palestinians in
Israel. Peace and Conflict: Journal of peace psychology, 6(2), p.135.
69- Maoz, I., Bar-On, D. and Yikya, S., 2007. “They Understand Only Force” A Critical Examination of
the Erruption of Verbal Violence in a Jewish-Palestinian Dialogue. Peace and Conflict Studies,14(2),
pp.27-48.
70- Maoz, I., 2011. Does contact work in protracted asymmetrical conflict? Appraising 20 years of
reconciliation-aimed encounters between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Journal of Peace
Research, 48(1), pp.115-125. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
71- Marmura, S., 2008. A net advantage? The internet, grassroots activism and American Middle-Eastern
policy. New Media & Society, 10(2), pp.247-271.
72- Marx, G. (1997). Of methods and manners for aspiring sociologists: 37 moral imperatives. The
American Sociologist, [online] 28(1), pp.102-125. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12108-997-1029-9?LI=true [Accessed 7 Aug. 2016].
73- McCaughey, M. and Ayers, M.D. eds., 2013. Cyberactivism: Online activismin theory and practice.
Routledge.
74- McKenna, K.Y. and Bargh, J.A., 2000. Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for
personality and social psychology. Personality and social psychology review, 4(1), pp.57-75.
75- McKenna, K., 2007. Through the Internet looking glass. Oxford handbook of Internet psychology,
pp.205-221.
76- McKenna, K.Y.,Samuel-Azran, T. and Sutton-Balaban, N., 2009. Virtual meetings in the Middle East:
Implementing the contact hypothesis on the Internet. Israel Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1(1).
77- Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applicationsin education.San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
78- Mertens,D.(2005). Research and evaluationin educationandpsychology.ThousandOaks,Calif.: Sage
Publications.
79- Mi'Ari, M., 1999. Attitudes of Palestinians toward normalization with Israel.Journal of Peace
Research, 36(3), pp.339-348.
80- Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M.,(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
81- Mollov, B.,2006. Results of Israeli and Palestinian student interactions in CMC: An analysis of attitude
changes toward conflicting parties. In annual meeting of the International Communication Association,
Dresden, Germany.
82- Notz, W.W. and Starke, F.A., 1978. Final-offer versus conventional arbitration as means of conflict
management. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp.189-203.
83- NYA. (2016). Ethical conduct in youth work - NYA. [online] Available at:
http://www.nya.org.uk/resource/ethical-conduct-youth-work/ [Accessed 7 Aug. 2016].

40. 40
84- Otten, S. and Moskowitz, G.B., 2000. Evidence for implicit evaluative in-group bias: Affect-biased
spontaneous trait inference in a minimal group paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 36(1), pp.77-89.
85- Pettigrew, T.F., 1998. Intergroup contact theory. Annual review of psychology, 49(1),pp.65-85. Web.
[Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
86- Pettigrew,T.F. and Tropp, L.R.,2000. Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic
findings. Reducing prejudice and discrimination, 93, p.114. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
87- Pettigrew, T.F. and Tropp, L.R., 2008. How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta‐analytic
tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), pp.922-934.
88- Ramsbotham, O., Miall, H. and Woodhouse, T., (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution. Polity.
89- Razack, Sherene. "Story‐Telling For Social Change". Gender and Education 5.1 (1993): 55-70. Web.
14 Mar. 2016.
90- Riordan, C. and Ruggiero, J.,1980. Producing equal-status interracial interaction: A replication. Social
Psychology Quarterly, pp.131-136. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
91- Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice. London: Sage Publications.
92- Rodriguez, T. (2013). Resolving the Israeli-Palestine Conflict with Activism. [online] Transformative
Studies Institute. Available at: http://transformativestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/Resolving-the-
Israel-Palestine-Conflict-with-Activism.pdf [Accessed 11 Aug. 2016].
93- Ross, M.H., 2000. " Good enough" isn't so bad: Thinking about success and failure in ethnic conflict
management. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 6(1), p.27.
94- Rouhana, N.N. and Korper, S.H., 1997. Power asymmetry and goals of unofficial third party
intervention in protracted intergroup conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 3(1),
p.1.
95- Ruesch, M., 2011. A PeacefulNet? Intergroup Contact and Communicative Conflict Resolution of the
Israel Palestine Conflict on Facebook. Probing the Boundaries, p.13.
96- Securitycouncilreport.org. (2016). UN Documents for Israel/Palestine. [online] Available at:
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/israelpalestine/ [Accessed 1 Sep. 2016].
97- Shank, M. and Schirch, L., 2008. Strategic Arts‐Based Peacebuilding.Peace & Change,33(2),pp.217-
242.
98- Silverman, D., (2010). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook, erd ed, London:Sage.
99- Small, S. and Uttal, L. (2005). Action-Oriented Research: Strategies for Engaged Scholarship. J
Marriage and Family, [online] 67(4), pp.936-948. Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00185.x/full [Accessed 8 Aug. 2016].
100- Spratt, T., Houston, S. and Magill, T., 2000. Imaging the future: Theatre and change within the
child protection system. Child and Family Social Work,5(2), pp.117-128.

41. 41
101- Stephan, W.G. and Stephan, C.W., 1985. Intergroup anxiety. Journal of social issues,41(3),
pp.157-175.
102- Strauss, A. and Corbin, J., (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, Inc.
103- Sullivan, Jessica R. (2012) "Skype: An Appropriate Method of Data Collection for Qualitative
Interviews?," The Hilltop Review: Vol. 6: Iss. 1, Article 10. Available at:
http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/hilltopreview/vol6/iss1/10 [Accessed 8 Aug. 2016].
104- Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C., (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.The social
psychology of intergroup relations, 33(47), p.74.
105- Thomas, D.R. (2006). ‘A general Inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation
data’,American Journalof Evaluation,27(2),pp. 237–246. doi: 10.1177/1098214005283748. Available
at: http://aje.sagepub.com/content/27/2/237.short. [Accessed 8 Aug. 2016].
106- Turner, J.C., (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup
behaviour. European journal of social psychology, 5(1), pp.1-34.
107- Turner, J.C. and Tajfel, H., (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup
behavior. Psychology of intergroup relations, pp.7-24. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
108- Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. and Wetherell, M.S.,
(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
109- Vegh, S., 2003. Classifying forms of online activism. Cyberactivism, pp.71-95.
110- Walther, J.B., 2009. Computer-mediated communication and virtual groups: Applications to
interethnic conflict. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37(3), pp.225-238.
111- Westoby, Peter, and Gerard Dowling. Theory And Practice Of Dialogical Community
Development. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.
112- Wiersma, W. (1995). Research methods in education: An introduction (Sixth edition). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon
113- Yablon, Y.B. and Katz, Y.J., 2001. Internet-based group relations: A high school peace
education project in Israel. Educational media international,38(2-3), pp.175-182.

42. 42
Appendices:
ImportantNote:Insome appendicesthe name of the SOICMis writtenasOnline Mediation
ReflectiveModel,andthe title of the researchiswritten as:One toOne Online ReflectionMediation.
The reasonI didn’tchange these names,because thesedocumentswhere used togetthe ethical
approval andthe consentfromthe participants,anditisnot ethical tochange themnow.
Appendix I
The Structured Online Intergroup Contact Model
SOICM
Introduction:
SOICM is a model designed to be tested in the participatory action research:
Structured Online Conflicting Intergroup Contact using a third party: A case study on using
structured online inter-group contact with one Palestinian, one Israeli young people, through a
young person from the UK.
The model is designed to create indirect contact between one young person from Israel and one
young person from Palestine, via a young person from the UK, (the age range is 18 to 29).
The young person from the UK will have a set of instructions as a facilitator, and will be
sending emails to both conflict parties asking them to do tasks, with a one-week deadline for
each task. The participants will use role playing characters for their email communication;
pretending that three of them are working in an international news agency The young person
from the UK is the editor, while the Palestinian and the Israeli are the journalists.
The duration of testing the model is one month, during which the journalists have to accomplish
four tasks. These tasks will be described in the model. When they send their reports about the
task, the UK person will exchange the results between the two of them. There is no direct
communication between the two journalists, and the mediator has to establish the
communication between them separately.
Translation will be provided from English to Arabic and Hebrew for the communication
between the editor and the journalists, to avoid the limitations of a language barrier in
understanding the tasks. The product of the task will be a non-written and non-verbal response.
The two journalists will have to accomplish their missions using photography or drawings.
All the participants will use special email accounts that don't reveal their personal information
and encrypt the data they are sharing between each other. The participants will be asked to
remove the metadata from the files before sending it, and they will be advised not to share files
that contain sensitive information about their personal life, to avoid any harm if it was misused.
The editor has to be committed to communicating with the two parties equally and take a
neutral position from their responses. The model will describe the tasks for each character in
greater details.
The model plan:
1- Recruiting the two groups of young people from the UK, Palestine, and Israel.

43. 43
2- Signing the research consent with the research participants.
3- Creating email addresses for all the participants.
4- Sharing the characters with all the participants, and organizing one to one talk with
them to discuss the use of online communication and data saving in this model,
confidentiality of information, and their role in the research.
5- The researcher will give the participants the green light to start the communication.
6- After one month, this model will end, and the researcher can start interviewing the
participants about their experience.
The characters and instructions:
The Editor (UK participants):
The information below is about your character in this model. You need to pretend that you are
this character while communicating with the others.
Your name is: Adam/Alice Dowden
Age: 35
Marital status: Single
Occupation: You just received your master degree from Durham University in media and
politics. After this, you got a job as the primary news editor for Palestine/Israel at Justice News
Agency in the UK.
General information about your character: You were born in the UK, and you have lived there
all your life. You have traveled a lot for a vacation to Australia, the USA, and Spain, among
many other countries. You have never been to a conflict area in your life, and that is why this
job is so challenging for you.
Your view of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict: You believe in justice and human rights. You
have read some books and articles about the conflict, and you have watched some
documentaries and news report about it, but you have never been there. For an expert in media
like you, you believe that you don’t know the real situation there. So, you can’t create a clear
personal judgment. After taking this job, you decided to be neutral and not to support one side
over the other. To show the truth and only the truth. You are not interested in showing the
conflict, you want to find common ground for both sides to see each other as human beings
and not enemies. That’s why you came up with the idea of a project based on photography or
drawing to show the life of ordinary people. You hope this will help them to reflect their values,
and how they meet their basic needs.
You will be working with one journalist from Palestine and one from Israel. Because of the
situation there, Palestinian and Israeli communication is considered a taboo in both societies,
so you’ve decided to communicate with both of the journalists separately. However, you’ve
also agreed to exchange their responses, so they can see what the other journalist have done
before publishing the pictures. But they are not allowed to give feedback about the other
journalist work.
Personal issue: You are a quiet person. You don’t get stressed easily from work or personal
issues. You prefer to split your professional life from your personal life, that’s why you don’t