IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v25y1997i3p255-266.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The plot thickens: Understanding interaction through the metaphor of drama

Author

Listed:
  • Bryant, J.

Abstract

Drama theory provides a framework for the investigation of situations involving conflict or co-operation. This paper describes the general concepts of the approach and illustrates these through an extended example based on the topical and pervasive issue of intra-organisational collaboration. It shows how such situations can be regarded as moving through a number of identifiable stages and how the paradoxes facing those participating are resolved as each episode unfolds. The approach has potential across a wide range of applications, and the analytical content can now be supported by specialist software tools.

Suggested Citation

  • Bryant, J., 1997. "The plot thickens: Understanding interaction through the metaphor of drama," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 255-266, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:25:y:1997:i:3:p:255-266
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(96)00062-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Howard, Nigel, 1987. "The present and future of metagame analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 1-25, October.
    2. Bryant, Jim, 1983. "Hypermaps: a representation of perceptions in conflicts," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 11(6), pages 575-586.
    3. Bennett, Peter & Howard, Nigel, 1996. "Rationality, emotion and preference change Drama-theoretic models of choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 603-614, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. M. Nassereddine & M. A. Ellakkis & A. Azar & M. D. Nayeri, 2021. "Developing a Multi-methodology for Conflict Resolution: Case of Yemen’s Humanitarian Crisis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 301-320, April.
    2. F B Losa & V Belton, 2006. "Combining MCDA and conflict analysis: an exploratory application of an integrated approach," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(5), pages 510-525, May.
    3. Robert G. Dyson & Frances A. O’Brien & Devan B. Shah, 2021. "Soft OR and Practice: The Contribution of the Founders of Operations Research," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(3), pages 727-738, May.
    4. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    5. Keys, Paul, 2000. "Creativity, design and style in MS/OR," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 303-312, June.
    6. Klein, Jonathan H., 2000. "Telling stories: a metagame description of a conflict," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-15, February.
    7. Franco, L. Alberto & Greiffenhagen, Christian, 2018. "Making OR practice visible: Using ethnomethodology to analyse facilitated modelling workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(2), pages 673-684.
    8. Bryant, James W. & Darwin, John A., 2004. "Exploring inter-organisational relationships in the health service: An immersive drama approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 655-666, February.
    9. Ackermann, Fran, 2012. "Problem structuring methods ‘in the Dock’: Arguing the case for Soft OR," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 652-658.
    10. Alberto Franco, L., 2009. "Problem structuring methods as intervention tools: Reflections from their use with multi-organisational teams," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 193-203, February.
    11. J Bryant, 2007. "Drama theory: dispelling the myths," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 602-613, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bennett, Peter, 1998. "Confrontation analysis as a diagnostic tool," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 465-482, September.
    2. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    3. Suman Sensarma & Norio Okada, 2010. "Redefining the Game in Local Water Management Conflict: A Case Study," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(15), pages 4307-4316, December.
    4. Moreno-Jimenez, J. M. & Aguaron-Joven, J. & Escobar-Urmeneta, M. T. & Turon-Lanuza, A., 1999. "Multicriteria procedural rationality on SISDEMA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 388-403, December.
    5. Powell, John & Powell, Philip, 2004. "Scenario networks to align and specify strategic information systems: A case-based study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(1), pages 146-172, October.
    6. Bennett, Peter & Howard, Nigel, 1996. "Rationality, emotion and preference change Drama-theoretic models of choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 603-614, August.
    7. F B Losa & V Belton, 2006. "Combining MCDA and conflict analysis: an exploratory application of an integrated approach," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(5), pages 510-525, May.
    8. Kyoichi Kijima, 2001. "Why Stratification of Networks Emerges in Innovative Society: Intelligent Poly-Agent Systems Approach," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 45-62, June.
    9. Sumitra Sri Bhashyam & Gilberto Montibeller, 2012. "Modeling State-Dependent Priorities of Malicious Agents," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 172-185, June.
    10. Bongjin Kim & Mark M. Suazo & John E. Prescott, 2008. "Exploring the Cognitive Nature of Boards of Directors and Its Implication for Board Effectiveness," Working Papers 0032, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    11. Powell, J. H., 2001. "Blackmailing the mayor: Using semi-formal state-based game theory methods to inform a security situation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(2), pages 330-345, October.
    12. Klein, Jonathan H., 2000. "Telling stories: a metagame description of a conflict," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-15, February.
    13. Khoong, C. M., 1995. "Decision support systems: an extended research agenda," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 221-229, April.
    14. Inohara, Takehiro, 2007. "Relational dominant strategy equilibrium as a generalization of dominant strategy equilibrium in terms of a social psychological aspect of decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(2), pages 856-866, October.
    15. Amer Obeidi & Keith W. Hipel & D. Marc Kilgour, 2005. "The Role of Emotions in Envisioning Outcomes in Conflict Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 481-500, November.
    16. Mirosław Bełej & Radosław Cellmer & Michał Głuszak, 2020. "The Impact of Airport Proximity on Single-Family House Prices—Evidence from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-26, September.
    17. J Bryant, 2007. "Drama theory: dispelling the myths," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 602-613, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:25:y:1997:i:3:p:255-266. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.