A good way to depict the relationship between solving a conflict and escalating issues within conflict to create positive outcomes can be done with analyzing a campfire. Imagine the fire is a conflict and issues from the conflict are smoke. Avoiding the fire and letting it burn would produce a consistent amount of mild smoke that would continue for as long as the fire was burning. In this manner avoiding conflict helps sustain conflict, and in doing so creates far more issues stretched out over a longer time. Another option would be dumping a bucket of water onto this fire. Dumping a bucket of water onto the fire would create a large amount of smoke quickly, but the fire would be out completely. Finding the roots of problems will undoubtedly produce more issues, but by bringing these issues to the surface the conflict can be solved quickly. Conflict is best handled like a campfire because a lot of smoke in a short amount of time is better than burning down the whole …show more content…
Those who hold little power and are less wealthy need to seek out ways to improve the structure of their opinions, and the platform in which opinions are heard (Watson, 2013, p. 161). This is where an advocacy planner’s role is critical. As a planner it is important to recognize that disenfranchised groups may not have the tools necessary to properly address issues they may have regarding collective decisions. In this context a planner must facilitate the means to allow disenfranchised groups to educate themselves on decisions. In a way a planner needs to cause conflict in order to create positive outcomes. Essentially a planner should play devil’s advocate when presented with a decision and seek out opposing views from what those in power are trying to accomplish. With all of this being said disenfranchised groups must put in more effort to get their voice heard. The planner in this instance should serve as the equalizer, by providing disenfranchised groups with the effort needed to create an adequate