Method in Analyzing Conflict Behavior: The Insight Approach

My aim in this essay is to provide a clear, compact introduction to the method in analyzing conflict behavior that undergirds the Insight approach to conflict analysis and resolution. If I am successful, you will gain a general working notion of the basic terms, relations, and theory of change that guides Insight analysts and practitioners in their work. Becoming expert in the Insight approach remains up to you: grounding it empirically in your inner conscious experience, employing it to analyze conflict situations you hope to improve, and advancing the explanatory precision of the method itself. I invite your engagement and collaboration, and I welcome your success.

The launch of the Insight approach within the field of conflict studies dates to the 2008 publication of Transforming Conflict Through Insight by Kenneth Melchin and Cheryl Picard. The signal achievement of their collaborative effort lies in Melchin’s use of what he calls Bernard Lonergan’s «insight theory» to explain Picard’s expert performance as a mediator (Melchin & Picard, 2008, p. 4).¹ In subsequent years, the analytical model pioneered by Melchin and Picard has expanded beyond its focus on the practice of mediation to include the peacebuilding and conflict mitigation efforts of poverty lawyers, police officers, theatre creators, and leaders in international relations and human security. In what follows, I will correlate «method in analyzing conflict behavior» with Lonergan’s more generalized thinking about method, explicate the nest of terms and relations Insight practitioners use to guide their efforts, and illustrate the use of the method with a concrete example of conflict behavior.

Method

Lonergan offers a generalized, explanatory account of method that is simultaneously concrete, empirical, and performative. To grasp Lonergan’s notion of method is to grasp the basic factors operative in any methodical performance, regardless of field or object of inquiry. It is to answer the question: How does a method guide and direct the way I use my mind? How does it carry my consciousness? I offer here a four-step process to pinning down Lonergan’s answer to this question in your inner conscious experience.

The first step is to heighten your reflexive awareness, to become explicitly mindful of the fact that «[you] have a mind and [you] use it» (Lonergan, 2016, p. 117). The second step is to recognize that to decide to use a method is to decide to use your mind in a particular way. As Lonergan puts it, «method guides cognitional performance» (Lonergan, 2016, p. 171). A method is «a pattern of related and recurrent operations» (Lonergan: 1972, p. 4) that carries the flow of your consciousness in a particular way with a particular objective. Step three is to become mindful that «discovery» is the objective of methodical performance: «discovery of what as yet is not known, discovery often enough of what was not expected» (Lonergan, 1985, p. 13). As Lonergan makes clear, when you are «[aiming] at transforming some unknown into a known» then what you need to guide and direct the use of your mind is a method (Lonergan, 1972, p. 22).

The final step is to become reflexively aware that the touchstone for your choice of a method and the integrity of your methodical performance «is the relationship between questioning and answering» it fosters within you (Lonergan, 1985, p. 204). Lonergan points out that when your aim is to discover what is currently unknown, then the method you choose should focus your mind on the exercise of a particular, two-part sequence of questioning and answering: the question for understanding (what could this be?) and the question for verifying (is it so?). As Lonergan also makes clear, a method is a pattern of related and recurrent operations that puts the use of your mind «under the constraint of an empirical principal,» by which he means that in the process of discovery «there always is required some empirical element in any judgment of fact, of possibility or of probability» (Lonergan, 2004, p. 393).

To clarify this admittedly compact account of Lonergan’s notion of method, it may help to explicitly distinguish a method from a technique: the commonplace pattern of related and recurrent operations associated with recipes, formulas, blueprints, instructions. Like a method, you use a technique to carry your consciousness in a particular way for a particular aim. The difference is that when you opt for a technique –your favorite recipe for lentil soup, for instance– you are not aiming to make a discovery or to formulate a new course of action. As Lonergan puts it, «a method is not to be confused with anything as pedestrian as a recipe, a prescription, a set of directions» (Lonergan, 1985, p.204). In such cases, you are aiming to produce a result you already know and anticipate in advance: lentil soup, not beef stew. Moreover, as with method, the touchstone of your choice and execution of a particular technique lies in the focused relationship between questioning and answering it fosters within you. The difference is that when your aim is to achieve a result that you know has already been discovered, formulated, and tested, your mind is not focused on understanding and verifying, but on the question for evaluating (What is my best option?) and the question for deciding (Will I commit to carrying it out?)

By differentiating the cognitional function of method and technique, I do not mean to overstate the importance of method or to minimize the utility of a good technique, formula, or set of directions. Both are important. Both are necessary. Indeed, technique plays an indispensible role in the methodical quest for discovery that marks the Insight approach, especially the technique of asking Insight questions. My point is to clarify what it means to speak of method in analyzing conflict behavior. It is also to identify the function of the «related and recurring operations» that constitute the Insight approach as one of fostering «progressive and cumulative [discoveries]» (Lonergan, 1972, p. 4) within the broader effort to understand and transform conflict behavior. In what follows, I will explicate three of the related and recurrent operations that constitute what Lonergan calls «the framework for collaborative creativity» afforded practitioners of the Insight approach: (1) Relating the data of sense and consciousness, (2) Differentiating the performance of valuing, and (3) Correlating particular goods and courses of action.

Relating the Data of Sense and Consciousness

As a matter of course, Insight analysts distinguish and relate two types of data, two manners of experiencing, and two correspondingly distinct classes of objects. One type is the data of sense, which you experience by virtue of your capacity for sensory experiencing: seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling. The second type is the data of consciousness, described by Lonergan as «one’s personal experience of one’s own cognitional operations» (Lonergan, 2016, p. 172), and which you experience by virtue of your capacity for being reflexively present to the operations of your own consciousness. Both types of data correlate with a discrete class of objects: sensory objects in the case of sensory experiencing; operations of consciousness in the case of reflexive self-presence. See Table 1.

As Insight practitioners seek to understand concrete acts of conflict behavior like the one narrated in the scenario below, they use the foregoing set of terms and relations to take their initial bearings. My account of «Lily Comes Home» is based on an actual event, but I have edited it for illustrative purposes.

Lily Comes Home

Lily and Marco are in their mid-twenties, and like many young professionals, they split the rent on an apartment in the city. They have their own bedrooms and use the living room and kitchen areas in common. They work hard at their jobs: Lily as a graphic designer in a high pressure consulting firm and Marco as a teacher and swimming coach at a Catholic high school across town. In the way of young people who come together to share the high cost of urban living, they get along well day-to-day, but they are not close friends.

One evening Lily comes home from work to find that Marco is away and that the kitchen sink and counter are littered with his dirty dishes. Suddenly furious, Lily exclaims, «Marco, you bastard!» Stalking to the sink, she grabs up some of the dirty dishes –frying pan, plate, coffee mug, and cutlery– goes down the hall to Marco’s room, opens his door, and throws the dishes on his bed. She then leaves the apartment, slamming the door.

To relate the data of sense and consciousness evinced in the scenario, imagine what you could see if you were present for the event: Lily entering the apartment, picking up the dishes, going down the hallway, entering Marco’s room, and throwing the dishes on his bed. Imagine also what you can hear: Lily’s declaration that Marco is a bastard, the clatter of the dishes she picks up, the crash of the dishes as she throws them on the bed, and the slam of the door as she goes out. This data of sense is relevant to your analysis of the scenario, but it is not the only relevant data.

The other category of relevant data is the data of consciousness evinced in the scene. Of course, you cannot see or otherwise sense this data, because it is not sensorily perceptible. But you can pinpoint its manifestation in the available sensory data. For example, you can reliably infer that Marco used his mind in an act of deciding when he left the dishes in the sink. The relevant questions for understanding this data include: What made leaving the dishes his best option? What was he trying to accomplish? Likewise, you can reliably infer that Lily was using her mind in an act of valuing when she declared that Marco was a bastard, and in subsequent acts of deciding when she threw the dishes on his bed and left the apartment. Relevant questions for understanding the data of Lily’s consciousness include: What perturbed her so much about the dirty dishes? What made dumping the dishes on Marco’s bed her best option? What was she trying to accomplish?

Unlike theories of conflict that offer only truncated notions of conscious performance – frustration – aggression theory, human needs theory, and certain forms of narrative theory, for example – Insight analysts have built upon Lonergan’s critical philosophy of consciousness to develop and refine a model that helps them to account for the data of sense and consciousness in their analyses of conflict behaviors and the personal and social dimensions of conflict situations more broadly. I summarize this collaborative effort in the graphic image of the «patterned flow of consciousness» reproduced in Figure 1, which Insight practitioners commonly refer to as the Insight loop.

Since it is beyond the scope and scale of this essay for me to offer a detailed explanation of the various sets of technical terms correlated on the diagram, I will lean heavily on the old adage that a picture, an image, a diagram is worth a thousand words and content myself with the following points, summarized in Table 2.

Point one: notice that three sets of terms are arrayed on the Insight loop. There is a sequence of questions: What could it be? Is it so? What is the significance of this? What could I do? What is my best option? Will I commit? There is a corresponding set of operations linked to the questions: experiencing, understanding, verifying, valuing, deliberating, evaluating, and deciding. Finally, there is a set of performance ranges correlative to the operations: attentive – inattentive, curious – incurious, critical – hasty, discerning – reactive, imaginative – limited, conscientious – rash, free – constrained.

Point two: as the old saying goes, «The map is not the territory.» To this I would add, «The Insight loop is not the flow of consciousness.» Each term and relation identified on the diagram is a variable –a placeholder– for a specific question, operation, performance, or correlation that in actuality is never abstract, but always concrete and context-specific. For example, the question for understanding, «What could it be?» is one such variable. It represents all the concrete forms and expressions of inquiry you employ (many of them expressed somatically rather than in words) as your mind shifts spontaneously from experiencing data of sense and consciousness to being curious about that data: What was that noise? What time is it? What is troubling me? Huh?

Point three: the Insight approach is rigorously empirical, so you should feel «constrained,» as Lonergan puts it, to wonder if it is so: that is, to correlate and verify in the data of your own consciousness the nest of the terms and relations represented on the Insight loop. Indeed, should you discover empirical imprecisions or outright errors, it is by appeal to the data of your consciousness that improvements can and should be made. This is how the diagram developed and evolved to its present state.

Point four: note that the diagram explicitly accounts for the fact that your reflexive presence to the flow of your conscious operations can vary in degree from «mindful» to «truncated.» It also acknowledges that the operation and flow of your consciousness is always «carried» in some way or another. The Insight approach defines «carrier of consciousness» implicitly; whatever is guiding and directing the flow of your operations of consciousness. As referenced above, methods and techniques are carriers of consciousness, as are the Loop diagram and the accompanying charts. To experience yourself as «carried» is to become reflexively aware –explicitly mindful– that a question or image or analytical model is guiding the flow of your consciousness, directing your mind to wonder about this rather than that, and to commit to a certain course of action rather than another. Once you pin down the functional relationship of carriers and operations of consciousness in the data of your own consciousness, you will discover that the flow of your conscious operations is always carried, and that the carriers of your consciousness are both personal and social, as well as multiple, layered, and diverse.

Illustrating the Insight Approach

Insight practitioners seek to identify and understand the data of consciousness in a conflict situation by asking targeted Insight questions. An Insight question is a question for understanding that takes as its object the performance of a discrete operation of consciousness. As such, the objective of an Insight question is not so much to discover what a person is thinking –the object of their consciousness– as it is to clarify the way they are thinking about this object. Moreover, the aim of making progressive and cumulative discoveries about the way another person is verifying, valuing, deliberating, or deciding is not an end in itself. The higher aim is to foster the reflexive discovery of these performances in the consciousness of the other person.

These objectives go to the heart of the theory of change operative in the Insight approach, the logic of which I will express in these three empirical claims. (1) People use their minds when they engage in conflict behavior. (2) People change their conflict behavior when they change the way they are using their minds. (3) People change the way they are using their minds when they become reflexively aware, when they become mindful that their performance of a particular operation needs to be improved: to be in some measure more attentive, curious, critical, discerning, imaginative, conscientious, or free.

By way of illustration, I offer the example of an Insight conversation with Lily. Like the scenario from which it proceeds, the following exchange with Lily is based on an actual Insight conversation, though I have edited and shortened it for purposes of illustration and explanation. To advance your appropriation of the Insight approach, I invite you to imagine yourself in a role and situation in which the lead voice in the conversation is yours.

Hi Lily, What’s up?

Marco is such a bastard!

What did he do that leads you to call him that?

He left his dirty dishes in the sink

That sounds annoying.

I’m more than annoyed. I’m furious. I am not his cleaning lady!

No, you’re not his cleaning lady. What infuriates you about experiencing yourself that way?

I’m Marco’s roommate, not his cleaning lady. This is not the way roommates should treat each other. It’s my apartment too.

OK, so what happens when you experience Marco treating you like this?

I get confused and furious because I can’t focus on the work I am supposed to be doing for my job.

What prevents you from focusing on your work?

I feel as though I should clean up the kitchen! I like a clean kitchen. Dirty dishes in the sink bother me. But those are Marco’s dishes, and he should clean them up. I get upset because my attention gets fixed on the damn dishes, and the design idea I had when I walked in the door got fuzzy, and I felt myself shifting out of my work role and into the role of cleaning lady. I started thinking about dishes and household chores and apartment responsibilities instead of the design project I am supposed to be completing.

What’s a stake for you in the shift of focus?

 I have a major design project due soon. I have to get it done, and I am worried about doing a good job and finishing it on time. There are some design problems I need to work through, and I can’t concentrate with dirty dishes in the sink. 

So when you came home and saw Marco’s dirty dishes, you were furious because you felt yourself pulled out of your role as Lily-the-graphic designer and into the role of Lily-the-cleaning lady. This unsettled you about your project and worried you about your performance and responsibility in that role.

Yes

So what did you do?

I threw Marco’s dishes on his bed.

Well … that will certainly get Marco’s attention.

Yeah.

What were you going for when you threw his dishes on the bed?

I wasn’t really thinking about that. I was just mad and wanted to let him know.

What do you think you achieved?

I don’t know. I guess I’ll find out when I get back to the apartment. I imagine Marco will be upset. I suppose he could retaliate. 

That’s worrisome.

Yes, it is.

If you had a second chance at this, what might you do instead?

Good question. First, I hope I would realize that Marco’s decision to leave the dishes in the sink is not about me, or my role, but about Marco. So if I had a second chance, I’d like to think I could just ignore the dishes and work on my project anyway. But in truth, I probably can’t do that. So I now think the better option would be to talk to Marco and explain how this kind of thing affects me, how leaving a mess in the kitchen messes up my ability to work.

Do you think Marco could understand that?

I do.

Differentiating the performance of valuing

Once a situation is understood in terms of the relevant data of sense and consciousness that constitute it, the second basic operation of the Insight method is to differentiate the performance(s) of valuing involved in the conflict behavior. As indicated on the Insight loop, valuing is a regularly recurring activity of the human mind that follows spontaneously upon the operations of understanding and verifying. Technically, valuing is an act of affective cognition that seeks as its object the answer to the question for valuing: What is the significance of this? Reflexively, you experience your performance of valuing in your feelings about your presenting circumstances. Lily’s performance of valuing is manifest in her exclamation that Marco is a bastard, although precisely what Lily is feeling and precisely what significance her feeling apprehends is not to be discovered in the data of sense. Thus, Insight practitioners engage in a series of Insight questions with the aim of progressively and cumulatively verifying the act of valuing, clarifying its object, and differentiating its carriers.

The deceptively simple exchange at the outset of the Insight conversation with Lily opens the door to differentiating her performance of valuing. Notice that in declaring, «Marco is such a bastard,» Lily is expressing her act of valuing as a statement of fact. Insight analysts refer to declarations like this as ‘moralizing statements.’ Such statements verbally conflate a person’s performance of knowing and valuing. They are a common manifestation of conflict behavior.

The question for verifying, «What did he do that leads you to call him that?» invites Lily to differentiate her knowing from her valuing. It carries her mind to identify explicitly what Marco did, though her valuing of his behavior remains clear in the data of sense: in the angry tone of her words. The response, «That sounds annoying,» is the Insight practitioner’s attempt to accurately reflect Lily’s feeling back to her, and thereby to carry her mind to focus reflexively on her performance of valuing. The fact that Lily corrects the attempt at reflection and identifies herself as «furious» reveals her enhanced mindfulness. Analytically this is significant, because it shows that Lily is shifting the focus of her attention from the image of the dirty dishes to her act of valuing its significance.

Two points explain this methodological move. First, as the object of valuing, Insight practitioners define «significance» as the gap or the fit –the disjunction or the congruence– between what you verify to be so in your current circumstances and what you would hope or welcome to be the case. Insight practitioners further differentiate three realms of significance: personal, practical, and relational (also referred to as social). To register a gap in any of these realms of significance is to apprehend in your presenting circumstances what Insight practitioners call a «threat» to your hopes, concerns, and expectations. In Lily’s case, her fury reveals that she registers a threat in Marco’s decision to leave dirty dishes in the sink, and her heightened awareness of her valuing prompts her to name the gap she feels: «I’m not his cleaning lady!»

Second, as a practical matter, it is not easy to be explicitly mindful of the operations, objects, and carriers of our valuing. As Lily’s moralizing claim that Marco is a bastard makes clear, the flow of our conscious operations is often compact and elemental, and initially at least, our acts of valuing are often reactive and reflexively truncated rather than differentiated and mindful. In Lily’s case, as her mind flows spontaneously from verifying that the kitchen is a mess to feeling furious about it, the image of «Marco leaving his dirty dishes in the sink» begins to function as an emblem or symbol of the gap she is perceiving in the situation. In the absence of Insight questions that would help her to differentiate them, the visual image she conjures of Marco leaving his dishes, and the feeling of fury precipitated within her remain symbolically undifferentiated in Lily’s mind.

As Lonergan defines it, «a symbol is an image of a real or imaginary object that evokes a feeling or is evoked by a feeling» (Lonergan, 1972, p. 64). He further specifies that feelings evoked by symbols are «elemental» when «there has not yet been reached the distinction between meaning and meant» (Lonergan, 1972, p. 74). As Glenn Hughes explains, performances of valuing like Lily’s «[are] elemental precisely because the symbolic significance [of the dirty dishes] is not objectified, not scrutinized and judged» (Hughes, 2011, p. 40). For Lily, the fury she registers upon encountering the dirty dishes feels intensely significant, but its significance is unknown because her valuing is elemental, reactive, and reflexively truncated.

To help individuals like Lily differentiate their elemental performances of valuing and reflexively grasp the felt sense of significance they are registering, Insight practitioners use a particular set of terms and relations to guide their formulation of Insight questions. These terms are correlated in Table 3, and they reflect the discovery that the answer to the basic question for valuing (What is the significance of this?) can be usefully differentiated into three functionally related realms of significance, each with its own characteristic carrier of consciousness. As noted above, the realms of significance are personal, practical, and relational, and the corresponding carriers of consciousness are images of self, narratives, and patterns of cooperation.

In declaring, «I’m Marco’s roommate, not his cleaning lady.» Lily offers an important clue to the gap she perceives, albeit not a definitive one. For to experience herself as a «cleaning lady» could conceivably reveal a gap in any of the three realms of significance: a personal gap linked to her self-image, a practical gap concretely carried by a threat narrative about being a cleaning lady, or a relational gap concerning the distribution of roles and tasks among roommates. Thus, the next Insight question seeks to clarify this point by directing the inquiry to Lily’s experience of the gap: «What infuriates you about experiencing yourself that way?» Lily’s response confirms that for her the most salient gap lies in the relational implications of Marco’s behavior. Her elemental experience of the dishes is an emblem of a pattern of cooperation she finds unacceptable: «Roommates should not treat each other this way.»

The following Insight questions seek to deepen Lily’s reflexive awareness of the felt sense of the gap she perceives, and what its significance is for her. As her reflexive awareness grows, Lily becomes discerning in her valuing, and is able to objectify the gap by restating (and again rejecting) the role it seems to call upon her to play: «I am not his cleaning lady.» Yet, despite Lily’s rejection of the role, her consciousness is nevertheless being carried by it. This is intensely disturbing to Lily, as she becomes mindful that her focus is being drawn away from her work-related tasks, responsibilities, and roles and «fixed on the damn dishes.» This discovery also leads her to make the connection between her relational gap with Marco and the other two realms of significance, personal (her image of herself in her work) and practical (the consequences of not finishing her project on time.) The concrete significance of the personal and practical gaps remain to be discovered in the data of Lily’s consciousness, but instead of pursuing these avenues, the Insight practitioner summarizes Lily’s discovery of what seems to be the most salient of the three-fold gap, that roommates should treat each other differently, and Lily verifies this account.

Correlating Valuing and Deciding

Once the performance of valuing is differentiated, the third basic operation of the Insight method is to critically correlate the valuing and deciding operative in the individual’s conflict behavior. As indicated on the Insight loop, the threefold sequence of operations that follows upon the performance of valuing begins with deliberating and proceeds through evaluating to deciding. This sequence of deliberating-evaluating-deciding is a problem-solving process intrinsic to the patterned flow of our conscious operations. «Deliberating» is our first order response to the significance we apprehend in our valuing. When we begin asking and answering the basic question for deliberation (What could I do?) we put our hopes and concerns creatively into play by imaginatively correlating potential options and outcomes with the personal, practical, and relational significance we are discerning in our circumstances. Deliberating gives way to the more narrowly targeted question for evaluating (What is my best option?) and this in turn yields to the existential act of deciding (Will I commit to carrying this out?). «Deciding» is the act we perform when we commit to the course of action singled out by our performance of evaluating. Normatively, that is to say, when our performances of deliberating-evaluating-deciding are respectively imaginative-conscientious-free (rather than some combination of limited-rash-constrained) the course of action we commit to will critically and creatively respond to the gaps and congruities we discern in our valuing.

«So what did you do?» the Insight practitioner asks Lily. «I threw Marco’s dishes on his bed,» she replies. From the reflexively truncated vantage of her elemental, reactive valuing, Lily’s decision to throw the dishes on the bed makes sense to her. She feels righteous about this decision and punctuates the act by slamming the door on her way out. However, now that she is more reflexively mindful about her valuing of the situation, her performance of deciding seems askew. The act of throwing the dishes on Marco’s bed now seems mistaken and counter productive. The final sequence of Insight questions –What were you going for when you threw the dishes on the bed? What do you think you achieved?– target Lily’s performance of evaluating, and her replies are reflexively pensive: «I don’t know. I imagine Marco will be upset. I suppose he could retaliate.» In fact, it is clear from the feeling tone of her words that Lily is engaged in valuing her entire performance of deliberating-evaluating-deciding. The Insight practitioner mirrors the feeling manifest in her words: «That’s worrisome.» Lily confirms it, and the next Insight question deepens her focus on her performance: «If you had a second chance at this, what might you do instead?» The aim here is to help Lily critically correlate her valuing and deciding. With little hesitation she proposes a course of action more suited to the relational gap she discerns in the situation: she thinks it would be good to explain to Marco what happens for her when she comes home to find dirty dishes in the sink. She can no longer seriously imagine throwing the dishes on Marco’s bed. Clearly, she has come a long way from her initial, elemental experience of the dirty dishes. By becoming reflexively aware of her valuing and by critically correlating it with her deciding, Lily transforms her commitment to conflict behavior to a commitment to peaceable behavior. She is now ready to resolve her conflict with Marco. She will, of course, need to address the significance Marco discerns in her conflict behavior, and in doing so, her best option would be to pay explicit attention to his valuing and deciding.

My aim in this essay has been to provide a working illustration of the method in analyzing conflict behavior currently being used and developed by Insight practitioners. Following Lonergan, I point out that a method is a carrier of consciousness: a pattern of related and recurring operations that guides and directs the flow of our consciousness toward critically grounded discoveries and explanations. I use a case study, «Lily comes home,» to clarify the sequence of related operations that constitute the Insight approach: relating the relevant data of sense and consciousness, differentiating the performance of valuing, and critically correlating valuing and deciding. I also demonstrate how Insight practitioners use the technique of asking targeted Insight questions to execute the method itself: to foster the progressively and cumulatively enhanced mindfulness required to understand, appropriate, and transform conflict behavior.

The broader significance of distinguishing the Insight approach as a method from the applied techniques that have been developed to implement it, is that it invites the extension of the Insight approach beyond its current technical applications: beyond Insight conversations, beyond Insight mediation, beyond Insight policing (Price, M 2015), beyond Insight theatre (Price, V 2017), beyond Insight leadership and peacebuilding, to new and deeper quests for answers to questions for understanding that remain unknown, yet pressing in the need for their discovery. And so I end where I began: by reiterating Lonergan’s observation that a method is a framework for collaborative creativity, by welcoming your collaboration, and by anticipating the progressive and cumulative results of your creativity.

References

Hughes, G. (2011). A More Beautiful Question. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.

Lonergan, B. (1972). Method in Theology. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Lonergan, B. (1985). A Third Collection. New York: Paulist Press

Lonergan, B. (2004). Philosophical and Theological Papers 1965-1980. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Lonergan, B. (2016). A Second Collection. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Melchin, M., & Picard, C. (2008). Transforming Conflict Through Insight. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Price, M. (2015). The Process and Partnerships Behind Insight Policing. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(5), 553–567. Process and Partnerships in Insight Policing.

Price, V. (2017). Insight and the Performing Arts: A Journey of Discovery. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Articles published in this issue