A Mir Kiss? By Steven L. McShane, The University of Western Australia A team of

Question

A Mir Kiss?

By Steven L. McShane, The University of Western Australia

A team of psychologists at Moscow's Institute for Biomedical Problems (IBMP) wanted to learn more about the dynamics of long-term isolation in space. This knowledge would be applied to the International Space Station, a joint project of several countries that would send people into space for more than six months. It would eventually include a trip to Mars taking up to three years.

IBMP set up a replica of the Mir space station in Moscow. They then arranged for three international researchers from Japan, Canada and Austria to spend 110 days isolated in a chamber the size of a train car. This chamber joined a smaller chamber where four Russian cosmonauts had already completed half of their 240 days of isolation. This was the first time an international crew was involved in the studies. None of the participants spoke English as their first language, yet they communicated throughout their stay in English at varying levels of proficiency.

Judith Lapierre, a French Canadian, was the only female in the experiment. In addition to her PhD in public health and social medicine, Lapierre studied space sociology at the International Space University in France and conducted isolation research in the Antarctic. This was her fourth trip to Russia, and she had already learned the language. The mission was supposed to have a second female participant from the Japanese space program, but she was not selected by IBMP.

The Japanese and Austrian participants viewed the participation of a woman as a favourable factor, says Lapierre. For example, to make the surroundings more comfortable, they rearranged the furniture, hung posters on the wall and put a tablecloth on the kitchen table. ‘We adapted our environment, whereas the Russians just viewed it as something to be endured,’ she explains. ‘We decorated for Christmas, because I'm the kind of person who likes to host people.’

New Year's Eve Turmoil

Ironically, it was at one of those social events, the New Year's Eve party, that events took a turn for the worse. After drinking vodka (allowed by the Russian space agency), two of the Russian cosmonauts got into a fistfight that left blood splattered on the chamber walls. At one point, a colleague hid the knives in the station's kitchen because of fears that the two Russians were about to stab each other. The two cosmonauts, who generally did not get along, had to be restrained by other men. Soon after that brawl, the Russian commander grabbed Lapierre, dragged her out of view of the television monitoring cameras and kissed her aggressively—twice. Lapierre fought him off, but the message didn't register. He tried to kiss her again the next morning.

The next day, the international crew complained to IBMP about the behaviour of the Russian cosmonauts. The Russian institute apparently took no action against any of the aggressors. Instead, the institute's psychologists replied that the incidents were part of the experiment. They wanted crew members to solve their personal problems with mature discussion, without asking for outside help. ‘You have to understand that Mir is an autonomous object, far away from anything,’ Vadim Gushin, the IBMP psychologist in charge of the project, explained after the experiment had ended in March: ‘If the crew can't solve problems among themselves, they can't work together.’

Following IBMP's response, the international crew wrote a scathing letter to the Russian institute and the space agencies involved in the experiment. ‘We had never expected such events to take place in a highly controlled scientific experiment where individuals go through a multistep selection process,’ they wrote. ‘If we had known … we would not have joined it as subjects.’ The letter also complained about IBMP's response to their concerns.

Informed of the New Year's Eve incident, the Japanese space program convened an emergency meeting on 2 January to address the incidents. Soon after, the Japanese team member quit, apparently shocked by IBMP's inaction. He was replaced with a Russian researcher on the international team. Ten days after the fight—a little over a month after the international team began the mission—the doors between the Russian and international crew's chambers were barred at the request of the international research team. Lapierre later emphasised that this action was taken because of concerns about violence, not the incident involving her.

A Stolen Kiss or Sexual Harassment?

By the end of the experiment in March, news of the fistfight between the cosmonauts and the commander's attempts to kiss Lapierre had reached the public. Russian scientists attempted to play down the kissing incident by saying that it was one fleeting kiss, a clash of cultures and a female participant who was too emotional.

‘In the West, some kinds of kissing are regarded as sexual harassment. In our culture it's nothing,’ said IBMP's Vadim Gushin in one interview. In another interview, he explained: ‘The problem of sexual harassment is given a lot of attention in North America but less in Europe. In Russia it is even less of an issue, not because we are more or less moral than the rest of the world; we just have different priorities.’

Judith Lapierre says the kissing incident was tolerable compared to this reaction from the Russian scientists who conducted the experiment. ‘They don't get it at all,’ she complains. ‘They don't think anything is wrong. I'm more frustrated than ever. The worst thing is that they don't realise it was wrong.’

Norbert Kraft, the Austrian scientist on the international team, also disagreed with the Russian interpretation of events. ‘They're trying to protect themselves,’ he says. ‘They're trying to put the fault on others. But this is not a cultural issue. If a woman doesn't want to be kissed, it is not acceptable.’

Questions

1. Identify the different conflict episodes that exist in this case? Who was in conflict with whom?

2. What are the sources of conflict for these conflict incidents?

3. What conflict management style(s) did Lapierre, the international team, and Gushin use to resolve these conflicts? What style(s) would have worked best in these situations?

4. What conflict management interventions were applied here? Did they work? What alternative strategies would work best in this situation and in the future?

Explanation / Answer

1.

First, conflict between two Russian cosmonauts, who generally did not get along andgot into a fistfight that left blood splattered on the chamber walls.Second, conflict between Judith Lapierre, one of three international researchers andRussian commander who try to kiss her, regarded as sexual harassment.Third, conflict between international crews and The Russian Institute for BiomedicalProblems (IBMP), caused by IBMP’s respond toward international crews’ complain about the unpleasant behavior of the Russian cosmonauts.

2.

a) The two Russian, who generally did not get along, are under alcohol. It makesthem not clearly think about what they do or say which probably cause a fightbetween them. The Russian space agency should not allow them to drink.

b) The Russian commander did a sexual harassment to Judith Lapierre. Hegrabbed and dragged her out of view of the television monitoring cameras, sothere will be no one to see, he kissed her aggressively twice. Even when Lapierre had fought him off, he still tried to kiss her again.

c) IBMP’s response due to international crew’s complain about the Russian cosmonauts behavior are displeased. Instead of giving a solution, IBMP replied that the incidents were part of the experiment and they should solvetheir personal problem by themselves while it never been inform in the firstplace of recruitment

3.

The conflict management style adopted by Ms. Lapierre was an interpersonalconflict management style called ‘competing’, in this style, an individual tries to winthe conflict at the expense of the other. In this case, she defended herself usingforce to push away the Russian commander and fought him off. This style is used when cooperativeness is not an option rather, assertiveness is an option The international team on the other hand also adopted an interpersonal conflictmanagement style called `avoiding ' In this style, situations that may result inconflicts are avoided all together and that is exactly what the international team didwhen they asked the IBMP to close the doors between their chamber and theRussian chamber so as to avoid any conflict altogether. Gushin used anaccommodating approach towards conflict management when he stated that `if thecrew can’t solve their problems amongst themselves, they can’t work together ' This implied that there were clear rules and procedures, the fact that the space objectwill be out in the space and that resolutions should be obtained in a mature andpractical manner amongst the individuals themselves. In other words, that the IBMPwas justified for what it said and that it was of their business.

The style that would have worked best in these situations would have been through negotiation. Negotiation is the most powerful tool to conflict resolution andattains a fair solution for every party involved. That is when discussion is used toobtain a more satisfactory solution rather than aggression or ignorance altogether.Moreover, collaboration can also be used in this the problemis defined as acreative solution to the conflict that would not have been generated by a singleindividual. With such a positive outcome for collaboration, some people will professthat the collaboration mode is always the best conflict mode to use. However,collaborating takes a great deal of time and energy. Therefore, the collaboratingmode should be used when the conflict warrants the time and energy.

4.

The conflict management intervention were applied here are negotiation tonegotiate the conflict in order to resolve the conflict; the conflict management skillscan also be applied for them to develop the modes and style of conflicts. Accessand support, these approach evolved from staff member helping others make their point, not abandoning a person alone on position. Further, after seeing a staff members fall through the thin ice of his/her analysis and seeing someone, staff or participant, drag it up again it became safe to venture out on the thin places in one’sthinking. This was a way of making minority safe; it was not aloneness. Yes it worksby means of applying it. The alternatives strategies would best in this situation isthe collaboration and integration of an idea to intervene the situation

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.