Suchergebnisse

AbstractA theory-oriented approach to teaching and training about negotiation is discussed in this article. Following the flow of a course taught on several continents, I emphasize the value of conceptualizing about the negotiating experience. This is done with concepts, metaphors, frameworks, and research findings summarized in the form of a set of narratives. A series of exercises bring the concepts to life. These include the difference between negotiating values and interests, designing scenarios, and enacting the negotiating functions of analyst, strategist, and designer. Students are also given an opportunity to perform as negotiators and observers in a complex multi-issue negotiation involving security issues similar to those discussed recently between the U.S. and Iraq. They are provided with a research experience that entails coding selected peace agreements for distributive and procedural justice as well as for the durability of those agreements. Lessons learned are generated in de-briefings of the exercises. They are also discussed in a final class where students' insights, gained from comparative case analyses, are organized by the framework introduced during earlier classes.

AbstractThe impact of group attachments on negotiating behavior is a theme (or variable) that runs through many articles published in International Negotiation. It is also a popular topic for research on groups reported in other outlets. This literature set in motion the analytical probe discussed in this article. Focusing attention primarily on ingroup-favoring biases, four questions are asked: What is the phenomenon? Why does it occur? How can it be reduced? Where is it manifest in a larger policy context within which negotiations take place? Highlighted in this essay are the prevalence of the bias, the variety of plausible explanations for its occurrence, the distinction between patriotic and nationalistic group attachments, and the connections between group loyalty, policy making, and collective action. The insights achieved also reveal a number of areas for further research. This topic is one example of the many research accomplishments that herald the birth and maturity of a field of study and practice. In this special issue, we take pause to document these accomplishments as we look forward to another decade of progress.

The impact of group attachments on negotiating behavior is a theme (or variable) that runs through many articles published in International Negotiation. It is also a popular topic for research on groups reported in other outlets. This literature set in motion the analytical probe discussed in this article. Focusing attention primarily on ingroup-favoring biases, four questions are asked: What is the phenomenon? Why does it occur? How can it be reduced? Where is it manifest in a larger policy context within which negotiations take place? Highlighted in this essay are the prevalence of the bias, the variety of plausible explanations for its occurrence, the distinction between patriotic & nationalistic group attachments, & the connections between group loyalty, policy making, & collective action. The insights achieved also reveal a number of areas for further research. This topic is one example of the many research accomplishments that herald the birth & maturity of a field of study & practice. In this special issue, we take pause to document these accomplishments as we look forward to another decade of progress. References. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractThis article describes the way time-series designs are used in research on international negotiation and related processes. Both quantitative and qualitative applications are discussed. One use of the techniques is to predict known outcomes of historical cases of negotiation. Both inductive and deductive approaches have been used in studies that evaluate alternative models of the way that negotiators respond to each other through the course of the talks. Another use of the techniques is to evaluate the impacts of such interventions as mediations or combat (referred to as interruptions) on the dynamics of conflict between nations. A third approach involves probabilistic forecasting with Bayesian analysis. This consists of revising initial probabilities of events (coups, peace agreements) based on current information about indicators that signal the occurrence of the event. Qualitative techniques have also been used to capture changes in conflict processes over time. These include charting changes in typological categories or in the use of influence strategies used by national actors in enduring rivalries. They also include tracing of paths to agreement or stalemate in negotiation, documenting progress in small-group dialogues, and developing chains of communication leading to peace agreements. By combining several of these techniques an analyst can draw conclusions about the likelihood that an event will occur (Bayesian analysis), its impact on a process (interrupted time series), and the way it emerged from prior events (process tracing).

In this article, I address connections between processes at the micro (e.g., negotiation) and macro or contextual levels of analysis. The discussion situates process analysis in the broader settings in which the interactions take place. The first major section shows how various contextual factors may influence micro‐level processes. These factors include events, structures or institutions, and cultures. In the second major section, I consider the ways that small‐group processes may influence the macro‐level context. Societal (organizational, international) changes may result from such processes as those that occur in problem‐solving workshops, educational exchanges, and formal negotiations, including the objectives sought and strategies used, the tone and content of rhetoric displayed, and the formats and procedures devised. The article concludes with a way to conceptualize the linkages between processes and structures at the different levels.

The theme of this keynote address is conceptual puzzles raised by empirical research on conflict management and resolution. Three types of puzzles are highlighted: those that deal with processes, identities, and situations. The process puzzles include some counter‐intuitive implications of negotiating strategies and interaction process dynamics. The identity puzzles include the ways in which identity is negotiated, perceptions of ingroups and outgroups, and the connection between loyalty to groups and collective action. The situation puzzles address attribution issues, the distinction between passive actors and active agents, and the role of history. An attempt is then made to juxtapose the puzzles toward a larger conception of a field that emphasizes change in the phenomena we analyze in research and shape through practice. A number of these ideas are found also in the research of previous IACM lifetime award recipients, with whom connections are made.

In their 1994 study of divorce mediation, Kressel and his colleagues distinguished between a problem-solving and a settlement-oriented style of mediation. The former led to more integrative agreements and better long-term relationships between the parties than the latter. This distinction has been a basis for a multi-method research program on negotiation and mediation processes in international relations. We have been exploring the consequences of a variety of indicators for outcomes and post-agreement relations among parties. In the laboratory, we have identified the way that sources of conflict (values and interests) lead to processes with different implications for long-term relationships. In case studies, we have identified the political conditions that produce short-term settlements, or stalemates followed by further escalation. In small-N comparative case studies, we have shown how negotiation process and context operate together to influence post-settlement relations and system change. We used a comparison of the conflicts in Karabakh and Mozambique and three cases of base-rights talks as examples. In large-N aggregate case comparisons, we developed empirical profiles of types of negotiation (e.g., innovation vs. re-distribution) with implications for outcomes and relationships as well as the role played by turning points in projecting a process toward agreement and changing escalatory into de-escalatory processes. The variables identified by these studies are organized in terms of a framework that connects issues and objectives, background factors, and conditions with processes, outcomes, and implementation. The framework shows how these variables can lead to integrative agreements.

Four case-based research approaches to analysis of data on international negotiation are discussed: the single, analytical case study, the temporal or time-series case study, the focused comparison of a small number of similar cases, & aggregate comparisons of a large number of different cases. The strategies are compared in terms of a number of methodological & substantive features. They are considered as alternative routes to theory development, understood best in relation to each other & best utilized together as part of a multimethod research strategy. The role of frameworks for guiding comparative analyses is discussed in the second part of the article. They are illustrated in conjunction with several multivariate projects involving the coding of variables from a variety of cases. Methods of analysis & findings obtained from these projects are then summarized. These framework-driven comparative analyses are facilitated by the advent of Web-based technologies. The new technologies are especially useful for collecting information about cases of negotiation not described in archival publications. The article concludes with challenges that confront the analyst & some gaps that remain to be filled. 1 Table, 56 References. Adapted from the source document.

In their 1994 study of divorce mediation, Kressel & his colleagues distinguished between a problem solving & a settlement-oriented style of mediation. The former led to more integrative agreements & better long-term relationships between the parties than the latter. This distinction has been a basis for a multi-method research program on negotiation & mediation processes in international relations. We have been exploring the consequences of a variety of indicators for outcomes & post-agreement relations among parties. In the laboratory, we have identified the way that sources of conflict (values & interests) lead to processes with different implications for long-term relationships. In case studies, we have identified the political conditions that produce short-term settlements, or stalemates followed by further escalation. In small-N comparative case studies, we have shown how negotiation process & context operate together to influence post-settlement relations & system change. We used a comparison of the conflicts in Karabakh & Mozambique & three cases of base-rights talks as examples. In large-N aggregate case comparisons, we developed empirical profiles of types of negotiation (eg, innovation vs redistribution) with implications for outcomes & relationships as well as the role played by turning points in projecting a process toward agreement & changing escalatory into de-escalatory processes. The variables identified by these studies are organized in terms of a framework that connects issues & objectives, background factors, & conditions with processes, outcomes, & implementation. The framework shows how these variables can lead to integrative agreements. 1 Figure, 38 References. Adapted from the source document.

A turning-points analysis of 34 cases of international negotiation is performed in three parts: precipitants (external, substantive, or procedural), process departures (abrupt or nonabrupt), and immediate and later consequences (escalatory or de-escalatory). The cases are divided into three types according to issue area: security, political (including environmental), and trade or economic negotiations. The results are summarized in terms of paths to outcomes: security negotiations are characterized primarily by external precipitants leading to abrupt departures in process that typically turn the talks in the direction of agreements; process departures or turning points in political and trade talks are usually precipitated by either substantive or procedural decisions made by the negotiators that also lead to agreements. Implications of the findings are discussed in terms of the risk-averse and reactive orientations taken by governments in the area of security policy. They are also discussed in the context of strengths and limitations of the comparative analysis approach and in relation to analyses of 11 cases of domestic negotiations in the airlines industry.