bridging the gap between negotiating experience and analysis

Teaching Ideas

Bridging the Gap Between Negotiating Experience and Analysis

Danie l D r u c k m a n

This article describes a teaching approach aimed at helping students to

develop the skills needed to understand the negotiation research literature

as well as make them more sensitive observers o f negotiation processes.

The approach consists o f moving f rom the students" specific experiences to

a general framework which is used to analyze cases of international nego-

tiation. Students then attempt to reconceptualize their experiences in terms

of the framework's analytical categories. This approach is recommended as

an alternative to role-play exercises for integrating experience and analysis

in graduate courses on negotiation.

rennial challenge for teachers of negotiation courses is to relate the ysis of negotiation to the exper iences of their students. Students

often come to a class on negotiation with some personal exper ience or information about particular negotiations and nostrums from "how-to" books. Few students, however, come to class wi th analytical skills or knowledge about research on the topic.

The central theme of my graduate course on negotiat ion processes, taught at George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and Reso- lution (ICAR), is to demonstrate how analysis complements exper ience and contributes in important ways to an understanding of negotiaUon, The pur-

Daniel Druckman is professor of conflict management at George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and ResoluUon 0CAR), 4620 Chain Bridge Road, Fairfax, Virginia 220304444. In addition to teaching the course on negoUation processes (the subject of this article), he teaches courses on research methods In George Mason's doctoral program. Among recent projects, he just completed an analysis of diplomatic communications sent among the kingdoms during the Bronze Age.

O748-4526/96/10OO~37t$09.50/0 © 1996 Plenum Publishing Corporation NegottatfonJournal October 1996 3"/1

pose of the course is to develop analytical skills that will increase students ' understanding of the research and theoretical literature as well as to make them more sensitive observers of negotiation. The course is not in tended specifically to make students more effective negotiators, al though any contri- but ions made to sharpening these skills would be welcome.

The students and I work to achieve our goals by moving in sequence f rom the specif ic to the general, and then back to the specific. In o the r words, starting with the students ' exper iences , we construct a f ramework that is then used to analyze a n u m b e r of cases, and conclude with judgments about the extent to which the f ramework and analysis have contr ibuted to an understanding of their exper iences or of particular cases. This approach is an alternative to using experiential games or role-play exercises to accom- plish similar goals. My choice of this approach was influenced by the results of studies showing small long-term learning ou tcomes from participating in interactive games or simulations. (See Druckman 1995 for a recent review of evaluation studies.) This article describes h o w the approach is implemented in a semester-length graduate course.

N e g o t i a t i n g E x p e r i e n c e

On the first day of class, students are asked to describe a negotiating experi- e n c e t ha t i n v o l v e d t h e m o r t h a t t h e y o b s e r v e d c lose ly . A m o n g t h e wide-ranging examples that this request stimulates are: negotiating over the price of a bicycle or a computer ; resolving disputes among family m e m b e r s over shares in a family-owned business; negotiations be tween students and faculty in a depar tment over travel funds to be allocated to students; budget disputes among federal agencies; territorial disputes be tween factions in a boy's camp; environmental negotiations among national representatives over issues with global consequences; issues concerning the role of local citizens in school decisions; negot ia t ing changed relat ionships wi th parents; and vying to negotiate a lease for a highly-prized apartment. Man), of these exam- p les deal w i t h tangib le r e source -a l loca t ion issues or p u r c h a s e s ; a f e w concern relationship issues or describe complex negotiations within organizations or institutions.

Students are asked a n u m b e r o f ques t ions abou t these exper iences : What were the issues? What was the outcome? What happened during the process of negotiating? Was there bargaining and, if so, h o w did it occur? H o w did the parties prepare to negotiate? What were some factors in the situation that may have influenced the negotiation process or its outcome? Has the agreement (if attained) lasted? And, did the negotiation affect the parties ' relationship and, if so, how? The answers to these questions identify factors c o m m o n to many of the students ' exper iences as well as some that were unique to particular experiences.

Most of the students focused on the issues, processes , situation, and outcomes. In discussing the issues, they dealt primarily with such content- specific topics as "differences over pr ice" "the role of school employees , ' or

372 Daniel Druckman Bridging the Gap

"space and territory" In characterizing the process, they used such terms as "discussion;' "formal or informal," "note-passing or face-to-face," or "a series of meetings with alternating personnel." The situations were described often in terms of the parties, such as "six sellers and one buyer," "multiple groups with consultants," "team stability or change," or "the inf luence of NGOs." With regard to the outcomes, they referred to the "agreed price," "the pro- posal on the table" (if no resolution occurred) or "the creation of a program:'

Many of these descriptions are nonanalytical. They depict aspects of the specific negotiating examples rather than more generic categories such as large or small issues, concess ion exchange or problem-solving processes, time pressures, or whe the r the agreements were comprehensive (all issues resolved) or partial. Many factors about which research has been done were not ment ioned and few students seemed to have a concept ion of relationships b e t w e e n p r o c e s s e s or s i tua t ions and o u t c o m e s . Based on these descr ipt ions , I r ecognized the need for a broad analytical f ramework in w h i c h re la t ionsh ips a m o n g par ts o f the nego t ia t ing e n v i r o n m e n t and processes are depicted.

Building on these descriptions, the students and I develop a vocabulary that consists of a listing of factors in the situation, process, issues, and external events operating in any negotiation. In a second round of responding to the questions noted earlier, the students are encouraged to group aspects of their negotiation into the categories of issues (e.g., large or small); process (e.g., bargaining, debate); outcomes (e.g., proport ionate division, impasse); situation (e.g., t ime pressures, team stability); and implementation (e.g., provisions for pro tec t ing the agreement) . These questions are also asked by researchers. But, in addition, the researchers add questions about relationships b e t w e e n the p rocess and its o u t c o m e or b e t w e e n factors in the situation and the process or outcome. The exercise introduces students to the idea of relationships among various parts of a negotiation, emphasizing that these connect ions are discovered through empirical research done on a large number of cases, not on the basis of a single negotiating experience.

D e v e l o p i n g a F r a m e w o r k

Negotiation is depicted in most of the literature as a complex process which, when thought about analytically, consists of many related parts. The parts and their relationships can be depicted by a framework that connects factors that, in general, occur at three different time periods:

• a n t e c e d e n t (preparation, issues, background factors);

• c o n c u r r e n t (processes such as bargaining, conditions such as time pressures or external events); and

• c o n s e q u e n t (including the outcomes and implementation provisions).

The framework shown in Figure 1 (based originaUy on the format developed by Sawyer and Guetkow [1965]) provides a structure for the course by

Negotiation Journal October 1996 373

organizing research on the topic and providing a tool for comparing diverse cases.

This approach is more eclectic than specialized in terms of one or another disciplinary orientation. However, while synthesizing several research traditions, the framework emphasizes social psychological factors. The Sawyer-Guetzkow (1965) framework serves these purposes well. But we also review other candidate frameworks, including those by Randolph (1966), Walton and McKersie (1965), Ikl6 (1964) and various modified ver- sions of the Sawyer and Guetzkow framework, such as the ones developed by Druckman (1977, 1993), Ramberg (1978), and Bonham (1971).

Figure 1 Inf luences and Processes o f Negotiation: A Fra mewo rk

A N T E C E D E N T

P r e c o n d i t i o n s

• P r e p a r a t i o n for n e g o t i a t i o n

• Issue s t r uc tu r e : size, complex i ty , f r aming

• Goals a n d

incen t ives

I B a c k g r o u n d F a c t o r s

• Cultural similarities o r d i f f e rences

• Al te rna t ives (BATNAs)

• Nego t i a t ion e x p e r i e n c e

• Re la t ionsh ips a m o n g pa r t i e s

• Cogn i t ive a n d ideo log ica l f ac to r s

• Ba rga in ing o r i e n t a t i o n

• Power - d e p e n d e n c y s t r u c t u r e

/

C O N C U R R E N T

P r o c e s s e s

• Barga in ing tac t ics - Use o f r e w a r d s - Pre se n t i ng t w o

faces • I n f o r m a t i o n

e x c h a n g e • Proposa l s ,

c o n c e s s i o n s • Stages • Impasses , t u r n i n g

p o i n t s

C o n d i t i o n s

• T ime p r e s s u r e • N u m b e r o f par t ies • Thi rd-par t i es • O p e n o r s e c r e t

p r o c e e d i n g s (med ia i n f l u e n c e )

• C o n s t i t u e n t

a c c o u n t a b i l i t y ( r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ' s ro le ob l iga t ions )

• Externa l e v e n t s / c o n t e x t

C O N S E Q U E N T

T O u t c o m e s

• A g r e e m e n t o r

s t a l ema te - Type o f

a g r e e m e n t as c o m p r o m i s e , cap i tu l a t ion , in tegra t ive

• Sat is fact ion w i th

o u t c o m e a n d o t h e r p e r c e p t i o n s

I m p l e m e n t a t i o n

• Renego t i a t i on p rov i s ions

• Stabil i ty o f a g r e e m e n t

• C o n s e q u e n c e s for v io la t ion

• D o m e s t i c / i n t e rna t i ona l s u p p o r t

3'74 Daniel Druckman Bridging the Gap

I note that the frameworks contain many of the factors identified by the s tudents in the i r o w n e x p e r i e n c e s plus o t h e r fac tors ident i f ied by the research but not thought to be present in their examples. I then revisit the students ' examples by asking class members to describe their negotiation exper iences again, this time in terms of the frameworks: What were some precondi t ions? Background factors? Aspects of the process? Conditions? Types of outcomes? I also ask the students to develop hypotheses about h o w these factors might be related in the context of their examples.

The same students w h o described the content of the issues at stake in their examples now distinguished (in the case of multiple-issue negotiation) be tween the large and small issues as well as be tween complex and simpler issues. Instead of referring to the process as a "discussion" or "formal 7 they conceptual ized it in terms of concession exchanges, the f requency of threats used or accommodat ions made, and as phases going from developing agen- das to an endgame.

Features of the situation or conditions now included whe the r the talks were public or private, divisions within teams (for bilateral examples) or coalitions (for multilateral examples), and stresses on the negotiators. Out- comes we re n o w discussed in t e rms o f the n u m b e r o f issues resolved, whe the r resolutions were compromises, asymmetrical distributions, or integrative agreements, and w h e t h e r packages (for complex examples) were balanced or imbalanced. The students also noted the extent to which parties were satisfied with the outcome.

Going beyond reconceptualization, we then explore the idea of relationships among these factors. For example, a relationship be tween issues, process, and ou tcome may take the following form: bargaining is more likely to occur over tangible (material as opposed to ideological) issues leading to ei ther compromises or outcomes that favor one or another of the parties. These are the sorts of relationships investigated by researchers, and we turn next to a review of the studies.

R e v i e w i n g t h e R e s e a r c h L i t e r a t u r e

Examples of published research studies designed to investigate relationships among most of these factors and outcomes are reviewed in conjunct ion with the framework - - and as a prelude to discussions of the research literature listed in the syllabus. Topics discussed include the experimental studies on consti tuent accountability (e.g., Ben-Yoav and Pruitt 1984); the experiments done on the effects of time pressure (e.g., Carnevale and Lawler 1986); work on the way nego t ia t ing teams p e r f o r m tact ical moves (e.g., Hilty and Carnevale 1993); case study analyses of the influence of external (compared to internal) events (e.g., Hopmann and Smith 1978); the way that alternatives to negotiated agreements are developed and used (e.g., Pinkley et al. 1994); and the role of exper ience in previous negotiations as analyzed by Thompson (1993).

Negotiation Jout?lal October 1996 375

These examples of research studies begin an excursion into the literature which is organized into several parts. Readings from the Kremenyuk (1991) volume are supplemented with journal articles including reports of exper imenta l studies in the Journal of Conflict Resolution and the case studies presented in Negotiation Journal. The first part of the course, think- ing about negotiation, consists of an introduction to four research traditions: game and decision theory, bargaining games, organizational bargaining, and systems approaches. (See Druckman and Hopmann [1989] for an overview of these traditions.)

In discussing these approaches, students are encouraged to use their examples and to seek parallel illustrations from other domains. Regarding game theory in terms of puzzles to be solved, I ask the students to think of their examples as choice dilemmas for both (or all) the "players:' The choice may be similar to that confronting United States and Soviet Union negotiators during the Cuban missile crisis - - to concede or to hold firm (Snyder and Diesing 1977). Or, it may be b e t w e e n choos ing to negot ia te or to obstruct negotiations as illustrated by the Iran hostage crisis game 03rams 1993). Many of the s tudents ' examples involved a bargaining process in which concess ions we re exchanged until an agreement was reached. In negotiating over the price of a compute r or over claims for space, bargainers respond to each other's moves in a manner similar to the way arms control negotiators exchange proposals from one round to another (Jensen 1988).

The s tudents ' examples of conf l ic t s wi th in universi t ies or federal bureaucracies illuminate bargaining within organizations. In these examples, negotiators are representatives who must at tempt to resolve the compet ing demands o f one ' s o w n and o the r s ' cons t i tuenc ies . This boundary - ro le dilemma is com m on in labor-management negotiations (Walton and McKer- sie 1965) but is also illustrated by the two-level game in international politics (Putnam 1988).

When describing global environmental negotiat ions or deliberations involving the International Red Cross, the students show how negotiations can be used to manage international relations or to bridge cultures. They are made aware of systems approaches by reading o ther cases where context and process are merged in at tempts to negotiate regimes 0ervis 1983) or to redesign international structures (Strauss 1977).

The next part of class discussion and readings - - rhythms and patterns of negotiation - - exposes students to experimental and case studies on role constraints, preparat ion, framing, concession-making, tactics, and phases and turning points. The discussion of tactics raises questions of ethics in negotiation. Many tactics used in distributive and intraorganizational bargaining (including some from the students ' examples) involve manipulation, decept ion, and coercion. Competit ive bargainers often convey misleading impress ions , w i t h h o l d in format ion , fabr ica te c o m m i t m e n t , exaggera te achievements, and interpose obstacles to communica t ion with opponen t s and constituents. The ethical dilemmas posed by these tactics have led man),


authors to reject distributive bargaining in favor of a process of open com- munication leading to integrative agreements (Kressel et al. 1994; Hopmann 1995).

Students are challenged to develop strategies that encourage sharing of information wi thout risking being exploited. They are he lped by reading Walton and McKersie's (1965: 358) discussion of trust, which is a key ele- ment in both distributive and integrative bargaining: "The fact is that trust appears to be an unmixed asset in negotiations. There is little to c o mme n d a policy of fostering distrust, from either the perspective of attitudinal struc- turing or from that of the other processes." These issues are considered also in relation to flexibility in negotiation, a topic addressed in some detail in a recent special issue of the Annals o f the American Academy o f Political and Social Science (Druckman and Mitchell 1995).

Next, the analysis of complex cases is treated in conjunct ion with the class project outlined in the following section. A part on applications (train- ing, decision suppor t , and how-to-negotiate books) p recedes a summary discussion on re t rospec t - - what we k n o w to date - - and p rospec t uncharted topics and areas.

A n a l y z i n g a n d C o m p a r i n g C a s e s

When I introduce the subject of complex cases, I return to the framework, built from both exper ience and research findings, which I n o w use as an analytical tool for comparing diverse cases. Referred to as a "new research frontier,' the students are taken on an intellectual journey in which they go beyond the single case study in order to develop theories that apply broadly across cases. The comparative approach addresses such questions as: What are the features (issue area, number of parties, conference structure) that distinguish the cases in terms of similarities and dissimilarities? What are the processes (stages, concession exchanges, procedures) and situations (media coverage, t ime pressures, stakes) that distinguish the cases in terms of the outcomes produced? w h a t are the key drivers of the negotiation process, for example, external or internal factors? Do the findings obtained with one set of cases apply also to another set not yet analyzed?

The idea of compar ing cases is in t roduced in terms of the students ' experiences. They are asked to think about the similarities and differences be tween , for example, negotiations over depar tmental budget allocations and compet ing with other buyers in negotiations with an agent for an apartment. The interplay be tween framework and empirical research, illustrated by this project, is similar in many ways to the weB-known CASCON project designed by Bloomfield and Beattie (1971) to help analysts deal with local conflicts.

The cases used in classes taught to date were compi led from such sources as the Johns Hopkins Foreign Policy Institute monograph series and the declassified negotiation transcripts now contained in the Library of Con- gress archives under U.S. Foreign Policy, as well as at a number of university


libraries. Other sources for case material used by the students are the case chronologies and events described by negotiators in the Foreign Service Institute's "lessons learned" projects (Bendahmane and McDonald 1986; McDonald and Bendahmane 1990); articles in the case studies section of this journal; book-length accounts of arms control (e.g., Talbott 1984) or environmental negotiations (e.g., Benedick 1990); the several edited collections of case analyses sponsored by the Processes of International Negotiation @IN) project at the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (e.g., Faure and Rubin 1993; Sj6stedt 1992; Zartman 1994); and the Pew Foundation- sponsored series of cases in international diplomacy.'

It is important to distinguish between the interpretive analyses presented in most published sources and the original documentation found in archives, retrospective reporting by the negotiators, or in government or international organization files. When available, original documents, transcripts, memoranda, or direct observation are preferred sources of data for the kinds of comparative analyses done in this class project. These materials provide a window into what actually took place. The published case studies are often filtered through the lens of an analyst's conceptual approach.

Framework categories are translated into coded variables and applied to the description of the processes and events surrounding the cases. We ask about the structure of the negotiation (e.g., number of delegations), the issues (e.g., number and size), the situation (e.g., existence of deadlines, media attention), role of external events (e.g., linkages to other talks), the process (e.g., bargaining or problem solving, use of hard or soft tactics), and outcomes (e.g., agreement or stalemate, binding or nonbinding agreements, partial or comprehensive agreements).

Each student reads, summarizes, and codes three cases, enabling us to accumulate a sufficient number for statistical analysis. They also write descriptive summaries of the cases which are presented orally to other students in the class. This insures that everyone benefits from learning about all the cases used in the project.

Class members perform two kinds of analyses. One consists of charting trends in moves or rhetoric for identifying negotiation stages. The second involves discovering general dimensions or clusters from correlations com- puted among the cases (across the coding categories) and among the coding categories (across the cases).-' Each is discussed in turn.

Stages. A more detailed analysis is performed on the aspect in the framework's process box referred to as "stages of negotiation" (see Figure 1). For each case where actual conversations are available, students place the negotiators' statements into the coding categories of the bargaining process analysis system developed by Walcott and Hopmann (1978). These categories distinguish between, on the one hand, the "hard" bargaining tactics of commitments, threats, and demands and, on the other, the "softer" problem- solving categories of perspective-taking, brainstorming, and reframing. By dividing the cases into time periods or phases, it is possible to discern pat-


terns in the incidence of bargaining or problem-solving behaviors used by the different negotiating parties.

For example, in the World War II-era negotiat ion among the United States, Great Britain, and Switzerland over a blockade of Nazi Germany, we found that, over the course of six meetings, the British negotiators were consistent hard bargainers; the U.S. negotiators were consistent problem solvers; and the Swiss were mixed, bargaining in the early meetings and problem solving in a "mediator" role d u t ~ g the later meetings. In a post-World War II negotiation over establishing basic laws for Germany, different patterns were found for each of three stages: going from establishing each party's limits to brainstorming in a t tempts to establish c o m m o n ground to reframing and commitments in a final stage. Such cases as the Austrian State Treaty talks from 1952-1955 showed more complex patterns of party behavior through various t ime periods. Other cases showed the well-known "phase movement pattern" found to characterize small problem-solving groups, identified ini- tially in early research conduc t ed by Bales and Strodtbeck. That pa t te rn consists of certain acts or behaviors which occur most frequently during particular stages of negotiation. (See Enders 1988 for a review and application.)

These analyses made students aware of rhythms and patterns that characterize the negotiation process. Using their own examples, the students are asked to think about the relative incidence of different kinds of acts at different times in the negotiation. The phase-movement hypothesis is used for comparison. For example, the extent to which giving and asking for information (referred to as orientation acts) occur red most often during the early phase, whe the r opinions were given (evaluation statements) most frequently during the middle phase, and if decisions were made (control actions) primarily during the final phase.

As suggested also by the phase-movement hypothesis, positive and nega- tive expressions of emotion were seen to increase from the early to the later phases in many of the examples. By applying various stage concept ions to actual negotiations in this way, the exercise also brings to life the theoretical debates in the literature about the number and types of negotiation stages.

Dimens ions . Students also code the cases in terms of such characteris- tics as power differences among the parties, issue area, number of issues, deadline pressures, and outcomes. In this exercise, we demonstrate h o w statistical analysis can be used to organize a set o f cases in t e rms of key dimensions. With the help of a statistical software package, students compute correlations and participate in a multidimensional scaling analysis.

In one class project, using 15 cases from the Foreign Policy Institute monograph series, we discovered that the cases were organized in terms of two issue dimensions: the number of issues in content ion and the complex- ity of the issues. Examples of cases with many complex issues are SALT I and the Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction talks; those with many, not complex issues are the 1977 Panama Canal negotiations and the 1972 Simla talks be tween India and Pakistan. Cases with a few complex issues include the


1975-76 base rights talks be tween Spain and the United States; and, those with a few, not complex issues are Sinai II and the 1983 agreement over Lebanon.

In another class exercise, using the 12 cases from the U.S. Foreign Pol- icy archival collection, we discovered that the cases were organized in terms of whe the r the focus was on long or short-term issues (e.g., economic aid vs. establishing governing structures) and whe the r the ou tcome was a general framework agreement (e.g., some repatriation and trade agreements) or was technical, concrete, and specific (e.g., base-rights agreements). 3

The negotiation codings are also used to diagnose negotiating flexibility and estimate possible negotiation outcomes for each case. (See Druckman 1993a, for details on how this is done.) These analyses introduce students to some ways in which computers can be used as aids for comparing and deal- ing wi th the complex i ty o f a variety of types of negot ia t ion cases. With regard to their own experiences, the students appreciated the value of computers as devices for keep ing track of moves over t ime (part icular ly in complex talks), for content-analyzing verbal s tatements to gauge commit- ment and flexibility, and for calculating reservation prices.

L e s s o n s Learned I p roceed then from the general to the specific by returning to the earlier descriptions of students ' experiences. The students are asked to ascertain the extent to which the general results - - across the set of cases - - apply to those particular experiences as well as to particular cases in the set analyzed. They at tempt to reconceptualize their own experiences, described earlier, in terms of the analytical categories used in the project.

One example is an understanding of the decision dilemma of balancing alternatives to negotiated outcomes against t ime pressures w h e n bargaining over, for example, the price of a computer. More attractive alternatives in the face of time pressure may enhance bargaining power which can, in turn, lead to a bet ter ou tcome for the more powerful bargainer. Another example is the way that cooperative or competi t ive communicat ions during the bargaining process affects future negotiat ions among family members . More coopera t ive processes improve relat ionships even w h e n negot ia ted outcomes are nonoptimal. A third example deals with the facilitating effects of mediating roles played by moderates on both sides of a departmental budget dispute. Collaborating moderates can reduce the polarization be tween parties, making negotiated agreements possible. A fourth example concerns the effects of audiences on the flexibility displayed by representatives of disput- ing communi ty groups. Students were able to attribute the apparent lack of compromising in this example to the presence of audiences during the talks.

Other examples included the role of cognitive differences in international environmental negotiations and the role played by preparat ion for negotiating complex issues. Students learned that cognitive differences are particularly difficult to bridge through compromise. They also became aware


of h o w unilateral s trategy d e v e l o p m e n t p r io r to negot ia t ion can r educe unders tanding of the o thers ' posi t ions and, thus, r educe the chances o f obtaining an integrative agreement. Each of these examples is also suppor ted by the research studies reviewed earlier in class.

While emphasizing these particular processes in the context of their examples, the students also learn to eschew single-factor explanations for negotiating behavior. They develop an appreciation for the way that several factors in the situation and process interact to influence both short and long- term outcomes. This is illustrated by the framework in Figure 1 as well as by simulation exercises designed to explore the impacts of multiple interacting factors on negotiation decisions (e.g., Druckman 1993).

A "lessons learned" session, moving be tween the particular or experiential and the general or analyt ical bases for u n d e r s t a n d i n g negot ia t ion , concludes the class. During this discussion, students are encouraged to consider both similarities and differences be tween their "everyday" negotiating exper iences and the more complex cases used in the comparative analyses. One di f ference is b e t w e e n confl icts in which bargaining is the pr imary process (as in many of the students' examples) and conflicts where bargaining takes p lace only at a la ter stage in a p ro c e s s that consis ts also of conceptual izing the problem and construct ing alternative packages (as in many of the international cases).

In their course evaluations, students have indicated the usefulness of the project for learning to do analytical work, for achieving a deeper understanding of complex cases, and for supplementing the perspectives gained from the readings. One student commented that "the course outline - - personal cases, then general theories, then more specific aspects - - was a good approach to the subject." Another remarked that "the class project served as an excellent way of learning a subject that often can be difficult to compre- hend?' A third student noted that it was "done especially well, giving us a very comprehensive picture of negotiations - - and ample sources were available." A l th ou gh t he se c o m m e n t s are typ ica l of t h o se m a d e by o t h e r par t ic ipants , they do not subs t i tu te for the systematic evaluat ions that remain to be done.

The results of these analyses also contribute to the research literature on comparat ive case studies (see Druckman forthcoming). Some students were eager to continue work on the project. In the months following the 1996 class, they coded an expanded set of 30 Pew Foundation-supported cases on 16 dimensions represented in the framework. Preliminary results of the scaling analysis show that the cases are distinguished in terms of Ikl~'s (1964) taxonomy of types of international negotiation objectives. For future projects, I would like to expand the domain of case materials, focusing in particular on domestic negotiations.

In conclusion, the approach described here is one way to bridge the gap be tween negotiating exper ience and analysis. I would like to learn about o the r t each ing app roaches to the merging of e x p e r i e n c e and analysis.


Among the questions other teachers of negotiation might consider are: How are the students' experiences used in analyzing negotiations? Are role-play exercises used? If cases are used, what are these cases and h o w well are they documented? Are statistical techniques used in the analysis? H o w do students react to or evaluate the exercise? And, are there indications that your students incorporate the analytical approach in their negotiating experi- e n c e s ? If i n t e r e s t e d c o l l e a g u e s c o n t a c t me , I w o u l d be p l e a s e d to communicate what I learn in a future issue of this journal.

NOTES

1, Interested readers can obtain the Johns Hopkins Foreign Policy Institute cases by writing to: FPI Publications Program, School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins Uni- versity, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-2297. Inquiries about publications produced by the PIN Project should be sent to the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361, Laxenburg, Austria. The Pew Foundation-sponsored case studies can be obtained from the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Ser- vice, Georgetown Universty, Washington, D.C. 20057-1052.

2. For a complete listing of the cases analyzed to date, as well as the coding categories and scaling results, contact the author at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia 22030-4444.

3. One student in the class has used this exercise as the basis of a dissertation project being completed at "File Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington. She is analyzing relationships among processes and outcomes in twelve historical cases from the U.S. Foreign Policy documentation. Interested readers may contact Lynn Wagner at 2922 2nd Street, Apt. D, Santa Monica, Calif. for further inform;ttion about this project.

REFERENCES

Bendahmane, D. B. and J. W. McDonald, editors. 1986. Perspectit,es on negotiation: Four case studies a n d intetl)retations. Washington: Foreign Sen'ice Institute, Department of State.

Benedick, R.E. 1990. Ozone diploma~'l,. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Ben-Yoav, O. and D.G. Pruitt. 1984. Accountability to constituents: A tw(vedged sword. Organiza-

t ional Behavior a n d H u m a n Petfo~Tnance 34: 283-295. Bloomfield, L.P. and R. Beattie. 1971. Computers and policy-making: The CASCON experiment.

Journa l o f ConJIict Resolution 15: 33-46. Bonham, G.M. 1971. Simulating international disarmamcnt negotiations.JotoTml o f Conflict Reso-

lution 15:29%315. Beams, S.J. 1993. Theory of moves. American Scientist 81: 562-571), Carnevale, P. J. and E. J. Lawler. 1986. Time pressure and the development of integnltive agree-

ments in bilateral negntiation.Journal t fCon f l i c t Resolution 30: 636-659. Druckman, D. Forthcoming. Dimensions of international negotiation: Structures, processes, and

outcomes. Group Decision a n d Negotiation. - - - - - - . 1995. The educational effectiveness of interactive games. In Simula t ion arid g a m i n g

across disciplines a n d cultures, edited by D. Crookall and K. Anai. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

- - - - - - . . 1993. The situational levers of negotiating flexibility.Jourtlal o f Cottftict Resolution 37: 236-276.

- - ~ - - . 1993a. Statistical analysis fur negotiation support. Theorl, and Decision 34: 215-233. Druckman, D. (editor). 1977. Negotiations: Social-ps),clJological perspectit,es. Beverly Hills: Sage. Druckman, D. and P. T. Hopmann. 1989. Behavioral aspects of negotiations on mutual security. In

Behavior, societ); a n d nuclear war, edited by P. E. Tetlock et al. New York: Oxford Univer- sit 3 , Press.

382 Daniel Druckman BtYdglng the Gap

Druckman, D. and C. Mitchell, editors. 1995. Flexibility in international negotiation and mediation. Special isstie of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 542, November.

Endcrs, J, K. J. 1988. Clarifying the limits of the phase hypothesis: The presence of phase movement in established groups. Llnpublished master 's degree thesis, Department of Behavioral Sciences, University of Chicago.

Faure, G. O. and J.Z. Rubin, editors. 1993. Cttltttre and negotiation. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage. Hilty, J. A. and P.J. Carnevale. 1993. Black-hat/white-hat strategy in bilateral bargaining. Organiza-

tional Behat,tor and Httman Decision Processes 55: 444-469. Hopmann, P. T. 1995. Two paradigms of negotiation: Bargaining and problem solving. The Annals

of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 542: 24-47. Hopmann, P. T. and T. C. Smith. 1978. An application of a Richardson process model: Soviet-

American relations in the test ban treaty, 1962-63. In The negotiation process, edited by 1. W. Zartman. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Ikl~, F. C. 1964. How nations negotiate. New York: Harper & Row. Jensen, L. 1988. Bargaining for national secariO,: The postwar disarmament negotiations.

Columbia, S.C: tlniversit3' of South Carolina Press. Jervis. R. 1983. SecuritT regimes. In International regimes, edited by S. Krasner. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cot-

nell University Press. Kremenyuk, V.A., editor 1991. hlternational negotiation: Analysis, approaches, issues. San Fran-

cisco: Jossey-Bass. Kressel, K. ct al. 1994. The settlement-orientation vs. the problem-solving style in custody media-

tion.Journat of Social L~sues 50: 67-84. McDonald, J. W. and D. B. Bendahmane, editors. 1990. LI.S. bases overseas: Negotiations with

Spain, Greece, and the Philippines. Boulder, Colo.: West'view. Pinkley, R. L., M. A. Neale, and R. J. Bennett. 1994. The impact of alternatives to set t lement in

dyadic negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 57: 97-116. Putnam, R. 1988. Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International

Organization 42: 427-,460. Ramberg, B. 1978. The Seabed A~Tns Control Negotiation: A study of multilateral arms control

conference diplomacl,. Monograph Series in World Affairs, Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver.

Randolph, L. 1966. A suggested model of international negotiation.Journal of Conflict Resolution 10: 344-353.

Sawyer, J. and H. Guetzkow. 1965. Bargaining and negotiation in international relations. In Inter- national behat,ior" A social-p.sl,cbological analysis, edited by H. C. Kelman. New York: Holt.

Sj6stedt, G., editor 1992. International environmental negotiations. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage. Snydcr, G. H. and P. Diesing. 1977. Conflict among nations: Bargaining, decision-making, and

s3~stem structnre in international crisis. Princeton: Princeton University Press, Strauss, A. 1978. Negotiations: Varieties, contexts, processes, and social order. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass. Talbott. S. 1984. Deadly gambits: The Reagan administration and ttJe stalemate in nuclear

atTns control. New York: Knopf. Thompson, L 1993. The influence of experience on negotiation performance.Journal of Experi-

mental Social Psl.~cholo~l, 29: 3{)4-325. Walcott, C. and P. T. Hopmann. 1978. Interaction analysis and bargaining behavior. In The small

group in political science: The last two decades of det,elopment, edited by R. T. Golem- biewski. Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press.

Walton, R. E. and R. B. McKersie. 1965, A behat,ioral theo~.~ of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction ~stem. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Zartman, 1. W., editor 1994. International multilateral negotiation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


bridging the gap between negotiating experience and analysis

Documents