Negotiation can be thought of as the tool that facilitates conflict engagement and resolution. As part of, and yet different from, conflict theory, negotiation theory has had a separate parallel development in the last 30 years. The challenges for negotiation theory in the future are similar to those found in the broader conflict theory – ensuring that negotiation theory can be implemented by practitioners; making sure that negotiation theory draws upon a multitude of disciplines; and includes theories, experiences and culture from around the world. The development of negotiation theories in law schools – where communication to resolve disputes is part of the job description – highlights the importance of pracademics and demonstrates how we need effective theories to engage in conflict. |
Article |
PracademicsMaking Negotiation Theory Implemented, Interdisciplinary, and International |
Journal | International Journal of Conflict Engagement and Resolution, Issue 2 2013 |
Authors | Andrea Kupfer Schneider |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Article |
The Historical Contingencies of Conflict Resolution |
Journal | International Journal of Conflict Engagement and Resolution, Issue 1 2013 |
Keywords | History of ADR, consensus building, multi-party dispute resolution, theory development, conflict handling |
Authors | Carrie Menkel-Meadow |
AbstractAuthor's information |
This article reviews the historical contingency of theory and practice in conflict engagement. World War II and the Cold War produced adversarial, distributive, competitive, and scarce resources conceptions of negotiation and conflict resolution, as evidenced by game theory and negotiation practice. More recent and more optimistic theory and practice has focused on party needs and interests and hopes for more party-tailored, contingent, flexible, participatory and more integrative and creative solutions for more than two disputants to a conflict. The current challenges of our present history are explored: continued conflict in both domestic and international settings, the challenge of “scaling up” conflict resolution theory and the problematics of developing universal theory in highly contextualized and diverse sets of conflict sites. The limits of “rationality” in conflict resolution is explored where feelings and ethical, religious and other values may be just as important in conflict engagement and handling. |