Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Disparate Methods and Common Findings in the Study of Negotiation

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of International Negotiation

In this article, we compare the relative popularity of a wide variety of methods and techniques used in the study of conflict and negotiation across five domains of inquiry: political science, communication sciences, social and personality psychology, economics, and organizational behavior. An analysis of articles on conflict and negotiation published between 1997 and 2001 suggests that laboratory experiments that entail coding of behavior and self-reported data using surveys are especially popular in psychology, organizational behavior, and communication sciences. Mathematical modeling, the use of experimental games, and the use of archival data are especially popular in economics and political science. Diverse methods can provide convergent insights, and this is observed clearly in work on gain-loss framing and on reciprocity in negotiation. We suggest that researchers adopt, or continue to employ, triangulation as an approach to validity: When two or more methods or data sources converge on a construct, we develop greater assurance that our conclusions are not driven by an error or artifact of any one procedure. Each method exhibits strengths and weaknesses, and to the extent they do not overlap but show common effects, we stand on more solid ground with our theoretical conclusions.

10.1163/1571806054741074
/content/journals/10.1163/1571806054741074
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/1571806054741074
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/1571806054741074
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/1571806054741074
2005-03-01
2016-12-08

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    International Negotiation — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation