Some Negotiation Journal readers are teachers and researchers. Others are practitioners and policy makers. One way or another, all of us are students of negotiation. We learn concepts and techniques from experience, colleagues, and what we read (sometimes in these pages, I trust). Over time our abilities grow and our insight deepens.
In spite of the importance of negotiation, however, and the burgeoning investment in training made by individuals and organizations, relatively little attention has been given to how people learn most effectively. In this issue, Hal Movius surveys research on teaching negotiation effectiveness that has been conducted over the last twenty‐five years. While these studies show some evidence of the effectiveness of training, it is less than overwhelming. Hal's article thus presents a provocative challenge both to those of us who stand at the front of classrooms and to everyone else who seeks to enhance his or her competence.
David Matz's contribution likewise casts a friendly but skeptical eye on the claim that “toughness” necessarily gets positive results in international diplomacy. He reviews three books on statecraft, focusing specifically on the role of the United States in the Israel–Palestine conflict. He notes the many times that arm‐twisting seemingly advanced the peace process, at least for a time, and also where a lack of American assertiveness was followed by an impasse. He cautions, however, against glibly asserting causal connections in complex cases where many other factors, including trust and timing, also impact outcomes profoundly. Indeed, that analytic problem bedevils understanding even of everyday negotiations.
At the heart of this issue of Negotiation Journal lies a special collection of superb articles on gender and negotiation that were gathered and nurtured by guest editors Iris Bohnet and Hannah Riley Bowles of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. They have written an overview of these articles and have organized them according to the various aspects of negotiation that they illuminate.
We are privileged to publish this material as it provides a fresh and stimulating view of negotiation. The focus of most of the pieces is on how social context strongly influences roles and behavior of both women and men. We may think of ourselves as strong, self‐defined individuals whose traits, values, and skills are consistent across different settings, but the articles that Iris and Hannah present here make a compelling case that we are much more complex and interesting creatures. Our self‐conception, the expectations that others have of us, and ultimately what we do and say are all strongly affected by where we come from and how we find ourselves at the bargaining table. We are grateful to all the contributors for advancing our understanding of the process.
In closing, I am sorry to report the death this spring of Saadia Touval, whom many readers knew, if not personally, through his influential writing, including in this journal. His field was international mediation and his research was rigorous, grounded, and highly original. For example, he made a persuasive case for the proposition that mediators with strong interests, even biases, are sometimes the most effective. He was also prescient. In 1994, his article in Foreign Affairs warned against overreliance on the United Nations as a mediator. Unless self‐interested states actively broker peace in countries like Afghanistan, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia (his birthplace), he said, “the new world disorder will continue apace.”
We extend our sympathies to his family, students, and colleagues.
