Search results

The pandemic forced the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to transition to online video mediation (OVM) in place of its existing in-person mediation (IPM) model. Using measurements from their 2000 evaluation of EEOC IPM, plus new measures related to the elements of OVM, the authors surveyed 2,387 EEOC mediation participants during the pandemic, obtaining responses from 1,234 (53%).

OVM performed as well or better on the four measures of procedural fairness, overall mediation fairness, satisfaction with the results, and willingness to use the process again. Sixty-seven percent of the parties favored OVM over IPM. Responses to a closed-end survey that provided for additional open-end responses indicate that OVM is seen by the parties as having a more convenient location, lower costs, and greater flexibility. The results establish that OVM provides greater access to justice due to safe space and to the willingness of additional employers to engage in OVM.

The graduate field of conflict resolution is composed of an eclectic mix of programs, departments, centers, institutes, and think tanks which conduct a wide range of theory development, basic and applied research, service and teaching functions. Prior research on the graduate field has been limited mainly to either direct comparisons between a few graduate programs or summaries of progress made by program clusters, with the largest being a study of 18 programs. The composition and activities of the graduate field as a whole are not well understood, yet are hotly debated. This research attempts to fill part of this knowledge gap by specifically examining all known graduate programs in Peace Studies (PS), Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Conflict Resolution (CR) in the United States that award verifiable graduate credentials (i.e., certificates, masters, or doctoral degrees) in PS, ADR, or CR. The participants in this study therefore constitute the entire known population (N=94) of graduate credential granting programs in the United States that collectively award roughly 164 certificate and/or degree options. The results of this study constitute a baseline from which to specifically examine and compare program factors including: program location, size, student composition, faculty credentials and areas of expertise. This study also examines program content, including curriculum content, design, and delivery, areas of training specialization; and those elements that participants report make their programs unique. These and other results provide a means of comparing program types and individual program innovations in regard to curriculum, service, research agendas, and areas of practice. The study concludes with participants’ ideas on what program development trends we can expect to see in the coming years as well as where the academy is or is not meeting social needs.

Purpose – To provide a framework for organizing research on group negotiation, including the contributions of the current volume.

Methodology – The organizing framework arranges past research on group negotiation and the contributions offered in this volume according to the core negotiation elements of people, processes, and places, and their impact on the integration of negotiators' preferences.

Findings – There is an extensive literature on negotiation, but historically group negotiation has represented only a small part of that dialogue. There are three general categories of group negotiation: multiparty negotiation, team negotiation, and multiteam negotiation. The core issue addressed in this chapter is how – viewed through the lens of the four identified core negotiation elements of preferences, people, processes, and places – the quantity and arrangement of negotiators involved in a negotiation qualitatively changes the negotiation experience, and specifically how (different types of) negotiating groups make more complex the challenge of identifying, agreeing to, and implementing integrative agreements.

Implications – More than dyadic negotiation, the difficulty of reaching agreements that satisfy all parties can lead to agreements that some negotiators are less than enthusiastic about implementing. It is the difficulty and importance of finding agreements that satisfy all parties in group negotiation that makes it so important to understand the influence of group negotiation by people, processes, and places.

Value of the Paper – This chapter organizes the landscape of group negotiation research by illuminating both what we know about the people, processes, and places that influence the negotiation of group members' preferences, as well as pointing the way – both theoretically and methodologically – for future researchers to fill in the blanks that remain.