Teaching Negotiation

A bi-annual e-newsletter from NP@PON

(Negotiation Pedagogy at the Program on Negotiation)

Volume 3, Issue 3
Fall 2010

In This Issue
The Art of Negotiation Case Study Writing
New PON Teaching Materials About the Work of Martti Ahtisaari, 2010 Great Negotiator Award Recipient
Learning to Manage Climate Change Risks: Three New Multiparty Negotiation Games
PON Clearinghouse Top Sales 2010
Negotiation Journal Welcomes Submissions on Teaching
About NP@PON

The Art of Case Study Writing
by Carrie O'Neil


Little has been written on what it takes to create a great case study of a negotiation. What needs to be taken into account in deciding whether a particular negotiation merits a written case study?  What are the guidelines for writing negotiation cases?  Do the traditional guidelines for preparing case studies in other fields apply? Jim Sebenius, the Gordon Donaldson Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, and Director of the Harvard Negotiation Project, addressed these questions in his presentation at the NP@PON Faculty Dinner Seminar on October 7, 2010. His article, "Developing Negotiation Case Studies," began as a memo to a novice case writer about how to write an effective negotiation case. Now it is a full-length article that will appear in a forthcoming issue of Negotiation Journal.


Sebenius offers three kinds of advice to anyone thinking about writing a case as the basis for discussion among students or other interested audiences. He covers 1) How to decide whether a case lead is worth pursuing; 2) How to select a perspective suited to your teaching objectives; and 3) Ten nuts and bolts suggestions for structuring and producing an excellent case study.

Begin by asking,  "Will this case contribute to better theory and yield prescriptive implications that can be generalized across diverse contexts?" Sebenius also asks, "Will the case foster learning by allowing the reader to grapple with the experiences of others, and will it reveal the power and limits of received theory? He urges case writers to clarify their goals and answer the question, a case for what? Knowing the purpose of the case will make it easier to decide the level of detail at which the writing should proceed.

Sebenius encourages case writers to rigorously investigate the worthiness of their protagonists in order to help answer the question, a case of what? A compelling narrative will likely emerge if protagonists have attempted to overcome high barriers. This will increase the odds that the case reader will "relish the challenge" of wrestling with the same decisions that faced the protagonists. On the other hand, Sebenius is quick to caution against being taken in by the lure of a writing a case mainly on the basis of high profile protagonists or well-known settings when the negotiation itself may not be that interesting. Ultimately, a good case prospect will permit the case writer to fill in two key blanks: "This appears to be an intriguing case of ___, and thus, worth delving into more deeply, in order to use for the following reason(s)___."

Once it is clear what the case is for and what it is a case of, the case writer must choose a case type and perspective.

Protagonist vs. Situation: Protagonist-centered cases require the reader to grapple with difficult decisions and often to understand the challenge from one or more specific perspectives, placing the reader in the shoes of the person(s) facing specific negotiation challenges. Situation-centered cases are written from a non-specific perspective, allowing the reader to understand all the details of what occurred.

Decision vs. Autopsy: Decision cases are experiential, putting the reader in the shoes of the protagonist, requiring them to grapple with tough decisions. They are often written in "real time," so students must make decisions without knowing the outcome. "Autopsy" cases give the reader all the information from beginning to end, inviting discussants to analyze what did happen and why; they normally lack the tension of decision cases.

Library vs. Field: Library cases rely on secondary materials while field cases are based on interviews and access to non-public information. Though field cases are generally preferable, Sebenius acknowledges the challenge of getting protagonists to approve of what's included in the case.

Actual or Disguised: Actual cases use accurate names and facts while disguised cases preserve the essential negotiation issues while hiding these identifying characteristics. Though actual are preferable, some situations may be too sensitive to include real names.  John Hammond, an experienced Harvard case writer, points out that disguising cases can invite protagonists to be more forthcoming.

For teaching purposes, Sebenius has found protagonist-centered, actual, decision cases that are field-based are the most effective. They require students to face tough decisions based on imperfect information and uncertain circumstances-exactly as is the case in reality.

The last section of the report gives nuts and bolts advice on how to structure and produce cases. They should have multiple parts that advance the case, highlighting multiple decision points. Part A might present the reader with background information and indicate the specific challenges facing the protagonist. Part B could then explain what the protagonist did to address these challenges. Cases do not have to be limited by only two parts, of course, and they can be enhanced by video supplements of various kinds.

Sebenius urges case writers to begin by getting down the critical elements of the story.  Structuring the material under various analytical headings is (initially) secondary to capturing the raw material for the ultimate case. The narrative should include enough information for readers to identify barriers to agreement. Case writers should pursue interviewees from all sides of the negotiation or dispute and seek feedback from outside readers to help identify gaps and biases. Although it is challenging, Sebenius urges cases writers to limit themselves 4-6 pages (ideally) to ten printed pages (maximum) for each part ("A", "B", etc.). He points out that there are even 2-4 page cases that contain all the classic tensions needed to support rich discussions yielding powerful lessons. He suggests that case authors present sufficient raw material to enable readers and discussants to draw their own conclusions, and save any editorializing and analysis for an accompanying teaching note.  

Reactions to Sebenius' Presentation

One participant asked to what degree Sebenius' criteria for writing negotiation cases might apply to preparing other kinds of teaching cases as well. Does negotiation present specific challenges or opportunities with regard to the cases we develop or how we teach them? Sebenius acknowledged that there are a lot of articles on how to write great case studies.  Harvard Business School, which played a key role in developing the case method of instruction, has produced many works on this topic. With negotiation cases, though, one must be sure that certain key elements are covered including multiple perspectives, the interests of the parties, their BATNAs, what was and wasn't communicated, the role of "second tables," etc.

In terms of case type and perspective, John Hammond (Harvard Business School) suggested that many cases are hybrids and cautioned against such either/or choices. For example, if you disguise a case, people may be more likely to be open about what really happened. Sometimes it is possible later on to turn a disguised case into an attributed case. Lisle Baker (Suffolk University Law School) challenged Sebenius' assertion that open cases are always preferable in a classroom setting.  Baker suggested that there might be value in a disguised case rather than an open case when dealing with a generalist audience with a particular bias.

Mike Wheeler (Harvard Business School) asked, "Does a case have to be real to be an effective teaching piece?" A number of participants highlighted situations in which fictional cases were effective teaching tools. Several participants even suggested potential ways to evaluate the effectiveness of fictional versus true cases. Dan Shapiro (Harvard Medical School) suggested comparing the effectiveness of two classes that emphasize the same core concepts, one using traditional cases and the other using the Iliad or Shakespeare. Susan Podziba (a Boston area mediation practitioner) said that fiction often "gives us something that resonates with our humanness and with our experience outside an analytic negotiation." The audience agreed that there are many lessons that can be drawn from a close analysis of fiction writing, including how to keep a reader engaged and the undeniable power of a compelling narrative.

Wheeler commented further on case writing experiences he has had in which a case develops meaning that he could not have anticipated from the start. There was agreement that case writing is usually an iterative process and that a case continues to reveal itself and develop as it is being written and taught. Susan Podziba asked, "How do you capture this understanding for new case writers and help them remain open to surprises as they are writing a case?"


In light of the Sebenius challenge regarding keeping cases succinct, Mike Wheeler asked whether it might be useful to present cases in graphic form. Gordon Kaufman (MIT's Sloan School of Management) suggested we should take a successful case and present it in classic and graphic form and teach it to multiple classes, so that we could have a basis for judging the incremental effectiveness of one modality over another.

Panelists elaborated on ways of evaluating the effectiveness of cases and case instruction in the negotiation field. Larry Susskind (MIT's Department of Urban Studies and Planning) asked if there is an empirical basis for Harvard Business School's commitment to the case teaching method. He suggested asking alumni to identify specific cases that enhanced their ability to handle a negotiation in practice. Mike Wheeler pointed out that because cases are part of a larger curriculum, it might not be possible to figure out the impact of particular cases on a student's subsequent negotiating capabilities. Florrie Darwin (Harvard Law School) emphasized that there is a difference between what people learn and what people remember. Sebenius summarized the ongoing challenge in the field "to explore more systematically the various aspects of cases and how they map onto student learning."


To discuss this article further please register at the NP@PON Discussion Forum.

For a list of favorite negotiation teaching cases, please visit the PON Clearinghouse website


New PON Teaching Materials About the Work of Martti Ahtisaari, 2010 Great Negotiator Award Recipient
  by Carrie O'Neil


The Program on Negotiation's 2010 Great Negotiator Award was given to former Finnish President, Martti Ahtisaari, for his many significant achievements in the fields of negotiation and diplomacy. He was central to the Namibian independence negotiations in the late 1980s. He also served as chief United Nations negotiator to Kosovo from 2005-2006, and was instrumental in ending the hostilities between the province of Aceh and Indonesia that had claimed between 12,000 and 50,000 lives during a 30-year war. President Ahtisaari received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2008 for these efforts.


This was the 10th year that PON's Great Negotiator Award has recognized an individual whose lifetime achievements in the fields of negotiation and dispute resolution have had significant impacts. And, each time, along with the award, the Program on Negotiation has developed a set of teaching materials that focus on the efforts of the Great Negotiator involved. Past recipients of the award include former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, the United Nations' Special Envoy for Afghanistan, Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi, and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke.[1]


Professor James Sebenius (Harvard Business School and Director of the Harvard Negotiation Project), who co-chaired this year's event and moderated the Aceh panel, has for the last decade chaired the award selection committee and been responsible for the overall event design and intellectual content. This year he co-presented the award with Professor R. Nicholas Burns, Faculty Director of the Future of Diplomacy Project, who also moderated the Kosovo panel. The award was presented jointly with the Harvard Kennedy School's Future of Diplomacy Project, which is dedicated to promoting the study and understanding of diplomacy, negotiation and statecraft in international politics.


The teaching materials developed this year in conjunction with the award are two case studies about President Ahtisaari's instrumental role in the Aceh negotiations and the negotiations aimed at establishing Kosovo's sovereignty. Two interactive panels on the Kosovo and Aceh negotiations - with in-depth reflections from President Ahtisaari and related panelists - were videotaped and will be available from the PON Clearinghouse along with the teaching cases.


The Aceh case challenges students to ask how the seemingly irreconcilable interests of the Free Aceh Movement and the Indonesian government could be negotiated in an atmosphere of bitter distrust, especially given a legacy of military violence and human rights abuses. The Kosovo case contains both local and international stakeholders with complex and conflicting positions regarding the question of Kosovo's future status, as well as issues of minority rights and self governance. These cases challenge students to grapple with the tensions of high stakes negotiations from President Ahtisaari's skilled perspective, including consideration of what process choices will be most promising, and how to help parties deal with many conflicting positions.


President Ahtisaari said that the key to success in diplomatic negotiations is clarity of objectives and time management. Ambassador Frank G. Wisner, US Special Envoy to the Kosovo talks and a member of the discussion panel, underscored this point by saying that what makes President Ahtisaari's diplomacy quite extraordinary is the combination of his clarity of objective and his flexibility of tactics. He went on to say, "I think one of your great attributes as a negotiator was the fact that you pursued a negotiation with extraordinary modesty...Martti, you built confidence in your team and in the parties around you by your own personal comportment."


Mr. Ahtisaari remains hopeful and determined about the promise of negotiation and diplomacy. Indeed, he said, "I want to say still now that there's not a single conflict in the world that cannot be solved. I don't buy that argument that we have to have frozen conflicts like we have still today. They can be solved."


When he presented President Ahtisaari with the award, Professor Robert Mnookin, head of the Program on Negotiation, pointed out, "We teach our students that great negotiators are purposeful. We also teach that great negotiators combine the virtue of empathy and assertiveness.  I happen to know, having read about you, that you're an extraordinary listener.  You have the capacity to put yourself in the shoes of people with very different perspectives.  And you work hard to try to understand the world through their eyes."

Great Negotiator Case Series 

Part of the PON Great Negotiator Case Study Series, these two-part cases by James Sebenius (Aceh case co-written by Alex Green and Kosovo case co-written by Phillippe Leroux-Martin) examine Martti Ahtisaari's involvement in settling the future status of Kosovo and in the Aceh negotiations. Part "A" contains background information about the situation facing Ahtisaari and his team at the beginning of the formal negotiations and can be used to push students to imagine strategies and tactics for success. Part "B" describes Ahtisaari's approach and how the subsequent events actually evolved. Part "A" of the Kosovo case is eleven pages and part "B" is nine pages. Part "A" of the Aceh case is ten pages and part "B" is eleven pages.


Martti Ahtisaari and the Kosovo Final Status Process

When President Ahtisaari was appointed Special Envoy for the Future Status of Kosovo in November 2005, the challenge before him was formidable. Opposing claims from Serbs and Kosovar Albanians appeared irreconcilable and had been a source of instability in the region for decades. The US supported independence while the EU was divided, and Russia and China, two permanent member of the UN Security Council, had reservations about granting Kosovo independence. Ahtisaari set pre-determined parameters that required any settlement to be compatible with human rights standards and international law, and to ensure the protection of minorities in Kosovo along with the region's cultural and religious heritage. Ahtisaari led a complex negotiation process that reduced the potential for renewed violence, encouraged dialogue between Serb and Kosovar Albanian leaders, and allowed time for the relevant international community members to work out their differences. The resulting proposal asserted that an independent, democratic Kosovo was the only viable option and outlined a structure to protect minority rights.


Everything or Nothing: Martti Ahtisaari and the Aceh Negotiations

In January 2005, Marti Ahtisaari convened negotiations between the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and the Indonesian government. The 30-year conflict over independence for the province of Aceh had left tens of thousands dead and a bitter legacy of grave human rights abuses. The barriers to success were daunting given the deep distrust, incompatible positions and potential spoilers on both sides. Two weeks before negotiations were scheduled to take place, Aceh was hit by a devastating tsunami that heavily damaged the province's infrastructure and economy. Despite these challenges, negotiations were held and governed by the concept that "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". With characteristic clarity, Ahtisaari suggested "special autonomy" as the goal, discouraging GAM's demand for independence. He also pressed the Indonesian government to take responsibility for ongoing human rights abuses in Aceh, allowing talks to advance. The resulting agreement outlined a system for internal self-governance while deferring to Indonesian foreign policy and the Indonesian military.

Great Negotiator Teaching Materials

 2000: "To Hell with the Future, Let's Get On With the Past": George Mitchell in Northern Ireland, featuring former U.S. Senator George Mitchell's work on the all-party talks in Northern Ireland between 1996 and 1998 that culminated in the signing of the historic Good Friday Accords.


2001: Charlene Barshefsky (A) and (B), featuring former U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefky's work from 1994 to 1996 negotiating a trade agreement with China.


2002: Lakhdar Brahimi: Negotiating a New Government for Afghanistan, featuring former United Nations Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi's involvement in negotiating an interim government for Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban in 2001.


2003: Stuart Eizenstat: Negotiating the Final Accounts of World War II, featuring former EU Ambassador and Special Representative to the President Stuart Eizenstat's work facilitating the award of $8 billion in reparations from multiple European governments, banks, and companies to victims of World War II.

To discuss this article further please register at the NP@PON Discussion Forum.

[1] Other Great Negotiator Award recipients: Christo and Jeanne-Claude, the artists who created "The Gates" in Central Park (2008); Bruce Wasserstein, Chairman and CEO of Lazard, an international financial advisory and asset management firm (2007); Sadako Ogata, former United Nations high commissioner for refugees (2005); Stuart Eizenstat, former U.S. ambassador to the European Union (2003); and Charlene Barshefsky, U.S. trade representative in the second Clinton administration (2001).


Learning to Manage Climate Change Risks: Three New Multiparty Negotiation Games That Can be Used to Enhance Public Engagement
by Carrie O'Neil

The Clearinghouse now offers three, multi-party role play simulations focused on helping cities manage climate change risks. These were prepared by the Science Impact Collaborative at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the direction of Professor Larry Susskind. The purpose of these exercises is to engage the public in a mixture of political and technical conversations about the prospects of adapting to climate change. These are short "games" that take about one hour each to play. They are currently being tested in Massachusetts cities and appear to help residents broaden their perspectives and deepen their understanding of the ways in which possible climate change impacts ought to be incorporated into all local decisions about infrastructure planning, land use and resource management. These games give participants just enough information that they can play roles that are not their every day assignments. This ensures that the role play experience will afford participants a better understanding of how people with other views and responsibilities perceive the same issues from different perspectives.

The simulations are designed to ensure that certain conflicts arise, since various stakeholders in the game are encouraged to place different priorities on key short- and long- term goals and to value various kinds of technical analyses differently.  When the participants debrief the results of the simulation, they can reflect on the way in which the risks discussed in the game are likely to affect their own communities, imagining how and why they might respond to various risks, and what the prospects are of adapting to climate change. The games include detailed teaching and facilitation notes.

1. Water Use

This is a six-party, multi-issue negotiation involving environmental, economic, social and political interests in a city that has to make investment decisions in its water infrastructure.

The city of Evantown is not up to the task of coping with extreme water events like droughts that could become more frequent with climate change. The major source of water for the city and area businesses is the Foltz River, which has had extremely volatile fluctuations in levels over the last few years, including a major drought that forced the city to implement a water conservation initiative. The simulation imagines a critical meeting, convened by the Mayor, of five key stakeholders to consider three major decisions that will impact the future of the river - whether or not to increase water allocations that will benefit some community interests and not others, whether and how to invest in improving the efficiency of the water infrastructure, and whether and how to improve residential water efficiency. The game requires six players, and a large group can play the game at multiple tables of six.  

2. Flooding

This is a seven-party, multi-issue negotiation involving environmental, economic, social and real estate development interests in a city struggling to promote redevelopment of its downtown in the face of serious flood risks. The exercise illustrates the need to consider both the short- and long- term impact of land-use decisions on the current and future economic wellbeing, human safety, and environmental health of the population in the face of serious climate change risks.

A developer is in the final stages of planning a multi-use development along side a river. New maps indicate increasing risk of flooding on and near the site. The exercise challenges participants to grapple with questions like whether to allow the development, how should the city take measures to protect itself against current and projected flood risks and who is responsible for paying for adaptation measures to protect vulnerable areas? The game requires seven players and two hours to play and debrief.

3. Heat Islands

This is a seven-party, integrative negotiation involving stakeholders worried about how to implement housing retrofits to reduce vulnerability to extreme heat in the aftermath of a deadly heat wave attributed to climate change.

The newly elected mayor has convened stakeholders to discuss questions like should city government bear all the cost or should private owners and landlords contribute, and what scale and pace of response is appropriate given the uncertainty of climate change and the high costs involved in protecting residents? The exercise challenges participants to find ways to package multiple issues so that different groups can secure their highest priorities while relaxing their demands in other areas. The exercise requires seven players.

Participants need no special technical training.  The games incorporate the results of scenario planning and risk assessments typical of the analyses that cities all over the world are currently preparing as part of their climate risk management efforts. 

PON Clearinghouse Top Sales 2010
By Carrie O'Neil

PON is proud to announce its top sellers in 2010 in the categories of new and old simulations, videos and books.

Top Five New Simulations

1. Aerospace Investment by Nicholas Sabin

This is a two-person simulation involving a venture capital investment that scores participants on their ability to attain favorable investment terms and on the quality of the relationship they develop with their potential business partner.

2. World Trade Center Redevelopment Negotiation by Lawrence Susskind, Katherine Harvey, David Kovick, F. Peter Phillips, Marc Wolinsky, Cathy Cronin Harris, and Simeon Baum

This is a six-person simulation that illustrates the tension between generating value in negotiations and distributing it to parties in the highly emotional context inspired by the real negotiations leading to the redevelopment of the World Trade Center after September 11th.

3. Future of Hebron by Imam Soliman, under the direction of David Fairman

This is a negotiation between Israeli and Palestinian leadership about violence in the city of Hebron over land claims, security, and border control. Issues explored include the importance of understanding the human dimension in ethnic conflict and the difficulty of proposing solutions without grasping the complexity of the relationship.

4. Super Slipster by Matt Smith under the supervision of Robert C. Bordone, with revisions by Michael Moffitt

This is a two-party negotiation between the attorney for an injured party and the general counsel for a toy equipment manufacturer regarding the possible settlement of a personal injury lawsuit. Issues explored include the tension between value creation and value distribution and the effects of information asymmetries and information disclosure and/or non-disclosure.

5. Camilia Pictures by Robyn Cali Bacon and Robert C. Bordone

This simulation revolves around the meeting between lawyers for a large family entertainment company and a smaller film production company but is also suitable for non-lawyers. At stake is the ownership of a disputed new documentary, and the partnership between these two companies.

Top Five Simulations Published Before 2010 

1. Sally Soprano by Wayne Davis, Mark Gordon and Bruce Patton

This simulation takes place in a meeting between the representative for Sally Soprano, an aging opera singer, and the Lyric Opera, which needs a soprano last minute for an upcoming production. This exercise is an excellent vehicle for comparing principled negotiation and positional bargaining.

2. HarborCo by Denise Madigan, Thomas Weeks, Lawrence Susskind

This is a multi-party simulation in which participants have to negotiate several issues about whether or not to build a port. When the game is played by several groups at the same time, the comparison of outcomes is instructive.

3. Oil Pricing by Roger Fisher

In this group exercise, several participants are on the oil pricing boards of countries that are instructed that maximizing their own profits is their sole objective. The exercise presents rich opportunities to observe, analyze, and critique intra-group dynamics and decision-making.

4. PowerScreen Problem by Bruce Patton, Mark Gordon and Andrew Clarkson

This exercise revolves around the meeting of the lawyers of two partners of a small software company over the ownership of PowerScreen, a new product that one developed against the other's wishes.

5. Chestnut Village by Thomas Wiegand

This is a multi-party negotiation between representatives of a construction company and members of a community that have multiple complaints about the conduct of the construction company.

Top Five Videos

1. Hackerstar Negotiation DVD produced by the Harvard Negotiation Project

Two improvisational actors play the roles of partners in a small software company called HackerStar, Inc who are engaged in a dispute over PowerScreen, a new product that one developed against the other's wishes.

2. Mediators at Work: Termination Tempest by Marjorie Corman Aaron and Dwight Golann

This is an unscripted, realistic demonstration of the mediation of an employment dispute about a veteran worker at a restaurant supply company who is suing his employer under the Federal Age Discrimination Act for wrongful termination.

3. Live Mediation: A Landlord-Tenant Small Claims Mediation (DVD/Full) by Charles Doran

This is a 90-minute video of an actual landlord-tenant small claims mediation, from start to finish, including side-bar conversations from the 2009 Mediation Pedagogy Conference.

4. Live Mediation: A Landlord-Tenant Small Claims Mediation (DVD/Edit) by Charles Doran

This is a 25-minute edit of an actual landlord-tenant small claims mediation, from start to finish, including side-bar conversations from the 2009 Mediation Pedagogy Conference.

5. Lawyers and Clients: The Initial Interview (DVD) byRobert H. Mnookin (featured) and Susan Hackley (producer)

This video illustrates interviewing and active listening techniques appropriate for lawyer-client negotiations and effective, pragmatic ways for lawyers to establish a solid professional relationship with their clients based on effective communication skills.

Top Five PON Books

1. Negotiation Theory and Practice Edited by J. William Breslin and Jeffrey Z. Rubin

This collection of edited articles reflects the increasing interest in the field of negotiation and serves as a useful "source book" on critical issues in contemporary negotiation scholarship and practice.

2. Teaching Negotiation: Ideas and Innovations by Michael Wheeler

This volume contains twenty-seven pieces of the best writing on negotiation pedagogy from Negotiation Journal and from PON seminar and working papers. The collection is divided into three sections: whether negotiation can be taught; negotiation curriculum design; and specific tools and techniques for negotiation teachers.

3. Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict by William L. Ury, Jeanne M. Brett, and Stephen B. Goldberg

This book presents guidelines for developing systems and procedures to address the ongoing series of disputes that inevitably arise within any relationship or organization. This text presents a basic conceptual framework for dispute systems design, a variety of lessons and examples for practitioners, and a detailed case study. 

4. Making Global Deals: What Every Executive Should Know About Negotiating Abroad by Jeswald W. Salacuse

This book explains how to overcome obstacles - the instability of the international marketplace and differences in culture, ideology, law, politics, and currencies - and come out on top in any size venture.

5. In the Interest of Children: Advocacy, Law Reform, and Public Policy by Robert H. Mnookin, Robert A. Burt, David L. Chambers, Michael S. Wald, Stephen D. Sugarman, Franklin E. Zimring, and Rayman L. Solomon

This book provides a compelling introduction to the workings of the legal system and to five crucial areas of contemporary policy concern relating to children: foster care, teenage pregnancy and abortion, school discipline, institutions for the mentally retarded, and the welfare system.

About this Newsletter 

"Teaching Negotiation" is a biannual e-newsletter produced by NP@PON and circulated free of charge to negotiation and dispute resolution educators.  To access prior issues of this e-newsletter, please visit the "Teaching Negotiation" e-newsletter archive.

This newsletter or portions thereof may be reproduced at no charge for academic or nonprofit use only, so long as the NP@PON "Teaching Negotiation" e-newsletter is clearly identified as the source and so long as the author(s) of individual articles are acknowledged.  All copyrights are otherwise reserved.

You are invited to submit ideas and suggestions for future "Teaching Negotiation" e-newsletters.  Please submit suggestions to [email protected].

Join Our Mailing List
Negotiation Journal Welcomes Submissions on Teaching

Negotiation Journal (a quarterly peer-reviewed journal published by the Program on Negotiation with Blackwell Publishing) seeks teaching-related article submissions for its On Teaching section. Submissions on any aspect of teaching negotiation, mediation, or related topics are welcome. Teaching articles are typically 4,000 - 7,000 words in length. While they may be theoretical or practical in nature, they should be analytically rigorous and offer original insights, ideas, and/or research about teaching negotiation effectively. If you are considering submitting an article and are not a regular reader of the Journal, we strongly encourage you to review several recent issues to familiarize yourself generally with our content and style. All authors must also review Negotiation Journal author guidelines before submitting. The guidelines and information on how to submit articles can be found here.
About NP@PON

Negotiation Pedagogy at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School (NP@PON) is dedicated to improving the way people teach and learn about negotiation. Incorporating and expanding upon the historical mission of the PON Clearinghouse, NP@PON serves as PON's intellectual focal point for negotiation education.

NP@PON is involved a range of activities including research, curriculum development, training, and networking among those interested in negotiation pedagogy. The formal mission of NP@PON is to:
  • Contribute to the growing field of negotiation pedagogy through research and publications;
  • Support both experienced and next-generation negotiation educators through workshops, idea exchanges, and other educator-focused events;
  • Foster connections between communities of negotiation educators and education scholars;
  • Develop and distribute teaching materials that are useful in skills-based negotiation instruction;
  • Explore and test the application of new technologies to improve teaching and learning about negotiation; and
  • Help PON reach new audiences of negotiation practitioners and students through workshops, seminars, and other educational activities.
NP@PON is led by co-directors Larry Susskind and Michael Wheeler.  For more information, please feel free to contact [email protected]