Gender analysis has emerged as an important conceptual approach to the study of decision making and conflict resolution in the international arena. Although scholars and practitioners within the field of international relations have debated the effect of gender on the negotiation and decision-making process, little systematic evidence to support their assertions has taken place. This article examines a set of data from the GLOBALED PROJECT that provides insights into the different ways men and women perceive world affairs and interact in a negotiation setting. In particular, the authors examine differences in the negotiation styles of all-female, all-male, and mixed-gender groups when negotiating over international or global issues. Findings from the GLOBALED PROJECT, a computer-mediated study of gender differences in decisionmaking and negotiation skills, show that there are indeed significant differences between the approaches used by various gender groupings. Although much work remains to be done in this area, this research indicates that some of the impressionistic and anecdotal characterizations of the different ways men and women approach negotiations and decision making are indeed well-grounded when examined through systemic evidence.From any casual observation of contemporary world affairs, it is abundantly clear that an oversupply of injustice, suffering, and conflict exists throughout the world community. It is also clear that current policy-making mechanisms, and the political actors that staff those mechanisms, are unable to cope adequately with this oversupply. This is not to blame our policy makers for all of the problems in the world, but merely to recognize that our current actors and structures are unable to solve many

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract