How Do Ordinary Japanese Reach Consensus in Group Decision Making? : Identifying and Analyzing "Naïve Negotiation"
نویسندگان
چکیده
The purpose of this study is to investigate the negotiation processes of Japanese participants in a multi-party meeting and to identify some characteristics of “naïve negotiation,” our tentative naming for the style of negotiation in which participants share neither particular knowledge on the topics nor specific procedures to reach a conclusion. The first half of the analysis concerns the structural aspects of naïve negotiation in which the participants often reach a consensus without thorough examination of proposed opinions. The latter half of the analysis further reveals the following four features characteristic to such negotiation: 1) choosing topics to discuss at random; 2) leaving the topics untouched for a substantial amount of time; 3) abruptly shifting to the consensus phase; 4) presenting claims without any grounds, i.e. evidence/reasoning. From this analysis, we call attention to the need for developing a support system that will assist the negotiation process amongst novice discussants.
منابع مشابه
Group Decision Making in Collaborative Modeling
The need for negotiation and decision making among collaborative modelers stems from their desire to reconcile their different positions, priorities and preferences. This requires them to engage in an argumentative negotiation process so as to achieve consensus. A number of methods can be used to aggregate their judgements and priorities thus helping them to reach consensus. In this paper we sh...
متن کاملA formal model for consensus and negotiation in environmental management.
Environmental management decisions typically lie at the interface of science and public policy. Consequently, these decisions involve a number of stakeholders with competing agendas and vested interests in the ultimate decision. In such cases, it is appropriate to adopt formal methods for consensus building to ensure transparent and repeatable decisions. In this paper, we use an environmental m...
متن کاملAn Introduction to Policy Delphi; A tool for discovering the opposing views on health policy issues
Objective: In this review, we investigated various aspects of Policy Delphi technique to make decision-makers more aware of this pertinent method so that they can use it in their policy decisions in their organizations. Information sources and selected methods for study: This study was conducted using a review method and by searching the related literature in databases such as PubMed, Scopus a...
متن کاملDecision-Making in Multi-agent Multi-issue Negotiation Using Analytic Hierarchy Process
In this paper, we propose to use the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to enhance consensus in bilateral multi-issue negotiation where one agent has no knowledge about the preferences of the other agents. This work focuses on mediated negotiation, where two agents try to reach an agreement over a range of qualitative and quantitative issues. We assume that the mediator agent adopts the AHP metho...
متن کاملA novel three-stage distance-based consensus ranking method
In this study, we propose a three-stage weighted sum method for identifying the group ranks of alternatives. In the first stage, a rank matrix, similar to the cross-efficiency matrix, is obtained by computing the individual rank position of each alternative based on importance weights. In the second stage, a secondary goal is defined to limit the vector of weights since the vector of weights ob...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2005