NEW AREAS FOR RESEARCH

Reviewing what has been achieved and considering what should still be done, Faure (2002) concluded that future research on the complex links that culture keeps with negotiation should be articulated around four main perspectives:

• The shift from a comparative focus to an intercultural investigation;

• A stronger concern for interpreting contradictions within any cultural set;

• A better connection between the cognitive aspect and the behavioral dimension;

• A clearer positioning of the cultural dimension with regard to the strategic dimension.

Comparative approaches, taxonomic studies describing a negotiation and approaches drawn from anthropology exploring negotia­tion styles have clear merits but also obvious limitations. Other types of queries are taking place. Another type of approach, still largely to come, consists in bringing the focus on the chemistry resulting from the interaction between two cultures. If the point were not to predict some kind of outcome, at least it would be most important to introduce some understanding of what happens in this complex interaction with such an uncertain result. Work has been done in this area with French-German relations after World War II (Demorgon et al., 2003). Weiss (1994b) has proposed a range of eight cultural strategies among which the negotiator may choose according to the parties' level of familiarity with each other's culture. Among them are: to employ an agent, to adapt to the counterpart's script, to induce the counterpart to follow one's own script or to transcend either home culture by improvising a new script (“effect symphony”).

More investigation is needed on topics such as the problem of within-culture variation, for instance, at the negotiation table within each party. If a negotiation lasts long enough, it may allow or even trigger significant evolutions in terms of values, beliefs, and perceptions.

Another query addresses the topic of uni­versality. Are there universals in conflict res­olution approaches such as not only concepts but also rationales, and resolution methods that allow going beyond the uniqueness of a situation?

The recurring question on the possible influence of culture, which is aporetic, should be replaced, as suggested by Faure and Rubin (1993: 229), by a more relevant type of enquiry on the special conditions or circumstances under which culture matters. This question has been addressed on the issue of power, especially when the power relation is imbalanced. Cohen (1991) contends that culture has limited effects “in any situation in which force majeure can be involved, when the weaker has no choice but to comply with the will of the strongest.” Thus, power trumps cultural issues. However, even the neo-realists consider that in the case of protracted conflicts such as dealing with identity, or ethnicity, even large power discrepancies do not matter very much. The debate remains open. What has to be kept in mind for future research is to go further in exploring the circumstances within which the cultural dimension plays or does not play a role in taking into account contextual, organizational, strategic variables as well as the type of stake.

Nonverbal communication should also have far more importance than is often the case, as it is essential in high context cultures where indirect approaches and face saving are prerequisites for maintaining harmony between the parties to the dispute.

The role of identity in conflict resolution has not been explored enough although useful attempts have been carried out (Faure and Rubin, 1993; Freshman, 2005; Zartman, 2001). The assumption of a fixed identity also often prevails, which runs counter to realistic research (Freshman, 2005: 102). Identity beliefs are too often treated as obstacles and have not been given a fair status in explaining processes of conflict resolution and outcomes. Economists, for instance, tend to put them in the same category as emotions, just hamperingrational agreements. Another direction for research would be to see in which situations culture could be used as an “enabler” of conflict management practices, as suggested by Wanis-St John (2005).

When considering the three main types of activity people resort to in conflict resolution: concession-convergence, compensation, and transformation, it would be most useful to do research on the influence of culture on each of the logics related to these activities. Are values, beliefs, norms, and conceptions influential? If so, how and what are the outcomes?