Splitting a Difference of Opinion: The Shift to Negotiation

Jan Albert van Laar*, Erik C. W. Krabbe

*Bijbehorende auteur voor dit werk

OnderzoeksoutputAcademicpeer review

5 Citaten (Scopus)
255 Downloads (Pure)

Samenvatting

Negotiation is not only used to settle differences of interest but also to settle differences of opinion. Discussants who are unable to resolve their difference about the objective worth of a policy or action proposal may be willing to abandon their attempts to convince the other and search instead for a compromise that would, for each of them, though only a second choice yet be preferable to a lasting conflict. Our questions are: First, when is it sensible to enter into negotiations and when would this be unwarranted or even fallacious? Second, what is the nature of a compromise? What does it mean to settle instead of resolve a difference of opinion, and what might be the dialectical consequences of mistaking a compromise for a substantial resolution? Our main aim is to contribute to the theory of argumentation within the context of negotiation and compromise formation and to show how arguing disputants can shift to negotiation in a dialectically virtuous way.

Originele taal-2English
Pagina's (van-tot)329-350
Aantal pagina's22
TijdschriftArgumentation
Volume32
Nummer van het tijdschrift3
Vroegere onlinedatum12-dec-2017
DOI's
StatusPublished - sep-2018

Citeer dit