Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Taking a gender sensitive approach to Social Identity Theory in Anglo-American, Chinese and Russian negotiating contexts suggests that gendered social identities significantly correspond to “ideal type” diplomatic negotiators across cultural contexts. In the US, the identities of the “ideal man” and the “ideal negotiator” converge as an individualistic, self controlled, rational, male actor who seeks to “expand the pie” through problem-solving negotiation in order to maximize the benefits available. In China, the “junzi” (ideal man) and “ideal negotiator” are male actors who are tightly in control of their relationships, and consequently able to use the relationship games of guanxi and paradigms of wen / “joint quest” or wu / “mobile warfare” to promote the achievement of their “principled” goals. In Russia, both masculine ideal types and typical negotiators are strong members of fraternal communities, who utilize position-appropriate tactics to achieve group goals at the expense of subordinated and feminized opponents. In all three, gendered structures on individual, state and global levels reinforce each other in perpetuating diplomatic demographics, goals, and institutions which privilege dichotomous, and primarily masculine- over feminine-typical social identity roles. This critical interrogation of the intercultural diplomatic negotiation literature suggests that investigating other key social identities may also provide models which can be selectively drawn on in order to both understand the sources of potential conflict or cooperation, and provide a tool to improve negotiation processes and outcomes.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: How are American diplomats educated and trained? Historically, this has always been a matter of considerable controversy in the United States revolving around two basic questions. Did the US need diplomats at all? If so, how should they be inoculated to a

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: During the last decade there has been an increase in the role of firms in the organisation and practice of UK diplomacy. UK Diplomacy is no longer (if it ever was) a hierarchically structured state activity but is rather a network system involving state as well as non-state actors - especially firms. In the UK, for example, firms are once again institutionally embedded within the diplomatic system as a result of recent government reforms. This paper highlights these developments and considers some of the political implications for UK diplomatic practice of moving 'beyond the hegemony of the state.'

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Taking a gender sensitive approach to Social Identity Theory in Anglo-American, Chinese and Russian negotiating contexts suggests that gendered social identities significantly correspond to “ideal type” diplomatic negotiators across cultural contexts. In the US, the identities of the “ideal man” and the “ideal negotiator” converge as an individualistic, self controlled, rational, male actor who seeks to “expand the pie” through problem-solving negotiation in order to maximize the benefits available. In China, the “junzi” (ideal man) and “ideal negotiator” are male actors who are tightly in control of their relationships, and consequently able to use the relationship games of guanxi and paradigms of wen / “joint quest” or wu / “mobile warfare” to promote the achievement of their “principled” goals. In Russia, both masculine ideal types and typical negotiators are strong members of fraternal communities, who utilize position-appropriate tactics to achieve group goals at the expense of subordinated and feminized opponents. In all three, gendered structures on individual, state and global levels reinforce each other in perpetuating diplomatic demographics, goals, and institutions which privilege dichotomous, and primarily masculine- over feminine-typical social identity roles. This critical interrogation of the intercultural diplomatic negotiation literature suggests that investigating other key social identities may also provide models which can be selectively drawn on in order to both understand the sources of potential conflict or cooperation, and provide a tool to improve negotiation processes and outcomes.