ABSTRACT
Most publications arc substantive in thrust, and the literature tends to be restricted to a relatively few areas, such as diplomacy and labor bargaining. The more theoretical or analytic writings, such as those of Schelling or Ikle, are essentially attempts to build general theory on the basis of data from one or two substantive areas, rather than on comparative data from many areas. A steady focus both on structural and negotiation contexts and on their respective properties increases the likelihood that the analysis of specific courses of negotiation will be carefully located “within” the larger social structure. Concerning the possibility of negotiation theory, the author's own view is related to the distinctions drawn earlier between structural and negotiation contexts. Turning to the relationships between the negotiators themselves concerning their representativeness, one could look at the forgoing questions in reverse.
