By Alexandros Sainidis and Evangelos Chondros
It is no secret that gathering information for humanitarian disciplines is uniquely difficult. Unlike concrete experiments coming from observation, we dance with coincidence, correlation, ethical dilemmas and disturbances caused by low-stake conditions. While the biologist can dissect a frog for their experiment, we are limited to tools such as interviews – a controlled form of conversation. The tone is usually gentle and diplomatic, inviting collaboration and mutual contributions – hence being a generally positive experience.
If we see, however, communication as a spectrum, closer to the other end you would find negotiations – which can be tough to deal with. Through negotiations one often tries to corner the other party and relies more on spontaneous reactions, leaks of intelligence and silent confessions. Could it be that negotiations have a more interesting role to offer when it comes to the collection of information for research?
Information for or from Negotiation?
One crucial (mental) obstacle in using negotiations as a means of information collection is the idea of information use in negotiations itself. Negotiators strive to obtain as much information as they can before and during the negotiation. It is very similar to poker – if you had the information about the cards your connegotiators hold, you would be able to call a bluff properly. In other words, they maximize the benefits they can reap while minimizing losses with all the information they hold. In these cases we are talking about a zero-sum game, where one’s loss is another’s gain. Information is also useful for positive-sum games where two or more agents want to find a solution they can all benefit from. More information can potentially offer a better understanding of one’s interest and even if the climate is friendly, the negotiator might still need to push in order to pose all the uncomfortable questions. Due to this approach, the negotiation is often seen as a result of research and not as an output of information itself after its end, driving our attentions away from its untapped potential.
However, if we analyze the negotiation itself, from start to finish valuable details can be found, illuminating some dark corners. Either as observers of a live negotiation, or by decoding the Minutes of Meeting in a negotiation as researchers (if not confidential) we can identify several very useful insights for the parties involved , and for the negotiation process itself.
After all, a negotiation is a lively, interactive and dynamic process of many exchanges and intense interactions, in which numerous facts and data about all parties involved can be revealed. Specifically, one may find elements of:
🖋 Evolution and history of negotiation
🖋 Dynamic negotiation contexts
🖋The background of the persons involved, their political-social-economic culture, their relevant automatisms
🖋 Various behavioral elements
🖋 Their negotiating profile/style
🖋 Stereotypes-biases
🖋 Their objectives and interests
🖋 Motivation-objectives-priority issues
🖋 Negotiating conditions-framework
🖋 Main points/moments of tension/confrontation/concessions
🖋 Strategy/tactics/practices followed by the parties
🖋 Obstacles – difficulties – facilitations
🖋 Influence/influence of third parties
🖋 Level of jurisdiction
🖋 Ways of decision-making
Why not just interview?
Researchers and journalists are often biased towards interviewees and vice-versa. Quite often, the self-perceived status of the interviewer is lower, humbler than of the interviewee. After all, they think, a Former Minister probably knows and does more than the underpaid researcher.
In some other cases the interviewer cares about their reputation for landing an interview in the first place more than the content of the interview. Just think of Tucker Carlson’s visit in Russia, promising a role of an investigator only to have a discussion about history with Vladimir Putin.
Moreover, while consent to an interview is useful and vital for collecting information, again, it gives the power of choice to the interviewee. There is no penalty for not answering, while some will answer diplomatically not revealing or contributing anything new. After all, they are psychologically armored. The pushy character of negotiations, on the other hand, necessitates answers. Non-verbal answers count too – with the right question and the right intonation, silence can be either a very obvious yes or no.
Obviously interviewers will not start negotiating instead of interviewing. But researchers can find great value in taking a closer look at negotiations. It is a different point of view and a different angle of looking at a relationship – historic or operational. However, at their core, negotiations hold great lessons for any interaction aimed at getting information. They teach you not to settle for a bad deal and that includes the interviewer, who should always push for better and more fulfilling answers.
