Teaching Negotiation with a Feminist Perspective

Negotiation teachers encourage their students to be inventive,improve agreements, and push outward on the "pareto" frontier.Likewise, teachers can improve their practice by seeking value, sometimesin other disciplines. In general, negotiation is taught through acombination of lectures with simulation exercises and debriefings. Feministpedagogy enhances this normative model of teaching negotiation. Thisarticle links the traditional method of teaching negotiation with four keyprinciples of feminist pedagogy.     

Cognitive mediators of ego functioning in adolescence

It has often been assumed that a relationship exists between higher levels of cognitive functioning, particularly formal operations, and mature ego functioning in adolescence. This research examined the relationships between ego functioning and two domains of operational thinking: social interpersonal reasoning and physical-mathematical reasoning in 139 high school seniors. Subjects were given two measures of physical-mathematical reasoning, two measures of interpersonal reasoning, and the Sentence Completion Test of ego functioning, as well as a measure of verbal intelligence. Results indicated significant differences between males and females in patterns of correlations as well as in patterns of relationships in a causal analysis. Ego functioning was predicted by interpersonal reasoning for females and by physical-mathematical reasoning and verbal intelligence for males.This research represents a portion of the doctoral dissertation completed by the senior author in 1981. The research was supported by a grant to A. Petersen from the Spencer Foundation.Received Ph.D. from University of Illinois at Chicago. Current interests are sex-related differences in adolescent ego development and psychosocial variables in adolescent chronic illness.Received Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Current interest is biopsychosocial development in adolescence, primarily early adolescence.Research Affiliate, Laboratory for Study of Adolescence, Michael Reese Hospital. Received Ph.D. from University of Chicago. Current interest is sex-related differences in the psychological effects of puberty.Research Associate, Laboratory for the Study of Adolescence, Michael Reese Hospital; Program Associate, Health Program, MacArthur Foundation. Received Ph.D. from Syracuse University. Current interest is sex-related differences in socialization.     

From Mrs. Burns To Mrs. Oxley: Do Co-habiting Women (Still) Need Marriage Law?

Following the U.K. Labour government commitment to marriage in the 1998 Green Paper ‘Supporting Families’, Barlow and Duncan produced a robust critique calling for ‘realism’ in recognising that many couples are now choosing not to marry, that too many do not make informed decisions as to whether to marry or not and that, on the basis of their survey, over 40% of respondents believed that some form of family law protection would be available to them, despite their lack of marital status. When added to a concern that economically vulnerable cohabiting women do not receive adequate protection in property law, it seemed all too obvious that the government commitment to marriage should be challenged. In fact, government policy does seem to have shifted somewhat when, partly as a tactical manoeuvre to help the passage of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and specifically recognising concerns with the needs of economically vulnerable parties, the issue was referred to the Law Commission for England and Wales. This places the ‘realism’ arguments firmly within the reform agenda. However, this article argues that there is a need to look more closely at the arguments used by the ‘realists’, in particular at the evocation of the figure of Mrs. Burns. The more contemporary case of Oxley v. Hiscock is used to both raise questions about the socio-economic profiles of cohabitants, as well to question the presentation of property law as failing women (and family law as offering the protection they need). I argue that feminists should take a cautious approach in relation to the seemingly compelling argument that cohabitants will benefit from the extension of aspects of marriage law to cover property issues at the end of a relationship.