Improvisation and Negotiation: Expecting the Unexpected

Negotiators must improvise. As the negotiations process unfolds, they work with new information, continually making decisions along the way to achieve favorable results. Skilled improvisational jazz musicians and actors perform in similar ways: they repeatedly practice song chord progressions and notes or scene guidelines before a performance; then, during the performance, they work with the information or the music they hear in order to react and respond, making decisions along the way to produce dazzling music or a compelling scene. In this article, two experts in negotiation, a jazz-improvisation scholar, a former member of an improvisational theater troupe, and a psychotherapist versed in therapeutic improvisational techniques explore the improvisational nature of negotiation.
Several aspects of negotiation are similar to improvisation. Both negotiators and improvisational performers need to have a similar mind-set to be successful, both need to recognize and/or change that mind-set at times, and both must craft creative solutions. But there are some significant differences between improvisational performance and negotiation practice, which this article also notes. For example, personal charisma ("star quality") is a common attribute of successful performers, but not something negotiators may always rely on. Similarly, improvisational artists usually work as a team, while a negotiator is often on his or her own. Nonetheless, the incorporation of improvisation techniques into the negotiation skills repertoire holds great promise for practicing negotiators and is a worthy topic of future negotiation research and teaching.     

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS IN EUROPEAN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS: WHY ARE FAMILY PRACTICES SO DIFFERENT FROM LEGAL THEORIES?

Debates about child custody following parental separation often have been framed in terms of a battle between the competing rights of different family members. In the United States, advocates of mothers’ rights square off against proponents of fathers’ rights, with each side claiming to truly represent children's rights. Of course, not all advocates lay claim to children's rights in contact and custody disputes merely as a tactical maneuver. Some experts believe that children are entitled to (and benefit from) their own, independent legal advocate in custody cases. In theory, at least, the position that children lay claim to a third set of independent rights is strongly held in Europe, more strongly than in many U.S. states, because of the adoption of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in Europe, but not in the United States. In this article, we examine children's rights in custody disputes from a European perspective, particularly children's legal right to contact with their parents, as well as the children's right to be heard in custody and contact disputes. We find that, despite differences in legal theory, tradition, and family demographics, European countries ultimately face a familiar reality: Custody and contact disputes are, in reality, more about renegotiating family relationships than they are a matter of a mother's, father's, or child's rights.     

Student Success and Failure in a Graduate Criminology/Criminal Justice Program

Despite the burdens that students and institutions assume when underwriting educational careers, very little is known about completion rates, risk factors, and successful strategies of criminology/criminal justice (CCJ) graduate programs. Consequently, the present study tracks 287 master’s and 70 doctoral students who entered the Florida State University CCJ program during the 1991–2000 academic years. Almost two-thirds of this cohort earned an advanced degree. Younger students with higher GRE scores were more likely to complete the master’s program. Successful doctoral degree recipients tended to have lower GRE scores, be non-White, and earn their master’s degrees in-house. In terms of time-to-degree, it took over two years to earn an M.A. and slightly more than six years to negotiate the Ph.D. Implications are explored for the program, the university, and the discipline.     

Post-injection hybridization of complementary DNA strands on capillary electrophoresis platforms: A novel solution for dsDNA artifacts

Several laboratories have reported the occurrence of a split or n − 1 peak at the vWA locus in PowerPlex^® 16 and PowerPlex^® ES amplification products separated on 4- and 16-capillary electrophoresis instruments. The root cause of this artifact is post-PCR reannealing of the unlabeled, unincorporated vWA primer to the 3′-end of the tetramethylrhodamine (TMR)-labeled strand of the vWA amplicon. This reannealing occurs in the capillary post-electrokinetic injection. The split peak is eliminated by incorporation into the loading cocktail of a sacrificial hybridization sequence (SHS) oligonucleotide that is complementary to the vWA primer. The SHS preferentially anneals to the primer instead of the TMR-labeled strand of the vWA amplicon. In addition, the n − 10/n − 18 artifact that may be seen at the vWA locus was determined to be due to double-stranded amplicon formed post-electrokinetic injection into the capillary. This was also eliminated by adding in two Complementary Oligo Targets (COT1 and COT2) in addition to the SHS oligonucleotide into the loading cocktail. These three oligonucleotides are complementary to the 33 bases at the 5′-end of the unlabeled vWA amplicon strand and the 60 bases at its 3′-end and therefore compete for hybridization to the TMR-labeled amplicon strand. Incorporation of these three oligonucleotides in the Internal Lane Standard 600 (ILS600) eliminate both the split peak and n − 10/n − 18 artifact in PowerPlex^® 16 and PowerPlex^® ES amplification products without affecting sizing of alleles at the vWA locus or any locus in the PowerPlex^® 16, PowerPlex^® Y, PowerPlex^® ES, AmpFlSTR^® Profiler Plus^® ID, AmpFlSTR^® Cofiler^®, and AmpFlSTR^® SGM Plus^® kits.     

Deregistration issues in the US for foreign private issuers

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. Key points

• While the passage of Sarbanes–Oxley in the USwas just one of the many causes for the lack of competitivenessof the US capital markets recently, it served to focus the attentionof foreign private issuers in the US on the difficulty and sometimesimpossibility of exiting the US capital markets.
• Unlike manyother jurisdictions, the process of deregistering in the USis distinct from process of delisting. The current rules forderegistration of foreign private issuers focus on the numberof US shareholders, regardless of how or where those shareholderspurchased their shares. In addition, foreign private issuers,were subject to complicated rules for counting US shareholders,and deregistration often would only suspend (not terminate)their reporting obligations.
• As a result of pressure from foreignprivate issuers, the SEC proposed new rules at the end of 2005to liberalize the existing deregistration regime for foreignprivate issuers. . . . [Full Text of this Article]