


































Education, Language and Sociology Research 

ISSN 2690-3644 (Print) ISSN 2690-3652 (Online) 

Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr 

149 
 

Original Paper 

Rethinking Role-play and Simulation in Negotiation Pedagogy 

Jing Yu1 

1 School of Business English, Sichuan International Studies University, Chongqing, China 

 

Received: May 5, 2023       Accepted: May 27, 2023    Online Published: June 15, 2023 

doi:10.22158/elsr.v4n2p149      URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elsr.v4n2p149 

 

Abstract 

Though there are not unified research findings in the effectiveness of role-play and simulation as 

experiential learning tools, they have been widely applied in negotiation pedagogical practices. This 

article aims to reexamine role-play and simulation in negotiation pedagogy. It discusses the current 

challenges with role-play and simulation in achieving the desired learning outcomes, authenticity, and 

dynamics. It also outlines the approaches and experiments with role-play and simulation for a better 

pedagogical model to address these challenges.  

Keywords 

role-play, simulation, negotiation pedagogy 

 

1. Introduction 

Since the 1960s, role-play and simulation have been wildly applied in a variety of negotiation courses in 

order to achieve better learning outcomes in terms of immediate application of knowledge and skills and 

skill transferability (Ebner & Kovach, 2010). As Kolb’s (1984, 2014) put forward the concept of 

experiential learning, role-play and simulation are considered effective teaching methods in its toolbox, 

and have become one of the most important, recognized, and effective methods in negotiation pedagogy 

in a lot of countries (Ebner & Kovach, 2010; Alexander & LeBaron, 2010; Bell &Valley, 2020). In a 

study of negotiation teaching methods, researchers conducted a multi-disciplinary comparison across the 

fields of business, law, public policy and planning, and international relations, and found that role-play 

and simulation was the only one method most frequently used in all fields (Fortgang, 2000). Simulated 

negotiation was also used by all instructors in 10 negotiation courses offered by the United Association 

of Law Schools from 2003 to 2012 (Druckman & Ebner, 2013). In a survey of teachers attending the 

2009 Mediated Negotiation Conference at Harvard University, 96% of all 130 teachers regularly taught 

with role-play and simulation, and 82.7% considered it to be very important pedagogical practice (Corsi, 

2010). 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

150 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Early researchers divided in their opinions as how well role-play and simulation could increase the 

learning outcomes (Randel et al., 1992; Bredemeier, 1981; Pierfy, 1977; Greenblat, 1973). Most studies 

found that through a role-play in classroom, there are observable improvement in students’ interest and 

motivation in learning negotiation (Randel et al., 1992; Bredemeier, 1981, Cherryholmes, 1966; 

Greenblat, 1973). However, many studies have warned the overuse of role-play and simulation without 

thoroughly understanding its risks. As tools of experiential learning, role-play and simulation often 

restructure the teaching process to achieve increase the experience. Consequently, unmanageable risks 

of a decentralized experience and minimal output are foreseeable (Kolb, 2014; Keeton & Tate, 1978). 

Secondly, compared to traditional lectures, simulations rely more on the engagement of students for a 

desirable result. Uncertainty in students’ performance or even the temporary absence of one student could 

sabotage a entire class plan (Druckman & Ebner, 2013). Another common demonstration of this 

uncertainty is the downplay or escalation of conflicts in negotiation due to students’ over- or under-

identification of the negotiation roles provided, leading to intense emotional stress in teachers and 

students (Druckman & Ebner, 2013; Bernard, 2009). This method is also demanding and time-consuming, 

with teachers designing the scenario and students preparing for it before the class. The heavily invested 

practices for both parties dictate a bigger interest and motivation in students, and could, however, 

generate higher level of frustration once they fail (Alexander & LeBaron, 2010).  

Research and practice in teaching negotiations as discussed above have been piloted with more 

perspectives and dimensions recently. However, there is still an empirical gap in research in China. Some 

studies focused on the experiment of experiential learning, in teaching negotiation, with case method, 

role-play and simulation, and a hybrid of teaching methods (Zhao, 2021; Ling & Huang, 2018; Li & 

Deng, 2018; He & Xu, 2017; Xiang, 2016; Wang, 2015). But these researches aimed at complementing 

traditional lectures rather than a curriculum and teaching pedagogy centering around experiential 

learning. Coupled with a limited time and student participation, they did not provide an in-depth 

understanding of how role-play and simulation was executed in negotiation classrooms in Chinese 

universities, as well as the risks and challenges unique to Chinese classrooms. Furthermore, students 

participated in the piloted classes include students enrolled in three-year programs in vocational schools 

and undergraduates in universities. The different setting of programs and levels of students lead to 

polarized teaching methods and learning outcomes, which requires separate and specialized research. 

The research gap could be bridged with more empirical evidence with breadth and depth to establish 

role-play and simulation as important assets in teacher’s tool box. Therefore, this study aims at answering 

the question: how could the reexamination and reflection of role-play and simulation in recent years in 

other countries could provide a future pathway for teachers in Chinese negotiation classes. 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

151 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2. Pedagogical Challenges 

Early researchers mostly aimed at verifying the advantages of role-play and simulation versus traditional 

teaching methods in teaching negotiation. Greenblat (1973) claimed that the efficacy of using role-play 

and simulation in classrooms could contribute to the learning outcomes of students in the following six 

categories: 1) heighten motivation and interest; 2) promote concept learning; 3) enhance decision-making 

and analytical skills; 4) raise students’ empathy; 5) increase students’ self-awareness and self-confidence; 

6) harmonize student-student and teacher-student relationships. Researchers later advocated that role-

play and simulation is able to improve students’ motivation and interest and greatly prolongs their 

memory of knowledge (Cherryholmes, 1966; Bredemeier, 1981; Randel et al., 1992). However, the 

claims that they would enhance students’ abilities in concept learning, cognition, critical thinking, and 

decision-making were not validated (Cherryholmes, 1966; Pierfy, 1977; Bredemeier, 1981; Randel et al., 

1992). Besides the limited advantages agreed, Alexander and LeBaron (2010) categorized another three 

potential risks teachers need to address in using role-play and simulation: 1) cultural conflict of using 

others’ identities; 2) possibility of reinforcing stereotypes; 3) exaggeration of skill transferability. This 

critique is embedded in a deeper concern that questions the feasibility and impact of pedagogical practice 

in negotiation teaching and training. This concern entails a doubt that the effect of role-play and 

simulation is anecdotal, neither theory-based nor scientific-grounded (Ebner & Kovach, 2010). However, 

Patton (2009) responded that this concern is raised early when many pedagogical practices in negotiation 

teaching are considered pioneering and lack empirical evidence, and could be addressed better now with 

new or revised practices to retain the advantages and improve the downsides (Ebner & Kovach, 2010).  

Secondly, the authenticity challenge long exists in using role-play and simulation due to the impossibility 

of reproducing a real negotiation in terms of scenarios, people, processes, and outcomes in the classrooms 

(Raiffa, 1982; Coben, 2012; Fuller, 2012). Poitras et al. (2013) defined it as ecological validity in 

negotiation classrooms and explained how a successful establishment of it could contribute to an effective 

engagement of students. Ecological validity involves mundane, experimental, and psychological realism 

for students in negotiation simulations, which jointly decide to which extent the simulation gets close to 

a reality and to which extent students identify with real negotiators. Authenticity is also implicated by 

other studies as a major determinant of student engagement and learning outcomes (Marks, 2000), and 

effective reproduction of real negotiation situations is believed to promote active participation from 

students (Blumenfeld et al., 2006). However, due to the complexity of real negotiations and limited time 

and resources, most teachers and schools could not afford to replicate the real negotiation scenarios. 

Under- or over-identification of negotiation roles, enhanced level of stress, tension and anger in students, 

downplay or scalation of conflicts, as discussed earlier, are found to be the consequences of lack of 

authenticity (Bernard, 2009). If a negotiation simulation is reduced to empty talks, students could hardly 

endeavor for a mutually satisfying result (Poitras et al., 2013). Furthermore, the unreal experience would 

likely to arouse emotional responses far away from those of real negotiators, which could give rise to 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

152 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

difficulty in understanding the complexity and feasibility of negotiation strategies (Druckman & Olekalns, 

2008). 

The third pedagogical challenge is the static architecture (Watkins, 2007). A usual practice of role-play 

and simulation begins with a case designed by the teacher and given to the students to prepare ahead of 

time. Though the students are often left without interventions during the bargain and concession, the 

scenario, parties, issue, interest, and scope of a negotiation simulation is predefined. Because of lack of 

dialogue in case design, students’ influence of the case is minimized. Babcock (2007) warned that a fixed 

negotiation simulation is highly likely to generate an isolated understanding and experience of 

negotiation against the complexity and dynamics in real negotiations. Ebner and Efron (2011) also 

illustrated how the solutions of authenticity could stifle the dynamics of a simulation exercise. In 

addressing the authenticity challenge, many teachers design a reality-based simulation aiming at factual 

proximity and situational familiarity. But the precise fidelity to reality could solidify the architecture of 

simulation and kill the creativity and learning potential of students. However, Watkins (2007) claimed 

that by incorporating the concept of “manageable dynamics”, students could influence in a way that 

yields advantages with a stable basis, where teachers and students could jointly orient, confront and 

evaluate the risks and outcomes.  

 

3. Rethinking Role-play and Simulation 

3.1 Creating a Pseudo-reality 

Authenticity, or reality-proximity, has been recognized as a central issue in advancing the learning 

experience and outcome in negotiation simulations (Ebner & Efron, 2011). Therefore, to create an 

exercise, which is close to real negotiations in terms of scenarios, issues, and roles which students find 

comfortable to fit in and identify and capable to play, continues to be essential in the argument.  

3.1.1 Establishing Partnership with Corporations and Practitioners 

Hartley et al. (2017) introduced a corporation partner, CACI International, in the negotiation simulations, 

with managers assuming the roles of suppliers to negotiate with students. In their survey later, a majority 

of participating students affirmed the authenticity in their experience and attributed the progress in their 

learning to the involvement of CACI in the actual negotiation simulation and preparation. However, 

having one company to participate in the simulation is beyond the time and resources for most 

universities and teachers. A modification of this partnership was suggested by Groth and Glevoll (2007) 

to invite a practitioner as guest lecturer to attend the simulation. Practitioner volunteer recruitment on a 

long-term basis or a remote attendance via phone call, email, and video conference could contribute to 

the future viability of this method (Hartley et al., 2017; Mozahem, 2019). Scenarios or story lines could 

be accordingly designed to incorporate a geographic distance in order to attain realism for students (Ebner, 

2011; Ebner & Kovach, 2010). Lastly, real cases could be used in simulations. Contrasting the simulated 

result to the real one helps students understand and explore variables in real negotiations (Dias & Navarro, 

2018).  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

153 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3.1.2 Adding Elements from the Real World 

A more realistic negotiation environment and negotiation process could be created to approximate the 

daily reality of simulated negotiations, such as having simulations in business conference rooms, using 

company document templates, adopting business dress code, introducing business rituals like self-

introductions, handshakes, exchange of business cards and small talks in networking (Poitras et al., 2013). 

In terms of negotiation roles, there are two polarized approaches, to closely match students’ actual 

personalities or design new identities with no familiarity and similarity for students (Poitras et al., 2013; 

Ebner & Kovach, 2010). The former is argued to elicit comfortable identification of roles and thus better 

engagement; the latter is believed to stimulate a self-study of roles assigned and creativity in playing the 

roles (Ebner & Kovach, 2010). As to the process, simulations could be upgraded to a multi-issue and 

multi-party negotiation (Lande, 2012), or include details, contingencies, and new parties halfway in order 

to increase the urgency and emotional charges (Ebner & Efron, 2005). Weiss (2008) proposed the concept 

of Mega-simulation based on his fifteen years of negotiation teaching experience. He used real-life cases 

of large international business negotiations, set up multi-session, multi-party simulations with 9 to 16 

participants, and designed complete role profiles for each student to better enhance students’ 

understanding and problem-solving skills in a multicultural context. Volkema (2007) demonstrated that 

adding real interests or stakes of students could facilitate their engagement and outcomes. Money, scores, 

and peer evaluations are common elements to urge for an agreement. Studies also showed that a written 

agreement is better stimuli for students, with terms which could be added or subtracted by both parties 

on the spot (Coben, 2012; Ebner et al., 2012). A hybrid of all these approaches is well executed in a 

simulation designed by Klaw (2016), who left the students to clarify their BATNA (Best Alternative to a 

Negotiated Agreement) and choose a contract template online and adapt it. The attempt was highly 

thought of by the students, who reported engaging experience and fruitful learning results in the 

evaluation. 

3.1.3 Adventure Learning  

Cohn and Ebner (2010) argued that the concept of adventure learning can be incorporated, such as 

organizing students to negotiate in the local market, with the aim of adding real-world negotiation 

elements to enhance students’ experience. Alexander and LeBaron (2011) advocated the use of adventure 

learning through a successful manifestation in an international outward-bound program. Unlike usual 

assumptions about adventure learning, the application in negotiation simulation is not time-consuming 

and could be easy to execute. Simple games like trust circle and human knot are proposed. Nevertheless, 

researchers also warned the perceived risks of outdoor adventures like physical injuries and stresses and 

suggested a thoughtful precaution taken before the adventures (Alexander & LeBaron, 2011; Cohn & 

Ebner, 2010). 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

154 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3.2 Managing Dynamics 

The concept of manageable dynamics proposed by Watkins (2007) implicates a reverse power relation 

against that in a traditional classroom which prescribes a teacher in the center to control and influence, 

and breaks a linear teaching and learning pattern. For example, students could design simulations from 

their previous intern experiences or with the help of practitioners invited from the companies. Other 

students then conduct the simulation with the case designed. In this experiment, students reported a 

higher level of concept learning, which is suggested with no observable improvement compare with other 

methods by early studies (Germain-Thomas et al., 2011). Students also had more realistic experience and 

satisfying engagement with this approach, and students in the design group showed significant increases 

in conceptual learning, relational understanding, retention time, and satisfaction (Druckman & Ebner, 

2013). A study showed that this design reduces students’ doubts about realism and actively reorders the 

linear process of negotiation by adding contradictions and interlocking factors, which all contribute to an 

enhanced experience (Olekalns & Druckman, 2014). Another experiment in enriching dynamism is to 

teach with videos. Bordone and Carr (2013) started Critical Decision in Negotiation Project and worked 

closely with a lot of professionals to finalize a series of videos on teaching negotiation. These videos 

focused on three themes—openings and process, tactics, and communication skills in negotiation. 

Students could watch and analyze videos to acquire a big picture of negotiations (Ebner & Kovach, 2010). 

Stokoe (2014) proposed to use video footages of real negotiations, pausing at key points to allow students 

to improvise with the roles and complete the rest of the negotiation. Then their immediate reactions are 

compared with the real endings in the video to prompt self-reflections. Furthermore, with the maturation 

of artificial intelligence, human-computer negotiation is underway. Software and websites have aided 

negotiation simulations in a more sophisticated and dynamic way (Khan & Baldini, 2020; Eisencraft, 

2017; Urlancher, 2014; Wilkenfeld, 2004). 

3.3 Reshaping the Outcomes 

Debrief is researched and adopted by many researchers and teachers as an effective approach to promote 

the learning outcomes of negotiation simulations. Immediate feedback by the instructor, practitioner and 

audience helps to form an in-depth understanding of negotiation concepts (Patton, 2009; Coben, 2012; 

Deason et al., 2013). Curhan et al. (2006) suggested a questionnaire and follow-up interview to 

understand the subjective value of students’ participation—that is, students’ self-evaluation of their 

negotiation performance, in order to promote instructional and individual progress. More importantly, 

these evaluations could be introduced into the metrics of measuring a negotiation simulation or individual 

performance. Early studies tended to compare role-play and simulation with traditional teaching methods. 

However, if these methods are acknowledged as progressive attempts to bridge the gap of traditional 

classrooms, new metrics should be integrated in line to increase the efficacy. A second recommended 

approach to shape the outcome is to design the negotiation simulation on independent concepts and 

evaluate based on the scope and extent of how students perform in line with these concepts (Beenen & 

Barbuto, 2014; Schnurr et al., 2014). 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

155 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3.4 Blending with Creativity 

Some scholars argue that there is no need for a major reform of negotiation simulations and traditional 

simulations can be applied in a new way to achieve teaching objectives. However, more researches on 

negotiation simulations find significance in cooperation with artists and communities to draw on creative 

pedagogies and technological tools (Harding, 2020, 2004; Dias & Navarro, 2018; Wallace, 2017; 

Macduff, 2012; Alexander & LeBaron, 2011; Patton, 2009). Macduff (2012) illustrated with an early 

experiment to teach with blogs and discussed a possible inclusion of social media, to address the gap 

between technology access and skill training among students. Harding (2004) explored improvisational 

theater in negotiation simulation and discussed how active listening and reading the cues given by 

performers could influence critical moments in a negotiation. He re-examined his research years later 

and further explained the problem of misconception of answers in negotiations (Harding, 2020). This 

attempt with theater performers, as well as other artists as dancers, writers, and musicians, is 

recommended to stimulate creativity in helping to cultivate communication, conflict-solving and 

relational abilities of students. With visual, audio, or kinesthetic effects jointly to produce a desirable 

outcome, students will learn in a way that could not be achieved through role-plays or simulations alone 

(Alexander & LeBaron, 2011). 

 

4. Conclusion 

These experimented approaches are intended for an optimized student engagement and emotional 

experience proximate to the reality (Olekalns & Druckman, 2014). However, such practices could not be 

applied without thoughtful and deliberate design and monitoring. For example, Poitras et al. (2013) 

pointed out that during such simulations, teachers need to actively help to establish and maintain a 

positive negotiation climate and care for the emotional security of students, otherwise students’ 

motivation and self-confidence may be disproportionately damaged if they perform poorly or the 

negotiation does not turn out as expected. Culturally, studies showed that to assume an identity provided 

in role-play and simulation could be considered an impolite and irrational act in a lot of non-western 

cultures. Students in these cultures need a creative way to participate, in order to deal with this fake 

reality. Teachers also must face the potential danger of strengthened stereotypes, if identities are designed 

with fixed cultural backgrounds, professions, and positions (Alexander & LeBaron, 2010). The tendency 

to complicate the design of negotiation simulations have raised concerns among some researchers since 

a single focus on reality may affect negatively students’ creativity and potential in self-learning 

(Crampton & Manwaring, 2008, as cited in Druckman & Ebner, 2013). Besides, using creative methods 

in negotiation classroom could promote creativity, but they require legitimacy in using these non-

mainstream methods (Alexander & LeBaron, 2011). Though teachers and researchers constantly and 

inevitably confront these challenges and doubts, further experiment and research could help to justify 

role-play and simulation t in a wider social context. When Kolb’s (2014) initiated the concept of 

experiential learning, it was at the critical moment in higher education in the United States, featuring an 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

156 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

increased enrollment in higher education and the compelling demands of developing adult education and 

vocational education. Role-play and simulation was inspired by adult education to create a self-directing 

learning experience to sustain life-long learning for adults and prepare university graduates for a quicker 

fit-in in job vacancies (Ebner & Kovach, 2010; Patton, 2009). Currently, similar problems are faced with 

universities and their students in China. The research and practice on creative manifestation of 

experiential learning, in particular role-play and simulation, could provide a unique pathway for teachers 

and students to establish skill repertoires and achieving better learning outcomes. They could also offer 

clues in rethinking about ecological sustainability in higher education and industries and help to build a 

pipeline of talent to realize this target. 

 

Reference 

Alexander, N., & LeBaron, M. (2010). Death of the Role-Play. Hamline Journal of Public Law & Policy, 

31(2), 459-482.  

Bell, A., & Mandell, N. (2018). Cognitive Maelstroms, Nested Negotiation Networks, and Cascading 

Decision Effects: Modeling and Teaching Negotiation Complexity with Systemic Multi-

constituency Exercises. Negotiation Journal, 34(1), 37-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12212 

Bell, A., & Valley, T. (2020). The Art of Negotiation Exercise Design: Five Basic Principles to Produce 

Powerful Learning Experiences. Negotiation Journal, 36(1), 57-72. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12305 

Bernard, P. E. (2009). Bringing Soul to International Negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 25(2), 147-160. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00216.x 

Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and Cognitive Engagement in 

Learning Environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences 

(pp. 475-488). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.029 

Bordone, R., & Carr, C. (2013). Critical Decisions in Negotiation: A New Video Resource for Teaching 

Negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 29(4), 463-476. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12037 

Bredemeier, M. E., & Greenblat, C. S. (1981). The educational effectiveness of simulation games: A 

synthesis of findings. Simulation and Games, 12(3), 307-332. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/104687818101200304 

Cherryholmes, C. (1966). Some current research on effectiveness of educational simulations: 

Implications for alternative strategies. American Behavioral Scientist, 10(2), 4-7. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/000276426601000202 

Coben, J. (2012). Empowerment and recognition: Students grade each other’s negotiation outcomes. In 

N. Ebner, J. Coben, & C. Honeyman (Eds.), Rethinking negotiation teaching volume 3: Assessing 

our students, assessing ourselves (pp. 147-170). DRI Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12212
https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12305
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00216.x
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.029
https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12037
https://doi.org/10.1177/104687818101200304
https://doi.org/10.1177/000276426601000202


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

157 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Cohn, L., & Ebner, N. (2010). Bringing negotiation teaching to life: From the classroom to the campus 

to the community. In C. Honeyman, J. Coben, & G. De Palo (Eds.), Rethinking negotiation teaching 

volume 2: Venturing beyond the classroom (pp. 154-168). DRI Press. 

Corsi, J. (2010). Summary of mediation pedagogy conference participant survey results. Teaching 

Negotiation, 3(1).  

Crampton, A., & Manwaring, M. (2008). Reality and artifice in teaching negotiations: The variable 

benefits of “keeping it real” in simulations. Teaching Negotiation, 2(1). 

Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., & Xu, H. (2006). What Do People Value When They Negotiate? Mapping 

the Domain of Subjective Value in Negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 

493-512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.493 

Deason, E. E., Efron, Y., Howell, R., Kaufman, S., Lee, J., & Press, S. (2013). Debriefing the debrief. In 

C. Honeyman, J. Coben, & M. Lee (Eds.), Rethinking negotiation teaching volume 4: Educating 

negotiators for a connected world (pp. 301-332). DRI Press. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2251940 

Dias, M., & Navarro, R. (2018). Teaching materials: role play simulation on Brazilian government and 

non-market forces negotiation. European Journal of Training and Development Studies, 5(4), 45-

56. 

Druckman, D., & Ebner, N. (2013). Games, Claims, and New Frames: Rethinking the Use of Simulation 

in Negotiation Education. Negotiation Journal, 29(1), 61-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12005 

Druckman, D., & Olekalns, M. (2008). Emotions in negotiation. Group Decision & Negotiation, 17(1), 

1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-007-9091-9 

Ebner, N. (2011). Negotiating via email. In M. Benoliel (Eds.), Negotiation Excellence: Successful Deal 

Making (pp. 397-415). World Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814343176_0023 

Ebner, N., & Efron, Y. (2005). Using Tomorrow’s Headlines for Today’s Training: Creating Pseudo-

Reality in Conflict Resolution Simulation Games. Negotiation Journal, 21(3), 377-394. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2005.00070.x 

Ebner, N., Efron, Y., & Kovach, K. (2012). Evaluating our evaluation: Rethinking student assessment in 

negotiation courses. In N. Ebner, J. Coben, & C. Honeyman (Eds.), Rethinking negotiation teaching 

volume 3: Assessing our students, assessing ourselves (pp. 19-42). DRI Press. 

Ebner, N., & Kovach, K. (2010). Simulations 2.0: The resurrection. In C. Honeyman, J. Coben, & G. De 

Palo (Eds.), Rethinking negotiation teaching volume 2: Venturing beyond the classroom (pp. 245-

267). DRI Press. 

Eisenkraft, N. (2017). CustomNegotiations.org: A Free Resource for Creating Custom Negotiation 

Simulations. Negotiation Journal, 33(3), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12184 

Fortgang, R. S. (2000). Taking Stock: An Analysis of Negotiation Pedagogy across Four Professional 

Fields. Negotiation Journal, 16(4), 325-338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2000.tb00761.x 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.493
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2251940
https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12005
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-007-9091-9
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814343176_0023
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2005.00070.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12184
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2000.tb00761.x


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

158 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Fuller, B. (2012). Interviews as an assessment tool. In N. Ebner, J. Coben, & C. Honeyman (Eds.), 

Rethinking negotiation teaching volume 3: Assessing our students, assessing ourselves (pp. 123-

136). DRI Press. 

Gerard, B., & Barbuto Jr., J. (2014). Let's Make a Deal: A Dynamic Exercise for Practicing Negotiation 

Skills. Journal of Education for Business, 89(3), 149-155. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2013.794121 

Germain-Thomas, P., Lafarge, C., & Sidibe, D. (2019). Collaborative Role-Play Design: Teaching 

Negotiation through a Novel Student–Business Partnership. Negotiation Journal, 35(3), 387-402. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12296 

Greenblat, C. S. (1973). Teaching with Simulation Games: A Review of Claims and Evidence. Teaching 

Sociology, 1(1), 62-83. https://doi.org/10.2307/1317334 

Greenhalgh, L., & Lewicki, R. J. (2015). Evolution of Teaching Negotiation: The Legacy of Walton and 

McKersie. Negotiation Journal, 31(4), 465-476. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12130 

Groth, B., & Glevoll, S. (2007). A New Use for Practitioners in Teaching Negotiation. Negotiation 

Journal, 23(2), 173-184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2007.00135.x 

Harding, C. (2004). Improvisation and Negotiation: Making It Up as You Go Along. Negotiation Journal, 

20(2), 205-212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2004.00017.x 

Harding, C. (2020). Applying Principles of Improvisation to Negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 36(2), 

217-231. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12320 

Hartley, J. L., Eboch, K., & Gilberg, J. (2017). Using a Corporate Partnership to Enhance Learning in a 

Sourcing Negotiation Role-Play. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 15(2), 124-

137. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12123 

Humphreys, D. (2002). The pedagogy and practice of role-play: using a negotiation simulation to teach 

social science theory. International Conference on Computers in Education. 

https://doi.org/10.1109/CIE.2002.1186151 

Khan, M., & Baldini, G. (2020). An Experimental Study of a Software Based Teaching Methodology in 

an Undergraduate Negotiation Course. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(5), 75-88. 

https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v9n5p75 

Klaw, B. W. (2016). Deal-Making 2.0: A New Experiential Simulation in Contract Negotiation and 

Drafting for Business Students in the Global and Digital Age. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 

33(1), 37-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/jlse.12034 

Lande, J. (2012). Teaching Students to Negotiate Like a Lawyer. Washington University Journal of Law 

& Policy, 39(1), 109-144. 

Lee, J. (2012). Negotiating the assessment criteria. In N. Ebner, J. Coben, & C. Honeyman (Eds.), 

Rethinking negotiation teaching volume 3: Assessing our students, assessing ourselves (pp. 117-

123). DRI Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2013.794121
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Germain%E2%80%90Thomas/Patrick
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Lafarge/Catherine
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Sidibe/Doudou
https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12296
https://doi.org/10.2307/1317334
https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12130
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2007.00135.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2004.00017.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12320
https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12123
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/conhome/8445/proceeding
https://doi.org/10.1109/CIE.2002.1186151
https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v9n5p75
https://doi.org/10.1111/jlse.12034


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

159 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Lewicki, R. J. (1997). Teaching Negotiation and Dispute Resolution in Colleges of Business: The State 

of the Practice. Negotiation Journal, 13(3), 253-270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-

9979.1997.tb00131.x 

Macduff, I. (2012). Sing Blogs in Teaching Negotiation: A Technical and Intercultural Postscript. 

Negotiation Journal, 28(2), 201-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2012.00335.x 

Marks, H. M. (2000). Student Engagement in Instructional Activity: Patterns in the Elementary, Middle, 

and High School Years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184. 

https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001153 

Mozahem, N. A. (2019). Negotiation and Cooperation: A Simulation Using Agent-Based Modeling. 

SAGE Research Methods Cases in Business and Management. 

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526469298 

Olekalns, M., & Druckman, D. (2014). With Feeling: How Emotions Shape Negotiation. Negotiation 

Journal, 30(4), 455-478. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12071 

Patton, B. (2009). The Deceptive Simplicity of Teaching Negotiation: Reflections on Thirty Years of the 

Negotiation Workshop. Negotiation Journal, 25(4), 481-498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-

9979.2009.00240.x 

Pierfy, D. A. (1977). Comparative simulation game research: Stumbling blocks and steppingstones. 

Simulation & Games, 8(2), 255-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/003755007782006 

Poitras, J., Stimec, A., & Hill, K. (2013). Fostering Student Engagement in Negotiation Role Plays. 

Negotiation Journal, 29(4), 439-462. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12036 

Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/1340912 

Randel, J., Morris, B., Wetzel, C., & Whitehill, B. (1992). The Effectiveness of Games for Educational 

Purposes: A Review of Recent Research. Simulation and Gaming, 23(3), 261-276. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192233001 

Ross, W. H., Pollman, W., Perry, D., Welty, J., & Jones, K. (2001). Interactive Video Negotiator Training: 

A Preliminary Evaluation of the McGill Negotiation Simulator. Simulation & Gaming, 32(4), 451-

468. https://doi.org/10.1177/104687810103200402  

Schnurr, M., De Santo, E., & Green, A. (2014). What do students learn from a role-play simulation of an 

international negotiation? Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 38(3), 401-414. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2014.933789 

Stokoe, E. (2014). The Conversation Analytic Role-Play Method (CARM): A Method for Training 

Communication Skills as an Alternative to Simulated Role-Play. Research on Language and Social 

Interaction, 47(3), 255-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.925663 

Susskind, L., & Corburn, J. (1999). Using simulations to teach negotiation: Pedagogical theory and 

practice. Working Paper 99-1. Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.  

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1997.tb00131.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1997.tb00131.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2012.00335.x
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001153
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526469298
https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12071
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00240.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00240.x
https://doi.org/10.1177/003755007782006
https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12036
https://doi.org/10.2307/1340912
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192233001
https://doi.org/10.1177/104687810103200402
https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2014.933789
https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.925663


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

160 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Urlacher, B. (2014). Groups, Decision Rules, and Negotiation Outcomes: Simulating the Negotiator’s 

Dilemma. Negotiation Journal, 20(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12043 

Volkema, R. J. (2007). Negotiating for Money: Adding a Dose of Reality to Classroom Negotiations. 

Negotiation Journal, 23(4), 473-486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2007.00159.x 

Wallace, M. (2017). Graphic Novels: A Brief History, Their Use in Business Education, and the Potential 

for Negotiation Pedagogy. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 10(4), 324-335. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12108 

Watkins, M. (2007). Teaching Students to Shape the Game: Negotiation Architecture and the Design of 

Manageably Dynamic Simulations. Negotiation Journals, 23(3), 333-342. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2007.00146.x 

Weiss, S. E. (2008). Mega-Simulations in Negotiation Teaching: Extraordinary Investments with 

Extraordinary Benefits. Negotiation Journal, 24(3), 325-354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-

9979.2008.00187.x 

Wilkenfeld, J. (2004). Reflections on Simulation and Experimentation in the Study of Negotiation. 

International Negotiation, 9, 429-439. https://doi.org/10.1163/1571806053498742 

https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12043
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2007.00159.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12108
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2007.00146.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2008.00187.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2008.00187.x
https://doi.org/10.1163/1571806053498742

