This article examines the relative advantages and disadvantages of quantitative and qualitative research methods for the analysis of the process and outcome of international negotiations. It does this by tracing the author's personal evolution as a researcher in the field, indicating how shifting paradigms and changing research questions have created a need for diverse methodologies, each tailored to the specific questions under investigation. It is concluded that large-scale systematic analyses of international negotiations can best be carried out by large interdisciplinary research teams. This will require negotiation scholars to negotiate with one another to develop collaborative research strategies and measurement instruments. If we are to be successful in large-scale, systematic studies of international negotiations, we must emulate our colleagues in fields such as the natural sciences where large teams with substantial resources collaborate over extended periods of time to produce meaningful findings.