|
| |
| Wisconsin Association of Mediators,
November 1999:
Using a conference to start new discussions
This year's Conference on Emerging Issues in Mediation
featured the Theory to Practice project. The project presented nine innovative sessions,
examining the need to integrate scholars' thinking and practitioners' experience in
dispute resolution. These discussions brought into play an extraordinarily rich variety of
perspectives on dispute resolution. Some were formed as a result of extensive practical
experience, in community, race relations, public policy, commercial, labor, international,
family and other areas of mediation practice. Others came from long experience in research
on dispute resolution, at RAND, the Federal Judicial Center, the Missouri and Stanford law
schools, and almost a dozen other universities. And still others derived from management
of case streams at federal, state and private agencies, ranging from the State Department
and the U.S. Department of Justice, to the U.S. Postal Service, the American Arbitration
Association and the Wisconsin court system.
In each session, the group invited to lead the
discussion included both practitioners and scholars. The project team felt we could
approach a new start on some "vexed questions" only by deliberately mixing
experts from highly varied backgrounds, and asking them to work together. As a result, and
contrary to traditional conference practice, these co-presenters were not only drawn from
practitioners and scholars in balance, but often were professionals in such different
walks of life that they would probably never have met---or had to respond constructively
to each other's perspectives---if it had not been for this conference. The conference
faculty included not only members of the Theory to Practice steering
committee but specially invited guests from many states. The national guests were in
turn mixed with some of Wisconsin's leading mediation practitioners and scholars,
including faculty of the Institute for Legal Studies of the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and of Marquette University. From what we've heard since WAM's 1999
conference, we believe we have started some new discussions, and also devised some
techniques that may prove useful elsewhere for engendering lively and original
discussions.
Program Notes, Theory to Practice Sessions
Thursday, November 11, 1999
5. Alternative to What? The Influence of the Law on ADR Theory and Practice
Some practitioners and scholars argue that law-originated concepts have come to dominate
how we think about mediation and that ideas that focus on interpersonal dynamics become
undervalued in the mediation literature. Is that the prevailing view? If so, do we focus
on law-based concepts because they seem less messy than those which psychology and other
fields have to offer? Do other lines of thinking have a chance to recapture the
initiative? Contributors to this interactive session included:
Ralph Cagle, Clinical Professor of
Law, University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison, WI
Bob Conners, President, InfoWorks Consulting, Tallahassee, FL
Joan Kelly, Executive Director, Northern California Mediation Center,
Corte Madera, CA
Leonard Riskin, Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Study of
Dispute Resolution, University of Missouri Law School, Columbia, MO
Nancy Welsh, Assistant Professor of Law, Dickinson School of Law,
Pennsylvania State University, Carlisle, PA
10. From Practice to Theory: What Do We Need to Know About Family Mediation and
Communication?
The most frequent use of mediation occurs in family disputes. It therefore stands to
reason that family mediation would be a significant focus of research. But the volume of
research conducted in this area has been disproportionately low in comparison to the
caseload. Could a better understanding of family communication dynamics be a key to better
practice? This participatory workshop examined this concern and provided practitioners
with the chance to develop ideas for future research and theory. Contributors to this
interactive session included:
Robert Dingwall, Professor of
Sociology, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, England
Aimee Gourlay, Executive Director, Mediation Center, Minneapolis, MN
Joan Kelly, Executive Director, Northern California Mediation Center,
Corte Madera, CA
Ann Milne, Executive Director, Association of Family and Conciliation
Courts, Madison, WI
14. Rashomon Reflected: Examining Patterns of Difference and Consensus
The ways in which mediators frame issues have a critical impact on the process. And the
ways in which academics frame issues have a critical impact on how mediation is taught.
But in both cases, framing is clearly influenced by experience, education, and employment
as a scholar or practitioner. Is one set of assumptions more valid than another?
Participants in this session had the opportunity to observe part of a mediation session
and to compare notes about how they would have approached the case and why, and to link
their responses to their personal assumptions, training, previous experience, professional
and personal values. The object was, in part, to improve the "mutual visibility"
of competing but valid perspectives. Contributors to this interactive session included:
Lisa Bingham, Professor, School of
Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN;
Sandra Bowland, Mediator, Atlanta, GA
Roberto Chene, Mediator, Albuquerque, NM
Janine Geske, Professor, Center for Dispute Resolution Education,
Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI
Chris Honeyman, Director, Theory to Practice Project
Jeffrey Senger, Deputy Senior Counsel for Dispute Resolution, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
15. Is the Devil in the Details? Do We Care?
Researchers tell us that the micro-level events that occur in mediation can change the
course of events in ways that practitioners often don’t notice. Detailed,
minute-by-minute analyses of mediation sessions reveal patterns of behaviors so
microscopic that the mediator may not be aware they are occurring, let alone be able to
control them. Do variables such language patterns, eye blinks and breath rates seriously
impact the mediation process? Can practitioners learn from this research and improve their
practice? If so, do we need more of this research, in more settings? Contributors to this
interactive session included:
Dorothy Della Noce, Mediator,
Harrisburg, PA
Robert Dingwall, Professor of Sociology, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, England
Gale Miller, Professor, Department of Social and Cultural Studies,
Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI
Donna Stienstra, Senior Researcher, Federal Judicial Center, Washington,
DC
Nancy Welsh, Assistant Professor of Law, Dickinson School of Law,
Pennsylvania State University, Carlisle, PA
Friday, November 12, 1999
Welcome: Christopher Honeyman, Director and Principal Investigator, Theory to
Practice Project, Madison, WI
Plenary Session: What Is This Field?
Dispute resolution may be the field of dreams for many people, but definitions of the
"field of dispute resolution" typically raise more questions than answers. Who
is included in the field? What processes should be considered to be dispute
resolution, rather than some other form of intervention? Given the fine lines involved and
the lack of consensus on such questions, it is no wonder that newcomers to the field often
have difficulty finding their way. In this session, members of the Theory to Practice
project attempted to define a credible map of the larger field.
Discussion leaders
Bobbi McAdoo, Professor of Law, University of Missouri Law School, Columbia, MO
Robert Myers, Mediator, Washington, DC
With the Theory to Practice Project Steering Committee
19. From Practice to Theory: What Do We Need to Know About Power?
Power differentials exist in nearly all relationships and situations. Mediation is no
exception. Which techniques and interventions help manage power imbalances best? Is
termination the only answer when there are severe imbalances? This session was designed to
help generate ideas for theory-building and research. Participants had the opportunity to
identify research questions and ideas and to share them with leading mediation
researchers. Contributors to this interactive session included:
James Alfini, Professor of Law, Northern
Illinois University School of Law
Roberto Chene, Mediator, Albuquerque, NM
Deborah Hensler, Professor of Dispute Resolution, Stanford University Law
School, Stanford, CA
Joan Kelly, Executive Director, Northern California Mediation Center,
Corte Madera, CA
20. Evaluating Mediation From All Sides of the Table
The questions of whether or not mediation "works" and whether mediators are
"effective" are frequently discussed in the mediation literature. But attempts
to answer these questions often focus exclusively on the mediator and the process, while
ignoring critical characteristics that the parties bring to the table. Can mediation be
evaluated independently of the parties’ preparation, experience, intentions, goals
and understanding of its purposes and possibilities? Would an exploration of these issues
improve our understanding of how parties use mediation? What do we know, and what do we
just think we know? Contributors to this interactive session included:
S.Y. Bowland, Mediator, Atlanta, GA
John Lande, Director, Mediation Program, University of Arkansas at Little
Rock Law School, Little Rock, AR
Andrea Schneider, Marquette University Law School, Milwaukee, WI
Jeffrey Senger, Deputy Senior Counsel for Dispute Resolution, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
24. Transformative Mediation: What Should We Know?
Enthusiasm for transformative mediation is on the rise in Wisconsin and across the nation.
Innovative training has been developed for transformative practice, attention is turning
toward research and assessment. Useful questions are being asked about how we can know
when mediation actually fosters empowerment and recognition – the primary goals of
mediation practice from this orientation. Some have argued that past research suggests
that real change of any kind cannot occur in an intervention as brief as mediation. But
has this research really been based on transformative practice? Other more recent studies
of transformative practice suggest that meaningful changes in the quality of disputants'
conflict interaction are verifiable during a session, and upstream effects are indeed
possible. What would a balanced, searching research agenda look like for this important
arena of practice? How might practitioners constructively help design what the field needs
to know? In this session we attempted to address the challenges that conducting useful
research raises, in light of the latest developments in transformative practice.
Contributors to this interactive session included:
Lisa Bingham, Professor, School of
Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
Dorothy Della Noce, Mediator, Harrisburg, PA
Joseph Folger, Co-author, The Promise of Mediation, and
Professor of Communication, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA
Bobbi McAdoo, Professor of Law, University of Missouri Law School,
Columbia, MO
Leonard Riskin, Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Study of
Dispute Resolution, University of Missouri Law School, Columbia, MO
25. Lost Horizon
Although there is clearly a great divide between theory, practice and research, there do
exist situations in which the loop has achieved success: Sometimes, scholars and
practitioners have learned from one another, to produce more thoughtful and
thorough scholarship and better mediation practice. This session focused on some examples
of successful collaboration (not all from mediation) and explored models for effective
relationships to help us bridge the gap more often. Contributors to this interactive
session included:
Robert Dingwall, Professor of
Sociology, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, England
Howard Erlanger, Professor of Law and Director, Institute for Legal
Studies, University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison, WI
Deborah Hensler, Professor of Dispute Resolution, Stanford University Law
School, Stanford, CA
Christopher Honeyman, Director and Principal Investigator, Theory to
Practice Project, Madison, WI
Sandra Shane-DuBow, Independent Scholar, Evanston, IL |
| |
|
