Of course, one might arise in the course of the discussion or decision-making process and the facilitator has to be ready to deal with that possibility. The conflict, if there is any, has not crystalized. Facilitation is being used as a method for stimulating productive and collaborative discussion and problem solving.
Mediators, on the other hand, tend to start with hotter conflicts. There might be an entire group in conflict, or individual members in in the group who are in conflict and others who feel forced to choose sides. In this case, the lines between facilitation and mediation blur. He intervenes if the conversation becomes hostile or if the disputants are constantly repeating their position, halting the progress of the mediation.
Another reason that he does this is to help clear up miscommunication between the parties because sometimes the disputants have not really communicated with each other about what they see as the problem. Some aspects of evaluative mediation came out during the case studies, such as the mediators sticking to a structure and having some expertise in the legal system.
Other aspects arose in the case studies that were not given much attention in the literature, such as the monetary charge and speed of the mediations. Transformative Mediation In contrast to evaluative mediation, transformative mediation hopes to result in a more long-lasting change in how the disputants approach and deal with conflict.
In this style, the mediator brings empowerment and recognition to the resolution process, not opinions or advice. In transformative mediation, the mediator explores several aspects of the conflict, and then attempts to put the conflict into a new context by reframing through language. Reframing presupposes that language plays a key role in conflict, and therefore, changing the language used about the conflict puts the conflict into a new context—one that is hopefully easier to solve and deals with the main issues.
Reframing can be accomplished in four ways: 1 Detoxifying the language used about the conflict, 2 Defining the conflict in new ways, 3 Using effective metaphors to change how the conflict is viewed, or, 4 Shifting the conflict paradigm Detoxifying the language used helps to limit unproductive or attacking language that is emotionally charged. Reframing through defining the conflict is often done by presenting the conflict as a mutual issue that needs resolution.
By defining the conflict as a problem to be solved by everyone, it promotes language for working together, rather than against one another. Metaphoric reframing may simply be taking the competitive metaphors out of the resolution process. The last type of reframing can be accomplished by shifting the paradigm. Reframing offers opportunities for the mediator to empower the disputants throughout the process. Caucusing is also popular in transformative mediation for several reasons.
However, caucusing must be used carefully in transformative mediation. The mediator has to allow the parties to express what is important from the caucus in joint session in order to provide opportunities for recognition throughout the mediation When one party can express in caucus that he or she identifies with the values that drove the other party to act in the manner that they did, the mediator can show that party how sharing that information with the other party can be important to reaching a solution.
The transformative mediator is always careful to remain completely neutral and let the disputants reach the agreement on their own, as it empowers them and gives them skills they can use in the resolution of future conflicts. In this way, transformative mediation has more in common with facilitative mediation than evaluative. Transformative Mediator Case Study 1 This mediation began with pre-caucusing with each disputant in her home weeks before the actual mediation took place.
Three high-school freshman were involved in a school fight where the mother of one of the girls filed assault charges against the other two girls.
First, the mediator met with Sarah and her mother, who had filed the charges. The mediator explained in detail the mediation process, and the possible outcomes, and then asked Sarah if she would feel comfortable going through this process with the other two girls.
She said yes, so the mediator asked her what happened and how it made her feel. She also asked her what she perceived were the main issues. Sarah said that these girls just jumped her and her friends at school and she had to go to the hospital for her injuries. She said gossip started the fight and now she is scared to go to school because they threaten her.
Then the mediator asked her what she thought needed to happen now. Sarah said she did not really know, but she wanted to go to school without being scared or receiving threats.
After about fifteen minutes talking with Sarah, the mediator went to the home of the next girl, Julie, who had the charges pressed against her. Julie stated that she did not even know why the charges were being pressed against her because she was not even involved in the fight.
She was never suspended for the fight, when other girls, including Sarah, were. She said she felt scared and angry because she does not want assault charges at such a young age and because Sarah was going around school telling everyone she pressed assault charges against Julie.
She hoped that through mediation the charges against her would be dropped. The mediator was never able to contact the third girl in the conflict. The mediator scheduled a joint session with the two girls she was able to reach and asked them to tell the third girl, if they saw her, to come to the joint session, or call the mediator.
When the time came for the mediation, Julie was the only disputant to show up. Julie and her mother said they had gone through a mediation with the school and brought the resolution that she and the other girls, along with their mothers had drawn up, with the help of the school board.
Since the other disputants did not show up, the mediator asked Julie if she felt the resolution that they came to at school was fair and she said yes, so they ended the mediation.
The same questions were asked of each girl. Then she asked the girls what they thought would be appropriate guidelines or rules for the mediation. Lily said that there should be no interrupting and Anna said that there should be no name-calling. After they agreed to these guidelines, the mediator asked Lily to tell her story. Lily said it was her third day at a new school and Anna was calling her names so she called Anna names.
She said lots of kids were teasing Lily at school and Lily took it out on her. Anna said someone pulled her hair and when she turned around a group of kids pushed her into Lily to fight her. She said she hit Lily and then Lily hit her, knocking her glasses off. She said Lily stepped on them and broke them.
Next, the mediator addressed the parents, asking them what they thought. Both responded that they did not know what really happened and just thought that their child was being bullied at school.
The mediator asked the girls if there was anything they wanted to say to each other. These stages are different depending on the role of the participants. This may seem strange, but because the goals and roles of mediator and party or disputant are different, they tend to move through different stages. For more on the differences, you can read an article on the subject of ADR Times here.
However, some similarities can be drawn to condense the steps into five distinct stages for both the mediator and the disputant. The exact way that a mediator and the parties move through these stages will change based on the dispute and the style that a mediator uses, but the main flow of a mediation will remain the same. Now that the goal of mediation is established and there is common language surrounding the stages of mediation, this article will turn to the types of mediation that a mediator can offer.
The main types of mediation are transformative, facilitative, and evaluative. The types or styles of mediation are most evident in the control that a mediator exerts over the process as a mediation proceeds.
Certain styles will use more control and provide more of their own opinion into the mediation, while other mediators will allow the parties to establish the conversation and act only as a facilitator. As mentioned above, most mediators will have a preferred style that they usually use but will need to adjust this style depending on the needs of the parties and the power dynamic. Evaluative mediation is the style of mediation where the mediator exerts the most control throughout the mediation is the most vocal about the positions of the parties and their offers.
An evaluative mediator will offer opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of the parties and control how and when the parties interact. This style tends to work well if there is an uneven power dynamic in the mediation, such as in certain divorce mediation or a company against a consumer, and allows the mediator to drive the conversation to focus on the important issues and what the parties need. This type is modeled after settlement conferences held by judges and is the oldest and original style of mediation.
Other mediators want the flexibility to decide which approach to use once they understand the needs of the particular case. Styles vs. Continuum Samuel Imperati and Leonard Riskin believe these styles are more a continuum than distinct differences, from least interventionist to most interventionist. The Northwest Chapter SPIDR Survey and other less formal surveys have noted that most mediators use some facilitative and some evaluative techniques, based on individual skills and predilections and the needs of a particular case.
Folger and Bush see more distinct differences in styles, particularly the difference of "top-down" vs. That is, they believe that evaluative and facilitative mediation may take legal information too seriously, and that resolutions coming from the parties are much more deep, lasting, and valuable.
However, in informal discussions, many practitioners who utilize the transformative model state that they mix facilitative and transformative techniques rather than using one or the other exclusively. It would seem that in general mediators are on a continuum from transformative to facilitative to evaluative mediation, but are not squarely within one camp or another.
Conclusions There is room in mediation practice for many styles, including facilitative, evaluative and transformative mediation. Each has its usefulness and its place in the pantheon of dispute resolution processes. Imperati believes that most mediators use a combination of these styles, depending on the case and the parties in mediation, as well as their own main approach to mediation.
Some sophisticated mediators advise clients and attorneys about the style they think would be most effective for their case. Some parties and attorneys are sophisticated enough to know the difference between types of mediation and to ask mediators for a specific type in a specific case. It appears that it would be helpful for mediators at the very least, to articulate to parties and attorneys the style s they generally use, and the assumptions and values these styles are based on.
This will allow clients to be better and more satisfied consumers, and the field of mediation to be clearer on what it is offering. It can only enhance the credibility and usefulness of mediation. Bibliography Leonard L.
Samuel J. Robert A. Baruch Bush and Joseph P. William L. Ury, Jeanne M.
0コメント