Divorce mediation: Four models and their assumptions about change in parties' positions

Abstract

The authors identify four different models into which divorce mediation approaches and case studies fit: legal, labor management, therapeutic, and communication and information. Each model holds a unique central assumption regarding what will bring about change in parties' positions during divorce mediation. This assumption plays an important role in shaping mediators' intervention strategies and the interactions that develop during sessions. Given the differences in the models, the potential of divorce mediation may not be fully realized until practitioners and researchers, at some future point, develop ways to match parties with the approach that best suits their needs.

Styles and Goals: Clarifying the Professional Identity of Divorce Mediation

“…In order to classify mediation approaches, scholars have scrutinized the mediator's orientation (Herrman et al 2003), the change-producing factors (Schwebel et al 1994), and diff erences in ideology (Della Noce, Bush, and Folger 2002). However, most infl uential for training and practice is Riskin's conceptualization of style as an interconnected set of strategies (Shestowsky 2008).…”

A Theory Matrix for Mediators

“…Andrew Schwebel and his colleagues (1994) identified four models of divorce mediation: “legal,”“labor management,”“therapeutic,” and “communication and information.”Roy Lewicki, Stephen Weiss, and David Lewin (1992) described forty‐four models of conflict, negotiation, and third‐party processes. In this article, I consider mediation intervention theories grouped within three categories based upon their emphasis on different behavioral factors.…”

Using the “mediatable frame” to define the problem in mediating a parenting plan

“…The contemporary student of family mediation confronts a wider diversity of models of mediation than at any time in its history (Schwebel, Gately, Renner, and Milburn, 1994). However, available data suggest that facilitative and therapeutic approaches dominate (Kruk, 1998), with those having a legal background preferring the former while those with a mental health background favoring the latter.…”