Mediation Research: A Current Review

Abstract

In this article, we review the mediation literature from the past decade, utilizing a cybernetic mediation paradigm to organize the material. In this paradigm, we note that the type of conflict, country, culture, and mediation institutions affect the mediation process. Within this process, the mediator and disputants interact with each other, attempting to reach their own goals. This interaction produces outcomes for the disputants, the mediators, and other parties. The literature -organized using this paradigm -indicates that mediation is frequently practiced in many venues; the literature also provides an exhaustive list of mediation goals, describes many mediation strategies, and reports manifold mediation outcomes. Unfortunately, the number of studies examining the relative effectiveness of specific strategies (e.g., pressing, relational, and analytic) seems insufficient. Few studies have used control groups or reported observations of mediator and disputants' behavior in actual mediations.

The influence of EU officials in European Security and Defence

“…EU officials also possess considerable content expertise (Wall and Lynn 1993, Beach 2005, Tallberg 2006, Biermann and Siebenhüner 2009. Various CSDP services have already been mentioned.…”

Adaptive mediation: an evidence-based contingency approach to mediating conflict

“…Furthermore to advance the efficacy of the field, it is crucial for mediators to have access to evidence-based information and evaluations about which mediation strategies work best in different situations. In sum, the field is lacking an integrative model, which would best enable empirical research to advance mediators' understanding of how to approach distinct types of mediation situations (Wall and Dunne, 2012).The current paper contributes to an ongoing program of research (Coleman et al, 2010(Coleman et al, , 2013(Coleman et al, , 2015(Coleman et al, , 2016 aimed at developing a new contingency model of adaptive mediation. It presents findings from two studies that further develop and support the utility of an adaptive or situationally contingent approach to mediation, where mediators learn to use alternative or enhanced strategies in response to fundamentally different challenges they face in mediations.…”

“…This review revealed studies on various components of mediation, including aspects of the disputants (disputant power, power asymmetry, gender, motivation and commitment to mediation, hostility, conflict management style), the conflict (type of issues, intensity, resolution status, common ground and possibilities for mutually acceptable solutions), the mediation context (culture, environmental factors, public or private nature of the mediation, time pressure, rules and standards, past outcomes and number of parties), and -in particular -on aspects of the mediators themselves (mediator style, training, ideology, skill-base, expertise, experience and rank, mediator ties, the value the mediator places on the parties' attainment of their goals, knowledge and bias toward the parties and the clarity with which the mediator understands the mediator's role). Thus, the survey of mediation research revealed a broad array of factors affecting mediator behaviors and outcomes, but, as suggested by Wall and Dunne (2012), its disparate and piecemeal nature makes it difficult to deduce the major antecedents of differences in mediators' strategies beyond their personal preferences.Therefore, the next goal of Coleman et al (2015) was to attempt to reduce the multitude of antecedent factors from their review of the literature and empirically identify the most fundamental dimensions underlying the many factors. Accordingly, they conducted a survey study of 149 experienced mediators from various mediation domains (international, community, business, family, etc.)…”

“…(pp. 226-227) Thus, despite many decades of fine theorizing and research on mediation (Bercovitch and Gartner, 2006;Bollen and Euwema, 2013;Duursma, 2014;Kressel and Pruitt, 1989;Wall, 1981;Wall and Lynn, 1993;Wall et al, 2001), today we still lack a basic unifying framework that integrates the various disparate approaches to mediation. Furthermore to advance the efficacy of the field, it is crucial for mediators to have access to evidence-based information and evaluations about which mediation strategies work best in different situations.…”

“…However, the rich multicultural, multidisciplinary and multi-sectorial diversity associated with the history and practice of mediation has resulted in something of an embarrassment of riches for practitioners today. Different mediation programs and instructors currently teach and advocate for the use of distinct strategies and tactics for mediating conflict, from approaches that are more non-directive and facilitative to those that are more controlling and evaluative (Charkoudian and Bilick, 2015;Della Noce, 2009;Kelly, 2004;Wall, 1981;Wall and Dunne, 2012), from more cooperative and integrative (see Kressel, 2014;Moore, 2003) to more competitive and distributive (Korobkin, 2009;Riskin, 1996) and from more problem-solving and settlement-oriented to more therapeutic and morally transformational (Bush and Folger, 1994;Nabatchi et al, 2010).As Wall and Dunne (2012) conclude in their most recent review of mediation research, this diversity affects the work of mediation practitioners and scholars alike:The literature from the past decade -as that from the preceding years -indicates that mediators have approximately one hundred techniques to choose from. […].…”