Reciprocal‐influence mediation model: A guide for practice and research

Abstract

Because of the length of most mediation sessions, it is challenging to assess a session's turn‐by‐turn nature. Here, a reciprocal‐influence model is presented that views mediation as a dynamic, interdependent system that recognizes individual utterances of disputants and media‐tors that change or reinforce destructive conflict. This perspective gives rise to a research method that maps the mediation discourse at a micro‐level in order to track each member's constructive and destructive state‐ments and view their mutual influence on the system as well as changes within the system over time. This process then facilitates a closer exam‐ination of critical shifts that lead to integrative conflict or resolution among the disputants. These closer examinations also indicate more‐and less‐effective client‐responsive interventions posed by the mediator.

Exploring Communities of Facilitators: Orientations toward Restorative Justice

“…In addition, along with infl uencing how people talk and what they talk about (process and content control), third parties try to keep the parties interested in going through the process by tying restorative justice into their identity and relationship needs (motivational control) (Folger et al 2007). Th ey also use a variety of intervention styles depending on their assessment of disputants' goals and common ground (Folger et al 2007;Sinclair and Stuart 2007). Th ese control and intervention practices are grounded in ideological orientations that shape beliefs about confl ict processes, results, and motivations (Bush and Folger 2005;Sinclair and Stuart 2007;Umbreit 2001).…”

“…Th ey also use a variety of intervention styles depending on their assessment of disputants' goals and common ground (Folger et al 2007;Sinclair and Stuart 2007). Th ese control and intervention practices are grounded in ideological orientations that shape beliefs about confl ict processes, results, and motivations (Bush and Folger 2005;Sinclair and Stuart 2007;Umbreit 2001). Th us, the accomplishment of facilitated justice is in many ways a function of who third parties are, what they believe, and how they act.…”

“…Drawing on these rules and resources leads to the production or reproduction of a patterned social system, as well as the reproduction of those structures (i.e., the duality of structure). In the case of disputes involving third parties, the third parties attempt to alter destructive interactions by helping disputants use new interaction rules and resources (Sinclair and Stuart 2007). Th e parties' interaction contains three core structures: signifi cation, which applies to communication and interpretation; domination, which pertains to power in a given setting; and legitimation, which pertains to moral schemas (Poole et al 1985).…”

“…We proceed on the assumption that justice is constructed in the discourse of stakeholders (including facilitators) who are situated in relational, local, and environmental contexts (Winslade 2005). Although the prescriptive literature on RJ tends to ignore the role of facilitators or see them simply as stage managers (Dignan et al 2007;Zehr 2002), research on third parties in confl ict situations shows that they infl uence the overall trajectory of the negotiation or mediation as they interview the stakeholders, outline procedures, and ensure that parties adhere to those procedures (Folger, Poole, and Stutman 2007;Schehr 2000;Sinclair and Stuart 2007). As agents, recipients, and instructors of justice behaviors (Dignan et al 2007), their views of RJ can be particularly enlightening in understanding the social processes of constructing justice through restorative programming (Beugre 2007).…”

What makes court-referred mediation effective?

“…Moreover, most studies have mainly focused on mediation results and disputants' satisfaction (Wissler, 2004). Less research has addressed the process by which such results have actually been reached (Sinclair and Stuart, 2007). The relatively few research studies that have examined the interaction between mediators and disputants were rarely able to detect the direct effects of such interaction on mediation results: agreement/no agreement.…”