Systemic Mediation: Moral Reasoning and Boundaries of Concern

Abstract

This paper outlines a new systemic mediation approach, based on the idea that the most important thing for many participants in mediation is to have their moral reasoning understood and appreciated. This is frequently more important to people than financial reparation. We compare our mediation approach with others to demonstrate that many previous approaches share the assumption that once the interests of a participant have been identified, these should not be questioned. In contrast, our systemic mediation approach encourages participants to explore their own and other people's moral frameworks to enable critical reflection on their interests. Indeed, the concept of an ‘interest’ can be reframed as the boundary that a participant uses to delimit his or her concerns, and boundaries can be shifted in response to moral reasoning. Our mediation approach aims to generate both personal insights and improvements in mutual understanding. The mediator plays a facilitative role but cannot be neutral: the morality of the mediator unavoidably influences his or her facilitative interventions. Therefore, personal reflection by the mediator on his or her own moral framework is essential, so that its influences can be made visible and the facilitator can thereby be held accountable for them in dialogue with his or her peers. Tools are provided in our systemic mediation approach to support reflection on moral frameworks and boundaries of concern, and a practical example of their use in Colombian mediation practice is provided. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Systemic Lean Intervention: Enhancing Lean with Community Operational Research

“…Within the literature on systems approaches for Community OR (Midgley et al, 1998(Midgley et al, , 2007Midgley, , 2016aBoyd et al, 2004;Midgley, 2003, 2006;Foote et al, 2007;Midgley and Pinzón, 2013;Helfgott, 2017), and also independently of it (Churchman, 1970;Ulrich, 1983;Midgley, 1992aMidgley, , 1994Yolles, 2001;Midgley and Pinzón, 2011), there is a systems theory and methodology called 'boundary critique', which emphasises the exploration of boundary distinctions. It particularly focuses on boundaries defining participation in Community OR projects and what is of value from the different perspectives of stakeholders.…”

Knowing Differently in Systemic Intervention

“…The theory of boundary critique also seeks to explain social processes of marginalization, whereby some stakeholders and/or issues may be devalued and even made invisible (Midgley, , , ; Midgley et al ., ; Midgley et al ., ; Midgley and Pinzón, , ). Midgley explains that, when there is conflict among stakeholders as to where the boundary for defining a problem situation should be set, two groups of stakeholders may identify different boundaries: a narrower (primary) and a wider (secondary) boundary.…”

Towards a new paradigm of healthcare: Addressing challenges to professional identities through Community Operational Research

“…Indeed, the kind of strengthening proposed appears to lead weak health systems towards the quality chasm of unsustainable 'strong' health systems in wealthier, developed countries, exemplified by the US health system or the UK NHS, the affordability of which are frequently discussed. So the search for alternative sustainable approaches to healthcare is seen as internationally urgent in both richer and poorer countries, and one potential approach which we suggest in this paper is a systemic reconceptualisation of health and social care, which would require the kind of understanding of boundary conditions that is commonly found in COR theory and practice (e.g., Midgley et al, 1998Midgley et al, , 2007Midgley, 2000;Boyd et al, 2004;Córdoba & Midgley, 2006;Midgley & Pinzón, 2013;Barros-Castro et al, 2015;Helfgott, 2017;Ufua et al, 2017).…”