Putting Mediation in Context

Columns

Putting Mediation in Context

Leda M. Cooks

L a provocative Negotiation Jour- na l article, Albie Davis (1993) articu- l a t e s a g r o w i n g c o n c e r n a m o n g many professionals in dispute resolution: too many career hopefuls (i.e., dent i s t s , a t t o rneys , s u r g e o n s and women) are entering the field while actual paying jobs remain scarce. In the same article, Davis also raises the c o n c e r n that p e o p l e ( w o m e n , for the most part) want to take part in the "mystique" (or magic) of mediation as an alternative form of dispute resolution.

In the article, entitled "Mediation: The Field of Dreams? If We Build It, The y Will Come; ' Davis notes that many would-be media tors seem to view mediation as a cure-all for the ills o f t he l i t iga t ion sys tem. Also problematic for Davis is the number of people w h o seem to be attracted to mediation because of some utlre-

solved conflict(s) in their lives. Davis then suggests that people w h o want to mediate put their t ime and ener- gies to more efficient use by advising or creat ing g roups that can b e t t e r utilize their skills.

F e w p e o p l e w o u l d a r g u e t h a t m e d i a t i o n is a f ie ld t h a t a t t r a c t s many diverse interes ts or that the popular i ty of mediat ion is growing. In fact, few dispute resolution practi- t ioners (e.g., McEwen and Milburn 1993) would debate the fact that (at least in a vo lun t a ry se t t ing) t he re seem to be far more mediators than opportunit ies to mediate.

The attractiveness of mediation to those seeking to provide an accessi- ble alternative to the legal system is one reason for this burgeoning interest; o ther reasons people seek training in m e d i a t i o n s e e m to b e a conce rn for helping out their com-

Ledla M. Cooks is assistant professor of communication at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Her mailing address is: Department of Communication, Machmer Hall, University of Massa- chusetts/Amherst, Amherst, Mass. 01003.

0748-4526/95/0400-0091507.50/0 © 1995 Plenum Publishing Corporation Negotiation Journal April 1995 91

munity and an interest in helping disputants (and themselves) solve their own problems. Depending on the con t ex t (e.g., labor-management , co rpo ra t e disputes) , money, too, may be a motivating concern. Gener- ally though, volunteers and others who are interested in mediation feel that they have some ability to inter- vene in and help manage conflict.

Consequently, given the context of increasing numbers of volunteers and mediation professionals and (in most voluntary programs) decreas- ing n u m b e r s of d i spu tan t s , two major q u e s t i o n s emerge : Who should mediate? And correspond- ingly, wha t constitutes an ability to mediate? The who concerns articu- lated in the Davis (1993) ar t ic le dovetail wi th the recen t effort to provide a standardized assessment for the mediation field (Test Design Project 1993). In e i ther case, the reaction to a burgeoning field is to separate those who "have" the skills from those who do not.

This concern with professionalization may be expressed in several different ways. Davis is explicit in raising the question of who belongs in this professional community, but leaves the question a question. However, the discussion both in the Interim Guide- lines put forth by the Test Design Project and in the subsequent commentary in Negotiation Journal privilege comment on w h a t is needed (assessment of skills and demystifying the process) over who determines the "community" standard (see, for example, Bush 1993; Honeyman 1993; Menkel-Meadow 1993).

Indeed, the w h a t quest ion also implies a who (as in who decides the

standards), although that determina- tion certainly becomes muddled in the p roces s of de t e rmin ing the proper "scientific" standard of mea- surement. Can this ability be recognized and assessed in some standardized way? Whether the standard raised is a de t e rmina t ion of p r o p e r traits or an assessment of "states," the " languaging" o f the debate itself needs to be reexamined. What, for instance, constitutes our notions of "competence" (i.e., assessment of mediator abilities) or "community" (i.e., in this case, professional mediators)?

The skills recognized as competent for some mediators (such as the nurturing skills that Davis discusses as problematic) represent only one dimension of the mediation process and the contexts in which mediation occurs. Indeed, depending on the c o n t e x t , n u r t u r i n g or e m p a t h i c behaviors on the part of mediators is more often than not balanced, deem- phasized, or replaced by aggressive- ness, assertiveness, or unemotional behavior. Moreover, the determina- t ion of any behavior as powerful , ignorant or (in)competent does not exist in isolation but rather is socially situated and determined.

Thus, the emphasis given to skills that draw p e o p l e to the field of media t ion and the assessment of skills-based training deflects atten- tion from the process of mediation? Mediation occurs as a joint produc- tion of meaning among disputants and mediators, each with their own social, cultural, and thus political location. Discussion of traits and skills leads us away from the ways in which meaning is situationally deter-

92 Leda M. Cooks Puffing Medtaffon tn Context

mined and culturally inscribed and t o w a r d an abs t r ac t ideal o f w h a t could or should be. In o ther words, the presumption is of shared under- standings about conflict and dispute r e s o l u t i o n n o t on ly b e t w e e n t he media tor(s ) and one disputant but among all part ies to the media t ion and all w h o recognize mediation as a field. While such a scenario is unreal- istic, it none the le s s s t ruc tures the m e a n i n g s g iven to the m e d i a t i o n process and to the skills recognized as ( in)competent .

My focus in this brief essay is not specifically to refu te the claims or c o n c e r n s v o i c e d in t he "Field o f Dreams" article; rather, my emphasis is on the larger social and political con tex t that frames Davis's interest in the fu tu re o f m e d i a t i o n in the United States (as well as the interest of many influential o thers involved in c on s t ruc t i n g po l i cy des ign and procedures). In other words, why is the "who" ques t ion being asked at this par t icular poin t in time? W h o d e f i n e s t h e p o l i c y c o n c e r n s fo r mediation programs and what issues are being raised around the assessment of mediators?

W h o ' s I n t e r e s t e d ?

Ask ing q u e s t i o n s a b o u t " w h o " should mediate means looking at the social con tex t in which such questions are framed. Davis is writing to a c o m m u n i t y of r eade r s w h o are, presumably, active in the area of conflict resolution and-or confl ict management. Many of these readers are t hemse lves t ry ing to "def ine" the field of mediation to bet ter regulate a growing industry and set limits on w h a t can and c a n n o t be a c c o m -

plished (or gotten away with) during the m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s and u n d e r condi t ions of a wr i t t en agreement . Specifically, the socie ty of negotia- tors, mediators, etc., addressed here have a vested interest in maintaining a certain standard by which media- t o r b e h a v i o r a n d t h e m e d i a t o r process can be judged. As the field heads t o w a r d profess iona l iza t ion , this debate about w h o has the requi- site skills to be a mediator and under wha t c i rcumstances media t ion can occur has grown.

Indeed , Davis is pa r t o f a large n u m b e r of media t ion scholars and professionals w h o have voiced con- c e r n over the n u m b e r of lawyers, psychologis ts , social workers , etc. eager to become Alternative Dispute R e s o l u t i o n (ADR) p r o f e s s i o n a l s . T h e s e c o m m e n t a t o r s o f t e n s e e m apprehensive about the reasons people choose to go into the field (e.g., Are t h e y in it fo r the m o n e y ? Do they enjoy the control and power of media t ion?) , ye t t h e y rarely wr i t e specifically of any resulting negative impact on the process.

The a t t e m p t to assess me d i a t o r m o t i v a t i o n i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e process (mystical or not) results in v e r y l i t t le t ang ib le " e v i d e n c e " o f competence . If mediation (as a com- mun ica t ive act) is c o - c o n s t r u c t e d t h r o u g h t h e a c t i o n s o f b o t h t h e mediators and disputants (all acting f rom the i r var ious soc ia l /cu l tu ra l / political locations) then the real data exists in the "reality" created in the process itself.

Still, the breadth of services mediators provide, along with the growing support for mediation programs from governmental institutions for the pur-

Negotiation Journal April 1995 93

poses of quality control, has led to increased regulation of the mediation process. Indeed, a major impetus for the Test Design Project (1993) is pro- viding quality services for court-man- dated mediation programs.

As Silbey (1993) observes , the increased emphasis on structuring the process and implementing evalu- ation of trainees is an outgrowth of the push for professionalization of the i r field. Out l in ing the p r o p e r skills that a c o m p e t e n t med ia to r shou ld possess and des ign ing a process by which those skills can be evaluated does, however , remove the p e o p l e f rom the process . To expect that we can somehow isolate and extract the elements of mediation and then replicate it elsewhere assumes that real i ty is static and unchang ing ; it also r emoves the social element that creates conflict or love or change.

The sense of urgency that drives many mediation debates may stem from philosophical questions about fairness and access to justice (e.g., What constitutes fairness? Who has access to jus t i ce in the Uni ted States?); abou t the se l f and the Other; about identity and difference. Or they may be traced to something as superficial as the day's headlines. In aU cases, however, these debates involve a "community" of peoples. It is this communi ty that we should continue to privilege in discussions about mediation and, indeed, about who should mediate.

Who is Served? While most mediation trainers give lip serv ice to c o m m u n i t y needs ,

many of our models for mediating disputes (e.g., the seven-stage model often used to train community mediators) are based on an ontology that privileges the individual. Thus, indi- vidualism has provided the ideological f r amework for bo th the legal system and the alternative system for resolving disputes. Conflict here is viewed as the dispute between and among individuals with little or no relevance to the larger network of which they are a part.

However, many of the disputes we mediate involve peoples (mediators and disputants) of different eth- nicities, ages, genders, and sexual orientations who often question the sense of the traditional model. Peo- ple expe r i ence conf l ic t culturally and relationaUy, as well as individually. Telling "stories" about the confl ict or genera t ing solut ions that reflect those stories is frequently a p rocess that is insensi t ive to the social context in which the disagree- ment occurs. If the focus of mediation is on producing an agreement that both parties can live with, the agreement (and indeed the mediation process) must address the ways conflict is experienced in the everyday lives of disputants.

Indeed, many contradictions exist in the ways notions of community, neutrality, impartiality, fairness and p o w e r are def ined and discussed when the w h o and w h a t questions are raised. These paradoxes need to be addressed in greater depth in the framing of standards and pract ice codes and techniques that address imbalances of power in dispute resolution. While research in mediation is

94 Leda M. Cooks Putting Mediation tn Context

beginning to look at the relationship be tween the languaging of power and ethics in the mediation process and the construction of these concerns in "official" ethical codes (see, for example, Ritkin, Millen, and Cobb 1991; Cooks and Hale 1994), the paradoxes embedded in the notion of a mediation community have yet to be addressed.

W h a t is " C o m m u n i t y " ?

The idea of community has seldom been open to debate beyond histori- cal accounts of dispute settlement in the United States and Germany (e.g., Lind 1992; Whiting 1985). Recogniz- ing community needs in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) research has most recently meant listening to those voices which are included in the forum (e.g., Sander and Gold- berg 1994). Often these voices are professionals in the ADR community whose interests lie in defining policy and-or t i g h t e n i n g the s t andards already in place. Instead of question- ing the authori ty of the "community" or recognizing the privilege of defining who might be included, the discussion around community standards has wrestled with notions of how such standards are best imple- mented . Although those involved with the construction of the In ter im G u i d e l i n e s (Test Design Pro jec t 1993) have asserted that the process began and ended wi th media tors working in the "field," the recognition that the field itself may be self- c o n t a i n e d and con t a in ing n e v e r emerged in the discussion.

Simultaneously, outside the academic community, the community in

which conflicts occur (the neighbor- hoods in which many mediat ions take place) is changing rapidly. This double standard in much of the ADR research imposes the values of one c o m m u n i t y (profess ionals in the field of dispute resolution) upon the community in which disputes take place and are (in)voluntarily brought to mediation or some other form of ADR. z The increased pressure for professionalizing the field of mediation is coming from many who feel that if mediators are indeed responsi- ble for the "neutral" informat ion they give to disputants (as is indi- c a t ed in the i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t clauses of many of the ethical codes written for mediators) then not just "anyone" can be allowed to mediate.

Certainly, with the adopt ion of mediation in many growing areas of law, (e.g., mediating cases involving racial, ethnic, and-or sexual harassment, or harassment due to sexual orientation), mediators are expected to be familiar with the rights of disputants under relatively new and controversial laws. Yet the focus of mediation on the "needs" expressed by the disputants and their future is its strength and what has made it an "alternative" to litigation. Unfortu- nately, the emphasis on relationship between or among parties has been misplaced in an effort to use mediation to fill the needs of informal adju- dication, thereby reducing pressure on the court system.

However, to lay blame with any one influence on mediation or ADR is erroneous. Some of the best attributes of the process of mediation - - its flex- ibility and focus on problem solving

Negotiation Journal Apra 1995 95

- - are the very aspects that make it amenable to many contexts in which it should not be included. While many in the field applaud the application of mediation to a variety of contexts, few scholars or practitioners are looking at the ways mediation itself is being redefined in the fray.

In an effort to impose some sense of s tandards on the process , the emphasis has shifted to the mediator's responsibility to insure that the rights of disputants are not being violated. This shift lends credibility to mediators who are experts in the very system mediation was suppos- edly designed to replace and fore- g rounds the law and r ights in a p r o c e s s tha t was s u p p o s e d to emphasize needs and interests. In this context , the quest ion of who should mediate becomes a salient and necessary one.

W h o is E m p o w e r e d ?

While many scholars have raised the s p e c t e r of p o w e r in med ia t ion , power is usually examined as a sub- set of the process and isolated in terms of mediators ' or disputants' responses to (or enactments of) par- t icular strategies. This cou r se of study often mirrors an understanding of conflict that implies a "miscom- munication" of meaning between disputants which mediators can isolate, identify, and help to reconnect. Thus, e m p o w e r m e n t o c c u r s w h e n disputants can acknowledge patterns of miscommunicat ion and correc t or change accordingly.

Such a view of conflict and dispute resolution tends to reinforce traditional ways of unders tanding

empowerment that locate power as within people rather than as a phe- nomenon that is actualized through the construction of particular reali- ties and ident i t ies at a par t icu lar po in t in t ime. In the la t ter view, power is enacted through communication (socially constructed), rather than contained within an individual.

The traditional view of power is re inforced by the theory-prac t ice dichotomy in mediation. Theorists who attempt to explain the process of empowerment often rely on models that are mediator-based, locating strategies and skills that a mediator must obtain or possess to empower disputants. Although practitioners of mediation generally agree with this assumption in theory, in pract ice mediators often raise the process as empowering in its own right. Thus, when disputants are dissatisfied with a particular outcome, it is because they have not followed the mediation procedure correctly.

Shaflor (1994) looks beyond these l imitat ions by expl ic i t ly def ining empowerment in the dispute resolution process as the transformation or elaboration of part icular forms of life. He looks specifically at the ways in which ideas of power are socially cons t ruc ted within the mediat ion p r o c e s s . Howeve r , he l imits acknowledgment of the occurrence of e m p o w e r m e n t to the posi t ive (i.e., transformative) outcome of the mediation session.

Still, o t h e r scholars w h o have asked the power question have redi- rected focus away from outcomes and t o w a r d p r o b l e m a t i z i n g the process. Cobb (1988), Grillo (1985),

96 Leda M. Cooks Putting Mediation In Context

H a r r i n g t o n (1985) , L e d e r a c h and Kraybi l l ( 1 9 9 3 ) and o t h e r s have looked at the social context in which mediation occurs and at how mediation processes play into the particular social oppression of groups at the level of interpersonal dynamics?

W o m e n a s M e d i a t o r s

Another dimension of the who question discussed in the Davis article is w h y w o m e n , in pa r t i cu l a r , are a t t rac ted to the field. Davis draws from gender research characterizing w o m e n as caregivers and nur turers pr imari ly focused on re la t ionships (e.g., Chodorow 1978; Giiligan 1982; T a n n e n 1990) . A l t h o u g h o t h e r research on w o m e n media tors has suppor ted Davis's conclusions (e.g., Cook s and Hale 1992; LeBesco , 1994), such an approach provides a limited understanding both of women mediators and their power. The mediation process is itself often character- ized as ra t iona l and i n s t r u m e n t a l (Shailor, 1994); therefore, following the line of reasoning of Davis and others, it w o u l d s eem tha t the w o r k would be less attractive to women. H o w e v e r , t he n u m b e r o f w o m e n mediators tell a different story.

For example, Davis suggests that w o m e n mediators may be driven by the negative p o w e r of self-sacrifice or that they may involve themselves in mediation out of a need for retri- bution. I believe this p h e n o m e n o n is c o m m o n in both men and w o m e n in any "helping" profession. As o the r research on w o m e n media tors has s h o w n , m a n y w o m e n m e d i a t o r s come to the table sensing that they can help others through sacrificing o r n e g a t i n g t h e i r s e n s e o f self .

W h e t h e r this t y p e o f b e h a v i o r is called "mortification" (Burke 1961) or "goodness as self-sacrifice" (GiUi- gan 1982), I am concerned that such labels p romote a very nar row view of power and empowerment .

Folger and Bush (1994) at tempt to p rov ide a mo d e l that looks at the transformative impact of the mediation process, viewing empowermen t as relational ra ther than located in the individual. While their approach holds promise, it weighs heavily on the side of in terpersonal dynamics and ignores the ideological aspects of power embedded in the process. Perhaps a bet ter approach to study - ing empowermen t and agency lies in the balance be tween recognizing the i n t e r p e r s o n a l d y n a m i c s o f t h e p r o c e s s and t h e l o c a t i o n o f tha t p r o c e s s w i t h i n a s o c i a l / c u l t u r a l / political context.

W h e r e i s P o w e r L o c a t e d ?

Perhaps as part of the discussion of community and competence in mediation, power is more usefully viewed as socially constructed - - as situated before, during, and after the "act" of c o m m u n i c a t i n g (media t ing , story- telling, and-or disputing) about the conflict. Here, women mediators can fee l e m p o w e r e d t h r o u g h n a mi n g male language in conflict and helping to create new stories for themselves and disputants.

Women mediators can assert their control over the process in a manner not easily identified as empower ing (e i ther individually or relationally). As one female mediator/ interviewee in a study conducted by Cooks and Hale (1992) observed:


If it's [discussion between disputants] happening in a good way, then I let it go; but I can stop it at any time, turn it in another direction if I need to. So I feel very strong. But at the same time, as a mediator I know that I have a lot of skill and a lot of control over what is going on, so I will often really humble myself in front of people . . . I'll say, "Well you know it seems to me I'm screwing up -- if we're not -- if you guys can't hear yourself then maybe there is something I'm not doing right here" (,p. 288)

The mediator goes on to indicate that by putting herself "out there" as a potential scapegoat, she allows the disputants to displace the conflict, at least m o m e n t a r i l y , on her. Here , what may seem at first glance to be setting up oppressive relations (powerful vs. power less par t ic ipants in the interaction) is the skillful enactment of humility to reframe visions of self and other in conflict.

This m o m e n t a r y shift in p o w e r re la t ions (i.e., the a s s i g n m e n t of blame) is an example of p o w e r as bo th dynamic and situated. Power here is e n a c t e d as e m p o w e r i n g to both the mediator and disputants, yet is s i t u a t e d within notions of what it means to be female and (in)competent in this social context. In the context of joint enactment (i.e., parties entrenched in blaming the other), the m e d i a t o r ' s m o v e s m a k e sense as transformational. However, the use of m o r t i f i c a t i o n or v i c t image in the abstract seems only to pe rpe tua t e oppressive gender relations.

The question should focus not on inherent male or female differences, but on where power is located in dis-

cussions about w h o is empowered in mediation. Furthermore, those interested in conflict and dispute resolution need to ask what issues of power are being addressed in why females are drawn to mediation.

If, as Salem (1993) and MacArthur (1994) suggest, Western not ions of c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n m o s t d i r ec t ly address the well-being of those most privileged in society, wha t purpose does mediation (and the role of the media to r ) serve to r e c o n s t r u c t or replicate oppression?

If w o m e n (as mediators and disputants) are the dupes of alternative dispute resolution (as Grillo [1991] has argued) and d i s empowered by the legal system (as goes the standard argument for mediation), is vio- lence the only remaining vehicle for real agency? These q u e s t i o n s are absent in the debate over w h o c a n

be a mediator because the emphasis on p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n shif ts t he focus to what is most important for those in more privileged positions; this effectively reduces the possibil- ity of changes w i t h i n t h e field, thus maintaining consistent service to the larger "market" of disputants.

R e t h i n k i n g P o w e r a n d P r o c e s s

Mediators and others w h o research and pract ice in the area of dispute resolution are beginning to question the a s sumpt ions unde r ly ing stage models and working toward different "legitimate" approaches to conflict. Indeed, one of the necessary changes that I see taking place in this field is the renewed (predating ADR) emphasis on the needs of the "community,'

98 Leda M. Cooks Putting Mediation in Context

particularly in intercultural settings where mediation takes place.

Calls f o r n e w a n d d i f f e r e n t app roaches to conf l ic t have led to n e w way s o f t h i n k i n g a b o u t t h e meaning of individuals in relation to t he i r pa r t i cu l a r c o m m u n i t i e s . For e x a m p l e , t he d e v e l o p m e n t o f an A f r o c e n t r i c m o d e l o f m e d i a t i o n (Azariah 1992) that bui lds on the notions of family and communi ty as the central componen ts of any conflict shifts the paradigm away from means-ends strategizing and toward the harmony of the group.

Also, Huber (1993) has developed, in coordinat ion wi th elders f rom a number of tribes, a model of conflict resolut ion based on the "Medicine Wheel" used in Native cul tures in North America. The Medicine Wheel model emphasizes conflict resolution as a circular process that integrates the spiritual, the emotional, the phys- ical, and the intellectual dimensions of people. Progress around the Medi- cine Wheel is framed as a process of renewal, with different dimensions exp re s sed m ore who l ly at var ious points around the circle.

Finally, research in peer mediation has privileged children's interpreta- tions of conflict and the meaning of conflict in their everyday lives as a

starting point for evaluating the use- fulness of a peer mediation program @arley-Lucas, Hale, and Tardy 1994; Jones and Brinkman 1993). Each of these a p p r o a c h e s to med ia t ion as al ternat ive d ispute resolu t ion (and this list is by no means exhaustive) has o p e n e d the d i scuss ion a b o u t conflict and alternative dispute resolution to include voices not tradition- ally recognized in academic venues.

T r a d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h o n t h e process and o u t c o m e of mediat ion shows that p o w e r is one haft of a complemen ta r i ty . Confl ic t , in this context, is thus defined as the fight ove r sca rce r e s o u r c e s ( ind ica t ing incompat ible goals and interdepen- d e n c e as wel l ) . O n e can b e c o m e powerful or can be rendered powerless, but in any case the resources are finite.

Yet, if one is to take the perspective that notions of power are themselves emb e d d e d in language, then language can be (and has been) used to create p o w e r contextually, apart from static entities defined as "inher- ently" powerful or powerless. Such a perspective on the process of media- t ion raises and reframes the important w h o and w h a t ques t ions that define issues of mediator p o w e r and competence .

Negotiation Journal ADrll 1995 99

NOTES

1. Menkel-Meadow (1993) provides further commentary on the capabilities of the measure- ment process.

2. For a more in-depth discussion of the ~paradox" of voluntary entry into and participation in the mediation process see McEwen and Milbum 1993.

3. See also Merry and Milner 1993.

REFERENCES

Azariah, O. K. 1992. An Afrocentric approach to medtation. Workshop presentat ion and discussion. Annual conference of the Cincinnati Center for Peace Education, August.

Burke, K. 1961. The rhetoric o f religion. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bush, R. A. B. 1993. Mixed messages in the Interim Guidelines. Negotiation Journal 9: 341-347. Bush, R. A. B. andJ . P. Folger. 1994. Thepromise o f mediation: Responding to conflict through

empowerment and recognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chodorow, N. 1978. The reproduction o f mothering. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Cobb, S. 1988. The concept o f power tn famt ly therapy: Toward the hegemontc analysis o f dis-

course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst , Mass. Cooks, L M. and C. L. Hale 1994. The construct ion of ethics in mediation. Mediation Quarterly

12: 55-76. and - - - - - - . 1992. A feminist approach to the e m p o w e r m e n t of w o m e n mediators. D/s-

course and Society 3: 277-300. Davis, A. M. 1993. Mediation: The field o f dreams? If we build it they will come! Negotiation

Journal 9: 5-12. DeStephen, D. 1987. Mediating power imbalances: The mediator 's responsibility to protect dis-

putants from unfair solutions. Paper presented to the annual convent ion of the Speech Com- munication Association, Boston, Mass. November.

Farley-Lucas, B., C. L. Hale and B. Tardy 1994. We ' re just kids: Interpersonal conflict from a younger point of view. Paper presented at the annual convent ion of the International Com- munication Association, Sydney, Australia. July.

Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

100 Leda M. Cooks Putting Mediation in Context

Grillo, T. 1991. The mediation alternative: Process dangers for women. Yale Law Journal 100: 1545-1610.

Harrington, Co B. 1985. Shadow justice: The ideology and institutionalization o f alternatives to court. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.

Honeyman, C. 1993. A consensus on mediators ' qualifications. Negotiation Journal 9: 295-308. Huber, M. 1993. Mediation around the medicine wheel. Mediation Quarterly, 10: 355-366. Jones, T. and H. Brinkman. 1993. Teach your children well: Suggestions for peer mediation pro-

grams in the schools. Paper presented at the annual convent ion of the Speech Communica- tion Association, Miami, Fla. November.

LeBesco, K. 1994. W o m e n mediators and the paradox of neutrality. Paper presented at the annual convent ion of the Speech Communicat ion Association, New Orleans, La. November.

Lederach, J. P. and R. Kraybill. 1993. The paradox of popular justice. In Theposslbi l i ty of popular justice: A case study of communitF mediation in the United States, edited by S.E. Merry and N. Milner. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press.

Lind, D. 1992. On the theory and practice of mediation: The contributions of seventeenth-century jurisprudence. Mediation Quarterly 9:119-127.

MacArthur, M. L. 1994. Interim Guidelines ignore cultural factors. Negotiation Journal 10: 173-176.

McEwen, C. A. and T. W. Milburn. 1993, Explaining a paradox of mediation. Negotiation Journal 9: 23-36.

Menkel-Meadow, C. 1993. Measuring both the art and science of mediation. Negotiation Journal 9: 321-325.

Merry, S.E. and N. Milner, eds. 1993. The posstbility of popular justice: A case study of commu- nitF mediation in the United States, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Rifkin, J., J. Millen and S. Cobb. 1991. Toward a new discourse for mediation: A critique of neutrality. Mediation Quarterly 9: 151-164.

Salem, P. E. 1993. A critique of western conflict resolution from a non-western perspective. Nego- tiation Journal 9:361-370.

Sander, F. E. A. and S. B. Goldberg. 1994. Fitting the forum to the fuss: Some guidelines for a tax- onomy of dispute resolution procedures. Negotiation Journal 10: 49-68.

Shailor, J. G. 1994. Empowerment in dispute resolution: A critical analysis of communication. Westport, Conn: Praeger.

Silbey, S. S. 1993. Mediation mythology. Negotiation Journal 9: 349-354. Tannen, D. 1990. You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York:

William Morrow and Co. Test Design Project. 1993. Interim Guidelines for selecting mediators. Washington: National

Institute for Dispute Resolution.


Documents

Putting Mediation in Context