From Blamescaping to Hope: How Mediators Help Clients Cooperate toward Mutual Resolution of Disputes

Mediation offers an increasingly popular way for disputing parties to work together toward resolving their conflicts, yet there are few studies of the actual voiced interactions between mediation parties and experienced mediators. This research project studied 10 face-to-face interpersonal mediation sessions involving 34 participants. The study provides in-depth and multidimensional understanding of how experienced mediators assist disputing parties in refraining from or moving beyond the futility of blamescaping, toward cooperating on mutually acceptable resolution of their conflicts. (Blamescaping refers to verbal blaming behaviors, including accusations in the form of scapegoating.) Findings from initial data analysis, employing the Voice-Centered Relational method’s Listening Guide, showed that experienced mediators were able to help disputing parties by interceding and interposing in a variety of co-implicated ways related to the form, process, and content of mediation discourse. These ways emerged as strong patterns, and include cooperation coaching, encouraging short opening statements, interrupting blamescaping, supporting focus on the future rather than the past, mutualizing statements, avoiding criticism of the parties, frequent use of questions, and parties echoing mediators. Through a second level of in-depth data analysis and interpretation, those patterns of interpositions and intercessions were found to be consistent with each of three conceptual lenses: René Girard’s mimetic theory of conflict, genre analysis in conflict resolution, and narrative mediation praxis. Implications of how the research findings can serve as a resource for conflict resolution practitioners, mediator training and continuing education, and applied mediation ethics are discussed. Recommendations for ways the mediation profession can support additional research, along with suggestions for future research studies, also are provided

A Feminist Philosophical Critique of Domestic Mediation (ADR) Practices in the United States: Realizing Mary Parker Follett's Theory of Empowerment

xi, 97 p. A print copy of this thesis is available through the UO Libraries. Search the library catalog for the location and call number.This thesis identifies four major problems facing the Altemative Dispute Resolution profession-especially domestic mediation-and proposes constructive solutions using ADR pioneer and feminist-pragmatist philosopher Mary Parker Follett's work. I argue these problems are grounded in a conception of persons as independent and radically autonomous, rather than interdependent and embedded in social communities. Mediators often justify professional expansion by claiming mediation is more empowering than other ADR methods. However, absent a well-developed theory of interdependence, mediation perpetuates the power of negative socioeconomic forces over clients, furthering oppression not empowerment. Central to Follett's theory is a conception of power consistent with the idea that persons are interdependent. Effective domestic mediation reform could be achieved using Follett's theory, which demonstrates how ostensibly individual matters leading to "private" conflicts are inseparable from social circumstances and public concerns. I conclude with several solutions based on this alternative conception that help rectify current ADR problems.Adviser: Scott Prat