Exploring an integrative framework for understanding mediation

Exploring an Integrative Framework for Understanding Mediation Cheryl A. Picard

This exploratory research examines how mediators’ understandings of their work vary with contextual factors—gender, educational background, dispute sector, and length of time mediating. Results indicate that most mediators do not base their views of practice on only one theory of mediation. Consequently, the author argues for an integrated vision of mediation.

A

s others have quite ably set out, there are many ways to mediate (Kressel, 1972; Silbey and Merry, 1986; Bush and Folger, 1994; Kolb and Associates, 1994; Riskin, 1994; Winslade and Monk, 2000). The research reported here also reveals varied understandings of mediation.

The extant literature tends to posit mediation practices within dualistic indicators. Examples of dichotomous positioning of mediation are facilitative versus evaluative (Riskin, 1994), bargaining versus therapeutic (Silbey and Merry, 1986), problem-solving versus transformative (Bush and Folger, 1994), and settlement versus communicative (Kolb and Associates, 1994). This study, by contrast, explored how mediator-trainers understand mediation; it found multiple, contrasting, and interrelated patterns for conceptualizing mediation, suggesting that not all mediators understand their work as having only one set of meanings. Instead many draw on a range of theories to conceptualize what it is they do. It would seem that a broader, more integrated framework for understanding mediation is required—an integrated framework that is flexible and dynamic and places value on mediation having multiple goals and practices.

In this article I set out to do two things. First, I support my argument for a more integrated vision of mediation by discussing the study I undertook to unmask the richness and complexity of mediation, examining how mediators conceptualize their work and how these understandings vary by CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY, vol. 21, no. 3, Spring 2004 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the Association for Conflict Resolution

295

296

PICARD

gender, dispute sector, educational background, and length of time mediating. Second, I discuss some of the implications for thinking of mediation in an integral way.

The Study The study being reported on here is part of a larger one that examined mediation as a sociological phenomenon (Picard, 2000). (To read more about this study, see also Negotiation Journal, 2002, 8(3), 251–270.) The research drew from interpretive sociology, which highlights social actors’ meanings and interpretations (Gergen and Davis, 1985; Bourdieu, 1990).

Thus how a mediator understands and gives meaning to his or her work can be seen as a sociologically significant means of obtaining insight into the nature of mediation. Two broad questions were explored: How do those who practice and teach mediation understand it? How do these understandings vary?

The research was exploratory, and both quantitative and qualitative methods were used. In keeping with interpretive research practice, I did not begin with a clearly developed hypothesis or a constructed model of what was to be studied. I also did not rely upon existing typologies to categorize the information collected. Instead, typologies were constructed from coded responses to the open-ended questions asked. I then undertook a qualitative examination of the words, themes, patterns, and relationships. I used open coding to examine the similarities and differences within the data, group similar concepts into categories, and then name the various categories. Naming involved grouping similar responses and then attaching a label to each category by selecting the most frequently used word or phrase by respondents in that group. In this way, coded terms were representative of the study group’s language. Axial coding was then undertaken to make connections between each category and its subcategories in a relational form. This involved specifying the conditions giving rise to the phenomenon being investigated along with the context in which it was embedded by asking questions, making comparisons, and verifying the patterns of association.

After completing a content analysis of the responses, a numeric code was assigned to each response. The data were then manipulated using the Sort command to ensure that there was sufficient homogeneity with the grouped responses. To enhance reliability of the coding scheme and to minimize researcher bias, two additional researchers were sought to do random coding

Exploring an Integrative Framework for Understanding Mediation 297

on a number of the questions. Interrater reliability was high, between 80 percent and 100 percent on each set of questions among all three coders.

Eighty-eight mediation practitioner-trainers who work in Canada formed the sample. Anyone indicating they were currently practicing mediators and trainers, and who were listed in one of eight Canadian professional directories (The Network: Interaction for Conflict Resolution, 1997 Membership List; a 1996 list compiled by Family Mediation Canada; the 1997 Arbitration and Mediation Institute of Ontario Directory of Members; the Ontario Bar Association’s 1996 list of ADR practitioners; the Alberta Arbitration and Mediation Society’s 1997 directory; the Mediation Development Association of British Columbia; data contained in the 1995 Department of Justice report Dispute Resolution in Canada: A Survey of Activities and Services; as well as a list of names suggested by the Canadian Foundation for Dispute Resolution) were sent a questionnaire designed to uncover how they conceptualized mediation. Having multiple perspectives helped to protect against privileging any one voice. Those individuals receiving a mail-out package who were not both trainers and practicing mediators were asked not to complete the questionnaire. Instead, they were to return the enclosed form indicating they were not eligible. A total of 370 questionnaires were mailed. Thirty-one packages were returned with incorrect addresses, resulting in 339 viable addresses. Eighty-eight completed and eligible surveys were returned, along with eighty-seven forms indicating that individuals were not eligible to complete the questionnaire; this resulted in an overall return rate of 52 percent and a questionnaire response rate of 26 percent.

Mediator practitioner-trainers were selected to form the sample for a number of reasons. First, it was believed they would likely have more actual mediation experience than nontrainer practitioners. Second, they would be well informed as a result of having read books and other writings on the theory and practice of mediation. Third, they would have an in-depth understanding of the principles of mediation given their role as trainers.

Fourth, as a group they could furnish a rich and varied description of their work. A fifth reason for selecting mediation trainers as the subjects of this study was that they are a unique sample. The insights generated from this group of subjects not only sheds light on current understandings of the practices of mediation but also presents indicators about the future practice of mediation.

The largest proportion of the sample came from Ontario (43 percent), followed by British Columbia (20 percent) and Alberta (17 percent). A

298

PICARD

much smaller number of respondents came from Manitoba (7 percent), Saskatchewan (6 percent), Quebec (5 percent), Newfoundland (1 percent), and Nova Scotia (1 percent). Relatively equal proportions of men (47 percent) and women (53 percent) participated in the study. Generalizing from this sample to the broader Canadian mediation community should be done with caution for three reasons. First, the sample is relatively small when compared to the number of known dispute resolution practitioners. (In 1995, a database of more than five thousand names of individuals, agencies, organizations, and groups who were engaged in dispute resolution work was compiled by the Network: Interaction for Conflict Resolution and the Department of Justice.) Second, respondents are not proportionately dispersed across the country, and there is little francophone “voice.” It was reported in an article published in spring 1999 by the Network that in 1997 there were just under eight hundred accredited mediators in Quebec. Third, not all mediators in Canada are trainers. Requiring that they be both a practicing mediator and a practicing trainer for eligibility to the sample may set them apart from the general mediation population. That said, there does appear to be similarity between the two groups according to the profiles of mediators from other Canadian studies (Kruk, 1997; Department of Justice Canada, 1995). Other limitations regarding generalizability apply to mediation communities outside of Canada.

The data in this study were collected through a lengthy, eighteen-page, written questionnaire designed from two previous, smaller data collection activities. The first activity involved my conducting personal interviews with six well-known Canadian mediation practitioner-trainers. Each interview was recorded and transcribed, and the central elements from each interview identified. As a result of these oral descriptions, I created open and closed-ended questions to add to the next schedule of questions, which focused on the theory and practice of mediation, and I added five short vignette questions. The second data collection activity involved administering a pilot written questionnaire to ten individuals—six mediation trainers and practitioners and four researchers who were also practicing mediators. Each individual was asked to complete the instrument and give feedback on the construction and nature of the questions. Subjects were sought from different dispute resolution sectors to enhance the data gathered in each of these first two stages. The final data collection instrument contained eighty-five open-ended, closed, and essay-type questions.

The questions were organized into sections. Sections A and D were designed to gather demographic and quantitative information about the

Exploring an Integrative Framework for Understanding Mediation 299

respondents, their work as mediators, and their work as mediation trainers.

Section B included a series of largely open-ended questions intended to gather qualitative descriptions of the subjects’ understanding of the process of mediation, their role as mediators, their style of mediation, and their orientation to mediation. Here are examples of questions being reported in this article: • In the opening stage of mediation, how do you describe the process and purpose of mediation to the parties?

• In the opening stage of mediation, how do you describe your role to the parties?

• As a mediator, what other roles do you take on throughout the mediation?

• In what would be a typical mediation session lasting three to four hours, how often do you caucus with the parties separately?

• What has been the most common reason for you calling a caucus?

• In the area where you mediate most, would you typically use more than one style or manner? If yes, what factors cause you to change your style or manner?

• Please describe your typical style or manner of mediation. With which orientation or ideology of mediation do you most identify: settlement, evaluative, directive, relational, humanistic, transformative, facilitative, nondirective, structured, therapeutic? What does this term mean to you?

Five of the questions in this section were conflict vignettes where respondents were asked to describe what they would do in particular conflict situations, and why. The five questions were: 1. In a divorce mediation where the couple have been married twentyseven years, because of a pending inheritance the wife chooses not to seek any portion of the husband’s pension (the law says she is entitled to half ). What would you do, and what would you hope to achieve?

2. In a community mediation, one of the parties, a recent immigrant from Bosnia, was injured in a corner store. The owner has offered to pay 10 percent of what would likely be awarded in court. Because of

300

PICARD

the immigrant’s fear of “the establishment,” the man is prepared to settle. What would you do, and what would you hope to achieve?

3. Negotiations are leading to an agreement that you believe to be quite unfair because of a power imbalance between the parties.

What would you do, and what would you hope to achieve?

4. You are mediating a harassment complaint. In caucus the complainant tells you she is deeply in debt and will agree to drop her allegation if assured of keeping her job. You are convinced she would win her case at a Human Rights Commission hearing.

What would you do, and what would you hope to achieve?

5. The parties appear to have reached an impasse and are ready to terminate without an agreement. Tensions are high. What would you do, and what would you hope to achieve?

Section C was also a series of mostly open-ended questions that asked respondents to describe their views on accreditation, as well as their views regarding some of the changes taking place within the field of mediation.

The purpose for having so many open-ended questions in Sections C and D was to draw out the language currently being used by mediators.

To make comparisons, detect patterns, and draw conclusions about the meanings mediators give to their work, the relations among eighteen variables were organized onto a matrix table using a variable-oriented approach (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Included in the matrix table were coded responses to open-ended questions about how subjects describe the process of mediation; their role, style, and orientation to mediation; coded responses to the vignette questions; and answers relating to the use of caucus. Here are examples of some of these questions: • In the opening stage of a mediation, how do you describe the process and purpose of mediation?

• In the opening stage of a mediation how do you describe your role to the parties?

• Please describe your typical style or manner of mediation.

• What factors cause you to change your typical style or manner?

• How often do you caucus with a party separately?

• What has been the most common reason for you calling a caucus?

Exploring an Integrative Framework for Understanding Mediation 301

Also included in the matrix table was the term respondents had selected from a list of ten that most identified their orientation or ideology of mediation, along with the coded response to how they described the term. In addition, I included responses to five vignette questions (see the preceding numbered list) coded using Waldman’s social norm typology (1996). The combination of responses in the display table was then used to determine a pattern of mediation understanding for each respondent. Three patterns became evident: pragmatic, socioemotional, and mixed. (Considerable time was given to finding the “right” words to define these categories.

Though perhaps still not the best words, I chose them on the basis of my interpretation of the meanings attributed to the subjects’ responses. Confidence in their usage was gained after discussions with respected colleagues as well as people less familiar with mediation. The general consensus was that even though these terms were not perfect they seemed to reflect what was being said. The term socioemotional was borrowed from Kressel and Pruitt (1989), but it is being used in a broader sense than was depicted by them.)

Individuals displaying the use of more than two socioemotional traits and more than two task-focused traits were labeled as having mixed understandings.

That a good many mediators appear to be pluralistic in their understandings of mediation suggests that the field is becoming more diversified and mediators more flexible. If this is true, it may be premature for mediation associations to designate what mediation is and is not; to do so may unintentionally restrict diversification and cause undo rigidity. It may also be that a singular definition of mediation is not possible or even desirable.

Furthermore, it suggests that we need to move beyond dichotomous representations to more fully understand the nature of mediation. Further still, gaining insight into how mediators conceptualize their work can provide a lens by which to discern how mediators shape their practice.

An Integrative Framework for Understanding Mediation Simply put, an integrative framework moves beyond binary thinking. It builds upon the notion that mediators’ understandings of mediation practice are dynamic and pluralistic. An integrative framework seeks to recognize these differences and the variations in patterns of difference. It accepts that dualistic notions of mediation are present; however, it argues that such representations are no longer sufficient for understanding the complexities

302

PICARD

of mediation practice. In fact, dualistic notions are thought to hide the diversity within mediation.

It is important to stress that the patterns of understanding described below are not monolithic blocks and can be better understood as heuristic devices upon which to make comparisons more than absolute or rigid generalizations. The framework should also not be viewed as a linear progression or even a continuum that posits one against the other. Instead the data suggest that traits from one pattern are present to some degree in each of the other patterns. A major insight from this study was finding that it is problematic to depict approaches to the practice of mediation solely through dichotomous classification schemes. Understanding the complexity of mediation requires that the integrative nature of mediation be recognized by looking for mediation traits and patterns of interaction that do not locate individuals entirely at one or another pole of a dichotomy.

Taking an integrative approach enables one to glimpse a fuller range of understandings within the practice of mediation.

Defining an Integrative Framework As previously mentioned, three patterns of understanding were generated from the study: pragmatic, socioemotional, and mixed. These categories were constructed from the compilation of coded responses to questions that asked respondents to describe their role and their style in mediation, how they present the process of mediation to parties, how often and why they caucus, the orientation or ideology of mediation they most identified selected from a list of ten options that they then defined, which social norm they thought most important according to Waldman’s 1996 typology, and their coded responses to the five vignettes. Their coded responses were organized onto a matrix table containing eighteen variables. Each respondent’s frequency of multiple or single notions of mediation was put in a table for comparison.

Individuals labeled as having a pragmatic pattern of understanding identify their orientation or ideology of mediation with terms such as settlement, evaluative, and directive. For the most part, they understand their role to be process-focused and directed at helping parties achieve a resolution to their dispute. To cite some examples of role characterizations of individuals labeled as pragmatic: [Mediation] is a cooperative problem-solving exercise; I search to see if a better set of alternatives can be delivered than the ones presenting

Exploring an Integrative Framework for Understanding Mediation 303

themselves. [52/W/B/L; attribution codes refer to case number, gender, dispute sector, and educational background.]

I am an impartial third party; I am there to work with the parties to help them stay focused on their problem so they come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion whatever that might be. [11/M/B/L] My role is to help parties make informed decisions, I control the process, they control the content; I am part referee and part sheep dog.

[201/W/F/L] I am a neutral party—not a judge or arbitrator; I control process and encourage communication but I will not make any decision for them, I may be a referee if dispute heats up. I will control emotional aspects and caucus if required. [280/M/B/L] A mediator is not a judge, he/she will not be making any recommendations or stating his or her own option, any decisions are made by the parties; if there is an impasse mediator will try to get suggestions, ideas, options, or other way of looking at it from parties [and] if that fails mediator might suggest ideas but it is up to parties to agree/disagree with suggestions. [7/M/F/SS]

Mediators labeled as having pragmatic patterns of understanding use language that is task-focused and problem-oriented. They report that they caucus frequently, indicating that they likely exercise some influence on parties’ decision making. They attend to social norms in their mediation practice by using a norm-advocating style. Norm advocating as a mediation is one in which a mediator weighs disputant autonomy against social norms in order to ensure that any agreement reached is in concordance with relevant social norms. See Waldman (1996) for a more elaborate discussion of the social-norm model of mediation.

Mediators characterized as having a socioemotional understanding of mediation identify their orientation or ideology of mediation with terms such as humanistic, transformative, and relational. They describe their role as helping parties to communicate and better understand each other. To illustrate: I will be that neutral third party that will create environment for communication; I will assist the parties to communicate so that the parties can begin to better understand their own needs and those of the other.

[144/M/C/L] I help them dialogue in such away as to understand, I don’t decide [;] they decide. [221/W/W/L]

304

PICARD

My role is to help them communicate [or talk] to one another.

[242/W/W/SS] My role is to help the parties communicate with each other, to enable them to hear each other and understand each other’s positions and perspective, needs and interests. [205/W/F/L] An intervenor who will assist with communication, ask questions for clarity, guide them throughout process of negotiation. [267/M/W/SS]

They describe themselves in mediation as being more focused on the people than on the problem at hand. Mediators with socioemotional patterns of understanding also describe themselves as being attentive to emotions.

They say they rarely caucus, and they attend to social norms in mediation by using a norm-generating style. (The hallmark of a norm-generating approach is its deliberate inattention to social norms. It seeks to ensure that parties have maximum control over the outcome of their dispute; autonomy dictates the mediation structure. See Waldman, 1996.) It is important to stress that classifying a mediator’s pattern of understanding as pragmatic does not mean he or she has no socioemotional traits, or vice versa. As mentioned previously, traits from one pattern are present in other patterns.

Individuals classified as having mixed understandings of mediation were found to use pragmatic and socioemotional terms interchangeably when describing the process of mediation, their role, and their style. For example, in one question they might use terms that would be classified as pragmatic and then in another question use terms that would be considered socioemotional. Mixed mediators report that they caucus occasionally, and they attend to social norms by primarily using a norm-educating style of mediation (premised on the belief that knowledge of social norms is a precondition to autonomous decision making (Waldman, 1996). It is important to stress once again that I do not intend envisaging a continuum that locates a mediator as having a definitive style that is more or less socioemotional or pragmatic. It is better to think of the mixed mediator as someone who describes his or her work using pragmatic and socioemotional descriptors interchangeably, suggesting that they have a more pluralistic vision of mediation than those who repeatedly use the same constructs to define their work.

Connecting Patterns of Understanding to Contextual Factors More than half (54 percent) of the respondents in this study have mixed understandings about their work. Of those who are more single-minded, 21 percent are socioemotional and 25 percent are pragmatic. Worth

Exploring an Integrative Framework for Understanding Mediation 305

mentioning is that I was not concerned with “proving” these patterns of understanding exist; that so many respondents described their work using more than one pattern of understanding was considered to be of greater interest, thus raising a further question: Who views mediation with mixed understandings?

To answer this question, I examined respondents’ patterns of understanding by the four contextual variables chosen for investigation in the study: gender, dispute sector, educational background, and length of time mediating. My findings are summarized here.

Gender

Half of the men (49 percent) and more than half of the women (60 percent) had mixed understandings of mediation. Of those women who were single-minded, close to one-third (30 percent) were socioemotional while men were more pragmatic (42 percent). Being a newcomer or veteran does not change the pattern that men are more pragmatic and women more socioemotional in their understandings.

Finding a gender difference is consistent with others analyses of gender differences in social thought and behavior (Gilligan, 1982; Tannen, 1990), and more specifically in relation to conflict and mediation (Taylor and Beinstein Miller, 1994; Weingarten and Douvan, 1985). Similar to this study, other studies showed men to have a tendency to focus on task aspects, while women have more sensitivity to feelings and emotions. In the Weingarten and Douvan study, for example, male mediators tended to construct their role as instrument of a process aimed at seeking solutions, while female mediators emphasized the process of coming to understand the parties and acceptance of difference more than reaching agreement. The implications of this study, supported by the Weingarten and Douvan study, is that men and women mediators do have different conceptualizations of mediation practice. This might be true, but differences in how men and women mediate have received relatively little attention.

Further research is needed to identify patterns of gender difference in actual mediation events. Gender difference continues to be evident in the following analysis of patterns of understanding and contextual factors.

Dispute Sector

Community mediators (68 percent) are more pluralistic in their thinking than those working in the family (54 percent), business (50 percent), and workplace (50 percent) sectors. Men (83 percent) in the community sector

306

PICARD

are more mixed than women (68 percent), while in the family and workplace sectors there is little evidence of gender difference among those who understand mediation pluralistically. That is not the case in the business sector, where women (75 percent) are considerably more mixed than men (39 percent). Gender continues to be a factor for those working in the business sector who are single-minded, as more than half (56 percent) of the men were coded as pragmatic in their understandings while only a few women (12 percent) were found to have pragmatic understandings. Workplace mediators are the most socioemotional (44 percent), with gender making little difference. On the other hand, there is considerable difference between men and women mediators working in the business sector: only one out of eleven women was coded as pragmatic.

Educational Background

An individual’s understanding of mediation is also connected to his or her educational background. The majority of those with social science (61 percent) and law backgrounds (54 percent) have mixed understandings of mediation. Those with business backgrounds are more single-minded (69 percent), and this single-mindedness shows up as their having pragmatic (54 percent) understandings. This pattern is similar for those with law backgrounds; one-third (35 percent) are pragmatic while only 11 percent are socioemotional. The same pattern stands out for those with business backgrounds as for those working in the business sector; a large majority (75 percent) of the men have pragmatic understandings while significantly fewer (20 percent) women are as pragmatic. The gender pattern for those with law backgrounds is similar, though the split is not so significant; 44 percent of men were pragmatic while only 20 percent of women were pragmatic. Single-minded mediators with social science backgrounds are more socioemotional (38 percent) than pragmatic (6 percent).

Length of Time Mediating

The majority of newcomers to mediation (six or fewer years’ experience; 58 percent) as well as veterans (seven or more years; 52 percent) are mixed in how they understand mediation. Single-minded male newcomers (40 percent) have pragmatic understandings of mediation, while women newcomers have more socioemotional (33 percent) understandings. The same pattern of gender difference continues for veterans; veteran men understand mediation to be more pragmatic (42 percent), and veteran

Exploring an Integrative Framework for Understanding Mediation 307

women see it as more socioemotional (29 percent). Another noteworthy finding is that veterans (60 percent) are more mixed in their understandings than newcomers (40 percent). These differences may be a reflection of differences in generational attitudes. Then again, they might reflect the maturation of the individual as mediator. What does stand out is that this finding seems to contradict earlier studies suggesting that over time mediators become more set in their ways (Silbey and Merry, 1986), and that mediators have a predominant style (Riskin, 1994).

Discussion Until now, the extent of the plurality of mediation understandings has been hidden in dichotomous modeling found in much of the extant research. These bipolar descriptions of mediation have led us to expect two sets of practice, grounded in opposing views about mediation. Such dichotomous representations have often led to privileging one ideology over the other. Furthermore, it assumes the two poles operate outside of each other and that they are opposed rather than interrelated. In contrast to dualistic notions of what mediation is, finding combinations of patterns of interaction suggests that individual mediators draw on more than a single mediation theory to give meaning to their work. Thus it is overly simplistic to locate mediators as being only in one or another ideological camp. Riskin (1996) was one of the first to look beyond contrasting notions, suggesting that a continuum exists by which we can locate mediators as more broadly or narrowly facilitative or evaluative. Kolb’s series of profiles (1994) also acknowledges a variety of approaches used by mediators working in different venues. On the basis of Kolb’s work, MenkelMeadow says that the twelve profiles when taken together reveal “a greater variety, flexibility and plasticity of models” than is often revealed in the literature (1995, p. 228). It would seem that as the field advances the tendency for mediators to move back and forth between different theories has also increased.

This research draws the reader’s attention to the variety within respondents’ understandings of mediation. To speculate on the reasons for this, it may be that respondents have been exposed to more literature on mediation. They may have taken courses from trainers with different views.

Or their experiences as mediators may lead them to think more broadly about their work. It may also be that as mediators have more encounters with mediation they expand their mediation approach to enable them to

308

PICARD

respond to a variety of conflicts and clients. Whatever the reason, this research implies that mediation should be broadly defined. A further observation is that the findings suggest something other than what Bush and Folger (1994) believe—if a mediator follows one set of goals he or she cannot follow another. Whatever might be said about their actual mediation behaviors, in their minds at least respondents appear to be diversified in their approach to mediation. In light of the small sample size, these findings cannot be generalized. There is, however, a distinct enough pattern to encourage future research to examine whether integrated thinking extends to the general population.

My work draws attention not only to differences among groups of individuals but the extent to which individuals themselves rely on differing ideological models to give meaning to mediation. Shifting to a more integrated framework for understanding mediation as I am suggesting is not to be viewed in the form of a continuum distinguishing more or less of a particular model. Rather, it should be viewed as a matrix where mediators use contrasting theories interchangeably and concurrently to form new theoretical meanings. An integrated framework offers a more holistic and complete view of mediation and is one that draws attention to its richness and complexity. An integral view of mediation encourages practitioners and researchers to discover new visions for mediation, as well as protect the visionary elements upon which it was founded.

Another important finding from this study was that patterns of mediation understandings are connected to contextual factors, in this case gender, educational background, the dispute sector in which respondents work, and the length of time they have been working as mediators. To illustrate, community mediators are more pluralistic than those working in other dispute sectors, and men in this sector are more mixed than women.

The majority of mediators with law and social science backgrounds also have mixed understandings of mediation. Both newcomers and veterans have mixed understandings of mediation more than single-minded ones. Moreover, although the majority of men and women tend to view mediation in mixed ways, those who are more single-minded cluster in particular patterns. To cite one of many examples, women mediators tend to use more socioemotional traits when describing mediation while men tend to use more pragmatic descriptors.

The results of this study point out the need to continue to advance our knowledge about how context influences mediation practice, including factors related to the nature of the dispute, the parties, and the mediators

Exploring an Integrative Framework for Understanding Mediation 309

themselves. Determining how patterns of understanding relate to mediators’ actions as well as how patterns of understanding are connected to other contextual factors such as class, culture, and ethnicity are important questions to pursue in the future.

Conclusion So what does all this mean? First and foremost, it suggests that the mediation community can no longer continue along the road of binary thinking.

Instead, it is challenged to find a more integral, more holistic, and more inclusive view of its work. The key word here is integral, meaning to bring together the range of mediation ideologies. (I am grateful for the input of my colleague Evita Roche, who after reading an earlier draft of this paper brought to my attention that the notion of an integrated framework for understanding mediation taps into a larger movement of integral visions within and across other disciplines (see, for example, the work of Ken Wilber). She encouraged me to articulate more loudly the call to move from pluralism to integration; her comments generated a number of the ideas found in this concluding section.

This bringing together would not be in the sense of uniformity, nor in the sense of trying to iron out the differences between the various mediation approaches. Instead, it would try to bring together the shared commonalities that encompass these differences. By so doing, we come to accept the notion that mediation has multiple goals and we value mediation as a multiplicity of practices. In turn, practitioners would be trained in a range of models and techniques and encouraged to draw upon them together to facilitate individual and social ends, along with relational and pragmatic ends, in conflict situations. This concept of integration serves to move us beyond what Williams (1997) suggested when he said that problem-solving and transformative-based approaches should coexist.

An integrated framework for understanding mediation has a number of implications. I raise some in the hopes of stimulating readers to begin thinking and talking about the topic.

Perhaps the most manifest implication of integral thinking is its impact on the development of standards and certification. Thinking integratively summons us to maintain flexibility and diversity at a time when there is increased pressure to articulate what mediation is and is not. Diversity is especially critical when we learn that mediators do not share a common language, and even though they may use similar words they often mean

310

PICARD

different things (Picard, 2000). The absence of shared language makes it increasingly important that mediators clearly communicate to others how they understand conflict and its resolution. Defining mediation so that potential consumers understand its merits and drawbacks, while at the same time ensuring flexibility and diversity, is no small challenge. On a more practical note, an integrated vision has implications for how success in mediation is defined, for which mediation programs get funded, and for how an “agreement to mediate” or “memorandum of understanding” is drafted. Furthermore, it has an impact on how we view single-model and legalistic approaches, such as those found in court-mandated civil mediation programs in Ontario and elsewhere. Conceptualizing mediation as an integration of various theories and practices rather than a single-model approach legitimates the broad range of mediation practices and practitioners. It also encourages the development of new mediation approaches, better able to respond to social, cultural, economic, and other differences that are bound to unfold in multicultural societies such as Canada and the United States.

References Bourdieu, P. In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990.

Bush, R. B., and Folger, J. The Promise of Mediation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

Department of Justice Canada. Dispute Resolution in Canada: A Survey of Activities and Services. Ottawa, Ontario, 1995.

Gergen, K., and Davis, K. The Social Construction of the Person. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1985.

Gilligan, C. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982.

Kolb, D. M. Negotiation Theory: Through the Looking Glass of Gender. Fairfax, Va.: Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, 1994.

Kolb, D. M., and Associates. When Talk Works: Profiles of Mediators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

Kressel, K. Labor Mediation: An Exploratory Survey. New York: Association of Labor Mediation Agencies, 1972.

Kressel, K., Pruitt, D., and Associates. Mediation Research: The Process and Effectiveness of Third-Party Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989.

Kruk, E. Mediation and Conflict Resolution in Social Work and the Sciences.

Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1997.

Menkel-Meadow, C. “The Many Ways of Mediation: The Transformations of Traditions, Ideologies, Paradigms, and Practices.” Negotiation Journal, 1995, 11 (3), 217–242.

Exploring an Integrative Framework for Understanding Mediation 311

Miles, M., and Huberman, M. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1994.

Picard, C. A. “The Many Meanings of Mediation: A Sociological Study of Mediation in Canada.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Sociology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, 2000.

Riskin, L. “Mediator Orientations: Strategies and Techniques.” Alternatives, 1994, 12 (9), 111–114.

Riskin, L. “Understanding Mediator Orientations, Strategies, and Techniques: A Grid for the Perplexed.” Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 1996, 7, 25–35.

Silbey, S., and Merry, S. E. “Mediator Settlement Strategies.” Law and Policy, 1986, 8 (1), 7–32.

Tannen, D. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation.

New York: Morrow, 1990.

Taylor, A., and Beinstein Miller, J. Conflict and Gender. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press, 1994.

Waldman, E. “The Challenge of Certification: How to Ensure Mediator Competence While Preserving Diversity.” University of San Francisco Law Review, 1996, 30, 723–756.

Weingarten, H. R., and Douvan, E. “Male and Female Visions of Mediation.”

Negotiation Journal, 1985, 1, 349–358.

Williams, M. “Can’t I Get No Satisfaction? Thoughts on the Promise of Mediation.” Mediation Quarterly, 1997, 15 (2), 143–154.

Winslade, J., and Monk, G. Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.

Cheryl A. Picard is a tenured member of the faculty in the Department of Law at Carleton University in Ottawa, and director of the Graduate Certificate in Conflict Resolution Program. She was the founding director of the Mediation Centre at Carleton University and is the author of Mediating Interpersonal and Small Group Conflict. She has been working as a mediator and trainer since 1978.