Creativity in Court‐Connected Mediation: Myth or Reality?

In this study, we examined creativity in court‐connected mediation. We analyzed 129 mediated agreements from civil cases in Norway and Denmark and compared the outcomes with the parties' original claims to determine whether the agreement addressed only the disputants' demands or contained other elements. If the mediated agreements contained elements in addition to the original claims, we considered them to be “creative.” We devised a creativity scale and found that approximately two thirds of the cases contained creative elements and one quarter of them contained more than five creative elements. We then sought to determine which aspects of the mediation promoted creativity by looking at a variety of mediation characteristics (length of mediation, characteristics of the parties, etc.). We found that lengthier mediations tended to feature more creativity as did cases that involved two private individuals rather than businesses. Cases whose issues involved inheritance as well as the division of property following divorce seemed to foster the highest levels of creativity. Finally, we found that the amount of money at issue also seemed to be relevant: the highest levels of creativity were found in cases in which more money was at stake. In this article, we also discuss the implications of our findings for future research, practice, and training.     

Context and Content toward Consensus in Public Mediation

The mediation of public conflicts is a complex interactive, social‐psychological, and often politicized process. Because of their complexity, the literature on how to effectively mediate these conflicts remains imprecise. In this study, I have focused on the sequencing of the overall mediation process and the interplay between initial conditions, mediation styles, and process dynamics to explore predictable patterns from early stage to deadline negotiations. By undertaking a two‐step qualitative comparison of twenty‐three public mediation cases, I have attempted to identify “equifinal” pathways — that is, a variety of different ways in which the same outcome can be achieved — that can lead to mediation success (or failure). My analysis reveals that both inclusivity (i.e., including all relevant participants in the process) and mediation institutionalization (i.e., the mediation process is sufficiently embedded in the political and administrative system) correlate to greater mediation effectiveness. Furthermore, this study also suggests that such key elements of deliberative negotiations as recognition and argumentation are essential for reaching a consensual agreement.     

Credibility and Strategy in International Mediation

We study mediation in international conflict as a process of strategic interaction among the two disputants and the (would-be) mediator. We develop a rational model that examines the choice, process, and outcome of mediation. We start with a conflict game of incomplete information played by rational players that examines the conditions under which disputants and would-be mediators would consider mediation a preferred strategy. The mediation game that follows models the mediator's choice of mediation strategy and the possible responses of the disputants offers. Finally, we explore the conditions under which a mediated solution emerges and the conditions under which mediation fails.

The credibility of the mediator—defined as the extent to which disputants believe the mediator's statements, threats, or promises and her ability to deliver the promised agreement—emerges as a key factor that drives the model. Each disputant has an assessment of the mediator's credibility. Broadly speaking, the more credible the mediator is perceived by the disputant, the more accepting the disputant will be of her offers. Yet, the mediator does not know how credible she is in the view of the disputants. This uncertainty affects the mediator's decision to intervene and her choice of strategies. We derive testable propositions from this model and test them on a dataset consisting of mediation efforts in international conflicts over the years 1945–1995. The findings generally support the propositions derived from the model, and we explore the theoretical and empirical implications of these findings.     

The Reflexive Mediator

In this article, I describe a reflexive approach to mediation, which I see as a promising corrective to two positivist ideas in our field that are slow to fade: that we should be neutral as third parties and that parties should seek solutions based on objective truth. Grounded in a more constructionist approach using findings from qualitative social research and drawing analogies from those findings as they apply to mediation, a reflexive praxis accepts the reality that a third party cannot be neutral and that constructive outcomes to conflicts are rarely rooted just in “the facts.” Rather this view holds that an intersubjective rendering of reality in and out of the mediation room constitutes a large part of the collaborative effort of mediation.