Seeing Theory in Practice: An Analysis of Empathy in Mediation

cush and Folger (1994) in The Promise of Mediation acticulated distinctions between Individualist and Relational ideology, and linked them to specific theoretical orientations to mediation practice, problem-solving and transformative, respectively. Yet, a question persists as to whether these distinctions produce any material differences in practice. This question is approached here through an examination of a single construct in the mediation literature, empathy. The author proposes that the Individualist and Relational ideological frameworks have material implications for the concept and the practice of fostering empathy between the parties to a mediation: The problem-solving framework fosters a social interaction which can be understood as transactional empathy while the transformative framework fosters an interaction described as relational empathy.     

Factors affecting information utilization and change: The case of recreation research and river management in the public sector

The Journal of Technology Transfer - This research looked at the information transfer process between recreation researchers and managers. The objective was to identify personal and organizational...     

Is race-based medicine good for us?: African American approaches to race, biomedicine, and equality

This article presents a preliminary framework for exploring the intersection of science and racial politics in the public debate about race-based pharmaceuticals, especially among African Americans. It examines the influence of three political approaches to race consciousness on evaluations of racial medicine and offers an alternative critique.     

Supreme Court Ruling Creates More Standing Room in the Already Heated Global Greenhouse Gas Movement

This article reviews the recent April 2, 2007 Supreme Court decision in the Massachusetts v. EPA, a highly important case regarding greenhouse gases. The case centered on the Court's review of EPA's denial of a petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. The Court required EPA to reconsider its denial. The Court found that. 1) the petitioners have standing to challenge EPA's denial of their petition; 2) the Court has the authority to review the denial of the petition; and 3) the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. This article looks specifically at the Court's analysis of standing and jurisdiction by Justice Stevens, who wrote the Court's majority opinion, and two dissenting opinions by Justices Roberts and Scalia. Most interesting is how the closely divided Justices (5 to 4 decision) viewed, very differently, the issues regarding standing, the evidence that emissions from new motor vehicles are causing global warming and harm to Massachusetts, and the agency's judgment in denying the petition. Lastly, the article speculates on the impact of the decision and the current activities taking place at the state and regulated community level involving future regulation, litigation, and opportunities by various companies and coalitions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The article then presents five broad areas where companies that emit greenhouse gases should need to maintain or increase awareness to better position themselves in the global greenhouse gas movement.