Open Forum

Professor John Lande, a leading American dispute resolution academic, has recently authored two useful papers on this topic. They are available at:

Real Practice Systems Project Menu of Mediation Checklists

and

Practitioners Tell Why Real Practice System Checklists Are So Useful

Cheers

------------------------------
Archie Zariski
Professor, Legal Studies - Athabasca University Canada
Athabasca University
Edmonton AB
------------------------------

Thank you Archie for introducing these two papers to the Resolution Institute Community.

I have always thought that the RI Members Connect Portal would be a good vehicle for RI Practitioners to exchange thoughts and instigate debates on mediation 'theory to practice' issues.  These two papers certainly do that.

To kick off a discussion, it would be my reflection that Prof Lande's papers are the continuation of a long line of what I would call the linear cause-and-effect approach to mediation practice.   Starting with Christopher Moore's 1986 book 'The Mediation Process' where he describes a sphere of conflict where in each of the five quadrants he lists particular interventions for each cause, to the many papers by John Wade (formally of Bond University) where he provides extensive lists of mediator interventions for particular issues such as 'The Last Gap in Negotiations- How it can be crossed'. All good general advice but it all ends up being just lists of lists.

 It is the mechanical almost Newtonian approach based on the primacy of the mediator's role where power is centered in the mediator to instigate, control and resolve the dispute for the parties. It places the mediator as the heroic 'Dispute Resolver'.  It is more often than not these days built on keeping the parties at arms length (no messy emotions to sidetrack proceedings) and try and cut a deal between the opening positions. It's a narrow positional  approach.

The alternative approach is to treat the mediation process as a series of interactions and counter interactions in which the mediator holds the space for something new and unexpected to emerge.  From a complexity science perspective it's called a 'Complex Adaptive System.  The approach for the mediator is to probe, sense and respond to the immediacy of the moment, looking for an adjacent possible step to move forward.  It's about emergence. It's going with the flow.  See as an example -The Art of the Simple in Mediation - Mediate.com  

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 13-02-2024 12:03 PM
From: Archie Zariski
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Professor John Lande, a leading American dispute resolution academic, has recently authored two useful papers on this topic. They are available at:

Real Practice Systems Project Menu of Mediation Checklists

and

Practitioners Tell Why Real Practice System Checklists Are So Useful

Cheers

------------------------------
Archie Zariski
Professor, Legal Studies - Athabasca University Canada
Athabasca University
Edmonton AB
------------------------------

Greg, thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

I have no doubt that the practice of mediation, like all human services, has elements of both "art" and "science". Checklists like these are intended to provide a foundation for the "magic" of sincere human interaction to flourish. They also contribute to preserving and transmitting the knowledge gained through practice.

I am curious about the potential of AI to mediate using checklists like these, and all the other digital tools at its disposal (voice, face, and emotion recognition, etc.).

Thank you Archie for introducing these two papers to the Resolution Institute Community.

I have always thought that the RI Members Connect Portal would be a good vehicle for RI Practitioners to exchange thoughts and instigate debates on mediation 'theory to practice' issues.  These two papers certainly do that.

To kick off a discussion, it would be my reflection that Prof Lande's papers are the continuation of a long line of what I would call the linear cause-and-effect approach to mediation practice.   Starting with Christopher Moore's 1986 book 'The Mediation Process' where he describes a sphere of conflict where in each of the five quadrants he lists particular interventions for each cause, to the many papers by John Wade (formally of Bond University) where he provides extensive lists of mediator interventions for particular issues such as 'The Last Gap in Negotiations- How it can be crossed'. All good general advice but it all ends up being just lists of lists.

 It is the mechanical almost Newtonian approach based on the primacy of the mediator's role where power is centered in the mediator to instigate, control and resolve the dispute for the parties. It places the mediator as the heroic 'Dispute Resolver'.  It is more often than not these days built on keeping the parties at arms length (no messy emotions to sidetrack proceedings) and try and cut a deal between the opening positions. It's a narrow positional  approach.

The alternative approach is to treat the mediation process as a series of interactions and counter interactions in which the mediator holds the space for something new and unexpected to emerge.  From a complexity science perspective it's called a 'Complex Adaptive System.  The approach for the mediator is to probe, sense and respond to the immediacy of the moment, looking for an adjacent possible step to move forward.  It's about emergence. It's going with the flow.  See as an example -The Art of the Simple in Mediation - Mediate.com  

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 13-02-2024 12:03 PM
From: Archie Zariski
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Professor John Lande, a leading American dispute resolution academic, has recently authored two useful papers on this topic. They are available at:

Real Practice Systems Project Menu of Mediation Checklists

and

Practitioners Tell Why Real Practice System Checklists Are So Useful

Cheers

------------------------------
Archie Zariski
Professor, Legal Studies - Athabasca University Canada
Athabasca University
Edmonton AB
------------------------------

Wow Archie. How will an AI mediator bot work?

Will it be something parties buy off the shelf at the post office like you can currently buy do-it-yourself wills? 

AI is essentially an algorithm that uses data to produce other data.

One of the biggest issues is transparency about who has trained the AI and how have they done it.

What if the mediation data is drawn from just white Anglo-Saxon middle-aged males with certain social, religious, political and commercial attitudes. What if the data is drawn from neo-Nazis.   'There is no discrimination in AI, discrimination is in the data you feed into it' (Dave Snowden, Impact of AI on HR, with Dave Snowden (youtube.com) )

Therefore, vendor disclosure is essential.

If for instance it is disclosed that the algorithm is based on the data of Prof Lande or Prof Wade, will they have any propriety rights.

If the data is drawn from a composite of every practicing mediator and mediator academic harvested from the Internet, including this conversation we are having on Resolution Institute Open Forum, then there is an averaging distortion. As no two disputes or people are ever the same then this is a problem. AI cannot think independently, understand nuance or the concept of common sense.

Will smart entrepreneurs develop a celebrity deep fake mediator like Elvis, Nelson Mandela or Donald Trump to mediate your dispute.  Will there be a nice guy version through to the head kicker for hard positional disputes. Will there be a package that includes an AI lawyer to give legal advice?

It will be a brave new world where we choose to make our decisions based on algorithms rather than on human judgement and human interaction.

(No AI was used in formulating this response -it was me!!)

Greg, thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

I have no doubt that the practice of mediation, like all human services, has elements of both "art" and "science". Checklists like these are intended to provide a foundation for the "magic" of sincere human interaction to flourish. They also contribute to preserving and transmitting the knowledge gained through practice.

I am curious about the potential of AI to mediate using checklists like these, and all the other digital tools at its disposal (voice, face, and emotion recognition, etc.).

Thank you Archie for introducing these two papers to the Resolution Institute Community.

I have always thought that the RI Members Connect Portal would be a good vehicle for RI Practitioners to exchange thoughts and instigate debates on mediation 'theory to practice' issues.  These two papers certainly do that.

To kick off a discussion, it would be my reflection that Prof Lande's papers are the continuation of a long line of what I would call the linear cause-and-effect approach to mediation practice.   Starting with Christopher Moore's 1986 book 'The Mediation Process' where he describes a sphere of conflict where in each of the five quadrants he lists particular interventions for each cause, to the many papers by John Wade (formally of Bond University) where he provides extensive lists of mediator interventions for particular issues such as 'The Last Gap in Negotiations- How it can be crossed'. All good general advice but it all ends up being just lists of lists.

 It is the mechanical almost Newtonian approach based on the primacy of the mediator's role where power is centered in the mediator to instigate, control and resolve the dispute for the parties. It places the mediator as the heroic 'Dispute Resolver'.  It is more often than not these days built on keeping the parties at arms length (no messy emotions to sidetrack proceedings) and try and cut a deal between the opening positions. It's a narrow positional  approach.

The alternative approach is to treat the mediation process as a series of interactions and counter interactions in which the mediator holds the space for something new and unexpected to emerge.  From a complexity science perspective it's called a 'Complex Adaptive System.  The approach for the mediator is to probe, sense and respond to the immediacy of the moment, looking for an adjacent possible step to move forward.  It's about emergence. It's going with the flow.  See as an example -The Art of the Simple in Mediation - Mediate.com  

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 13-02-2024 12:03 PM
From: Archie Zariski
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Professor John Lande, a leading American dispute resolution academic, has recently authored two useful papers on this topic. They are available at:

Real Practice Systems Project Menu of Mediation Checklists

and

Practitioners Tell Why Real Practice System Checklists Are So Useful

Cheers

------------------------------
Archie Zariski
Professor, Legal Studies - Athabasca University Canada
Athabasca University
Edmonton AB
------------------------------

Wow Archie. How will an AI mediator bot work?

Will it be something parties buy off the shelf at the post office like you can currently buy do-it-yourself wills? 

AI is essentially an algorithm that uses data to produce other data.

One of the biggest issues is transparency about who has trained the AI and how have they done it.

What if the mediation data is drawn from just white Anglo-Saxon middle-aged males with certain social, religious, political and commercial attitudes. What if the data is drawn from neo-Nazis.   'There is no discrimination in AI, discrimination is in the data you feed into it' (Dave Snowden, Impact of AI on HR, with Dave Snowden (youtube.com) )

Therefore, vendor disclosure is essential.

If for instance it is disclosed that the algorithm is based on the data of Prof Lande or Prof Wade, will they have any propriety rights.

If the data is drawn from a composite of every practicing mediator and mediator academic harvested from the Internet, including this conversation we are having on Resolution Institute Open Forum, then there is an averaging distortion. As no two disputes or people are ever the same then this is a problem. AI cannot think independently, understand nuance or the concept of common sense.

Will smart entrepreneurs develop a celebrity deep fake mediator like Elvis, Nelson Mandela or Donald Trump to mediate your dispute.  Will there be a nice guy version through to the head kicker for hard positional disputes. Will there be a package that includes an AI lawyer to give legal advice?

It will be a brave new world where we choose to make our decisions based on algorithms rather than on human judgement and human interaction.

(No AI was used in formulating this response -it was me!!)

Greg, thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

I have no doubt that the practice of mediation, like all human services, has elements of both "art" and "science". Checklists like these are intended to provide a foundation for the "magic" of sincere human interaction to flourish. They also contribute to preserving and transmitting the knowledge gained through practice.

I am curious about the potential of AI to mediate using checklists like these, and all the other digital tools at its disposal (voice, face, and emotion recognition, etc.).

Thank you Archie for introducing these two papers to the Resolution Institute Community.

I have always thought that the RI Members Connect Portal would be a good vehicle for RI Practitioners to exchange thoughts and instigate debates on mediation 'theory to practice' issues.  These two papers certainly do that.

To kick off a discussion, it would be my reflection that Prof Lande's papers are the continuation of a long line of what I would call the linear cause-and-effect approach to mediation practice.   Starting with Christopher Moore's 1986 book 'The Mediation Process' where he describes a sphere of conflict where in each of the five quadrants he lists particular interventions for each cause, to the many papers by John Wade (formally of Bond University) where he provides extensive lists of mediator interventions for particular issues such as 'The Last Gap in Negotiations- How it can be crossed'. All good general advice but it all ends up being just lists of lists.

 It is the mechanical almost Newtonian approach based on the primacy of the mediator's role where power is centered in the mediator to instigate, control and resolve the dispute for the parties. It places the mediator as the heroic 'Dispute Resolver'.  It is more often than not these days built on keeping the parties at arms length (no messy emotions to sidetrack proceedings) and try and cut a deal between the opening positions. It's a narrow positional  approach.

The alternative approach is to treat the mediation process as a series of interactions and counter interactions in which the mediator holds the space for something new and unexpected to emerge.  From a complexity science perspective it's called a 'Complex Adaptive System.  The approach for the mediator is to probe, sense and respond to the immediacy of the moment, looking for an adjacent possible step to move forward.  It's about emergence. It's going with the flow.  See as an example -The Art of the Simple in Mediation - Mediate.com  

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 13-02-2024 12:03 PM
From: Archie Zariski
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Professor John Lande, a leading American dispute resolution academic, has recently authored two useful papers on this topic. They are available at:

Real Practice Systems Project Menu of Mediation Checklists

and

Practitioners Tell Why Real Practice System Checklists Are So Useful

Cheers

------------------------------
Archie Zariski
Professor, Legal Studies - Athabasca University Canada
Athabasca University
Edmonton AB
------------------------------

Wow Archie. How will an AI mediator bot work?

Will it be something parties buy off the shelf at the post office like you can currently buy do-it-yourself wills? 

AI is essentially an algorithm that uses data to produce other data.

One of the biggest issues is transparency about who has trained the AI and how have they done it.

What if the mediation data is drawn from just white Anglo-Saxon middle-aged males with certain social, religious, political and commercial attitudes. What if the data is drawn from neo-Nazis.   'There is no discrimination in AI, discrimination is in the data you feed into it' (Dave Snowden, Impact of AI on HR, with Dave Snowden (youtube.com) )

Therefore, vendor disclosure is essential.

If for instance it is disclosed that the algorithm is based on the data of Prof Lande or Prof Wade, will they have any propriety rights.

If the data is drawn from a composite of every practicing mediator and mediator academic harvested from the Internet, including this conversation we are having on Resolution Institute Open Forum, then there is an averaging distortion. As no two disputes or people are ever the same then this is a problem. AI cannot think independently, understand nuance or the concept of common sense.

Will smart entrepreneurs develop a celebrity deep fake mediator like Elvis, Nelson Mandela or Donald Trump to mediate your dispute.  Will there be a nice guy version through to the head kicker for hard positional disputes. Will there be a package that includes an AI lawyer to give legal advice?

It will be a brave new world where we choose to make our decisions based on algorithms rather than on human judgement and human interaction.

(No AI was used in formulating this response -it was me!!)

Greg, thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

I have no doubt that the practice of mediation, like all human services, has elements of both "art" and "science". Checklists like these are intended to provide a foundation for the "magic" of sincere human interaction to flourish. They also contribute to preserving and transmitting the knowledge gained through practice.

I am curious about the potential of AI to mediate using checklists like these, and all the other digital tools at its disposal (voice, face, and emotion recognition, etc.).

Thank you Archie for introducing these two papers to the Resolution Institute Community.

I have always thought that the RI Members Connect Portal would be a good vehicle for RI Practitioners to exchange thoughts and instigate debates on mediation 'theory to practice' issues.  These two papers certainly do that.

To kick off a discussion, it would be my reflection that Prof Lande's papers are the continuation of a long line of what I would call the linear cause-and-effect approach to mediation practice.   Starting with Christopher Moore's 1986 book 'The Mediation Process' where he describes a sphere of conflict where in each of the five quadrants he lists particular interventions for each cause, to the many papers by John Wade (formally of Bond University) where he provides extensive lists of mediator interventions for particular issues such as 'The Last Gap in Negotiations- How it can be crossed'. All good general advice but it all ends up being just lists of lists.

 It is the mechanical almost Newtonian approach based on the primacy of the mediator's role where power is centered in the mediator to instigate, control and resolve the dispute for the parties. It places the mediator as the heroic 'Dispute Resolver'.  It is more often than not these days built on keeping the parties at arms length (no messy emotions to sidetrack proceedings) and try and cut a deal between the opening positions. It's a narrow positional  approach.

The alternative approach is to treat the mediation process as a series of interactions and counter interactions in which the mediator holds the space for something new and unexpected to emerge.  From a complexity science perspective it's called a 'Complex Adaptive System.  The approach for the mediator is to probe, sense and respond to the immediacy of the moment, looking for an adjacent possible step to move forward.  It's about emergence. It's going with the flow.  See as an example -The Art of the Simple in Mediation - Mediate.com  

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 13-02-2024 12:03 PM
From: Archie Zariski
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Professor John Lande, a leading American dispute resolution academic, has recently authored two useful papers on this topic. They are available at:

Real Practice Systems Project Menu of Mediation Checklists

and

Practitioners Tell Why Real Practice System Checklists Are So Useful

Cheers

------------------------------
Archie Zariski
Professor, Legal Studies - Athabasca University Canada
Athabasca University
Edmonton AB
------------------------------

Wow Archie. How will an AI mediator bot work?

Will it be something parties buy off the shelf at the post office like you can currently buy do-it-yourself wills? 

AI is essentially an algorithm that uses data to produce other data.

One of the biggest issues is transparency about who has trained the AI and how have they done it.

What if the mediation data is drawn from just white Anglo-Saxon middle-aged males with certain social, religious, political and commercial attitudes. What if the data is drawn from neo-Nazis.   'There is no discrimination in AI, discrimination is in the data you feed into it' (Dave Snowden, Impact of AI on HR, with Dave Snowden (youtube.com) )

Therefore, vendor disclosure is essential.

If for instance it is disclosed that the algorithm is based on the data of Prof Lande or Prof Wade, will they have any propriety rights.

If the data is drawn from a composite of every practicing mediator and mediator academic harvested from the Internet, including this conversation we are having on Resolution Institute Open Forum, then there is an averaging distortion. As no two disputes or people are ever the same then this is a problem. AI cannot think independently, understand nuance or the concept of common sense.

Will smart entrepreneurs develop a celebrity deep fake mediator like Elvis, Nelson Mandela or Donald Trump to mediate your dispute.  Will there be a nice guy version through to the head kicker for hard positional disputes. Will there be a package that includes an AI lawyer to give legal advice?

It will be a brave new world where we choose to make our decisions based on algorithms rather than on human judgement and human interaction.

(No AI was used in formulating this response -it was me!!)

Greg, thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

I have no doubt that the practice of mediation, like all human services, has elements of both "art" and "science". Checklists like these are intended to provide a foundation for the "magic" of sincere human interaction to flourish. They also contribute to preserving and transmitting the knowledge gained through practice.

I am curious about the potential of AI to mediate using checklists like these, and all the other digital tools at its disposal (voice, face, and emotion recognition, etc.).

Thank you Archie for introducing these two papers to the Resolution Institute Community.

I have always thought that the RI Members Connect Portal would be a good vehicle for RI Practitioners to exchange thoughts and instigate debates on mediation 'theory to practice' issues.  These two papers certainly do that.

To kick off a discussion, it would be my reflection that Prof Lande's papers are the continuation of a long line of what I would call the linear cause-and-effect approach to mediation practice.   Starting with Christopher Moore's 1986 book 'The Mediation Process' where he describes a sphere of conflict where in each of the five quadrants he lists particular interventions for each cause, to the many papers by John Wade (formally of Bond University) where he provides extensive lists of mediator interventions for particular issues such as 'The Last Gap in Negotiations- How it can be crossed'. All good general advice but it all ends up being just lists of lists.

 It is the mechanical almost Newtonian approach based on the primacy of the mediator's role where power is centered in the mediator to instigate, control and resolve the dispute for the parties. It places the mediator as the heroic 'Dispute Resolver'.  It is more often than not these days built on keeping the parties at arms length (no messy emotions to sidetrack proceedings) and try and cut a deal between the opening positions. It's a narrow positional  approach.

The alternative approach is to treat the mediation process as a series of interactions and counter interactions in which the mediator holds the space for something new and unexpected to emerge.  From a complexity science perspective it's called a 'Complex Adaptive System.  The approach for the mediator is to probe, sense and respond to the immediacy of the moment, looking for an adjacent possible step to move forward.  It's about emergence. It's going with the flow.  See as an example -The Art of the Simple in Mediation - Mediate.com  

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 13-02-2024 12:03 PM
From: Archie Zariski
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Professor John Lande, a leading American dispute resolution academic, has recently authored two useful papers on this topic. They are available at:

Real Practice Systems Project Menu of Mediation Checklists

and

Practitioners Tell Why Real Practice System Checklists Are So Useful

Cheers

------------------------------
Archie Zariski
Professor, Legal Studies - Athabasca University Canada
Athabasca University
Edmonton AB
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 2/18/2024 3:29:00 AM
From: Greg Rooney
Subject: RE: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Wow Archie. How will an AI mediator bot work?

Will it be something parties buy off the shelf at the post office like you can currently buy do-it-yourself wills? 

AI is essentially an algorithm that uses data to produce other data.

One of the biggest issues is transparency about who has trained the AI and how have they done it.

What if the mediation data is drawn from just white Anglo-Saxon middle-aged males with certain social, religious, political and commercial attitudes. What if the data is drawn from neo-Nazis.   'There is no discrimination in AI, discrimination is in the data you feed into it' (Dave Snowden, Impact of AI on HR, with Dave Snowden (youtube.com) )

Therefore, vendor disclosure is essential.

If for instance it is disclosed that the algorithm is based on the data of Prof Lande or Prof Wade, will they have any propriety rights.

If the data is drawn from a composite of every practicing mediator and mediator academic harvested from the Internet, including this conversation we are having on Resolution Institute Open Forum, then there is an averaging distortion. As no two disputes or people are ever the same then this is a problem. AI cannot think independently, understand nuance or the concept of common sense.

Will smart entrepreneurs develop a celebrity deep fake mediator like Elvis, Nelson Mandela or Donald Trump to mediate your dispute.  Will there be a nice guy version through to the head kicker for hard positional disputes. Will there be a package that includes an AI lawyer to give legal advice?

It will be a brave new world where we choose to make our decisions based on algorithms rather than on human judgement and human interaction.

(No AI was used in formulating this response -it was me!!)

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 15-02-2024 10:16 AM
From: Archie Zariski
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Greg, thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

I have no doubt that the practice of mediation, like all human services, has elements of both "art" and "science". Checklists like these are intended to provide a foundation for the "magic" of sincere human interaction to flourish. They also contribute to preserving and transmitting the knowledge gained through practice.

I am curious about the potential of AI to mediate using checklists like these, and all the other digital tools at its disposal (voice, face, and emotion recognition, etc.).

------------------------------
Archie Zariski
Professor, Legal Studies - Athabasca University Canada
Athabasca University
Edmonton AB

Original Message:
Sent: 14-02-2024 09:37 PM
From: Greg Rooney
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Thank you Archie for introducing these two papers to the Resolution Institute Community.

I have always thought that the RI Members Connect Portal would be a good vehicle for RI Practitioners to exchange thoughts and instigate debates on mediation 'theory to practice' issues.  These two papers certainly do that.

To kick off a discussion, it would be my reflection that Prof Lande's papers are the continuation of a long line of what I would call the linear cause-and-effect approach to mediation practice.   Starting with Christopher Moore's 1986 book 'The Mediation Process' where he describes a sphere of conflict where in each of the five quadrants he lists particular interventions for each cause, to the many papers by John Wade (formally of Bond University) where he provides extensive lists of mediator interventions for particular issues such as 'The Last Gap in Negotiations- How it can be crossed'. All good general advice but it all ends up being just lists of lists.

 It is the mechanical almost Newtonian approach based on the primacy of the mediator's role where power is centered in the mediator to instigate, control and resolve the dispute for the parties. It places the mediator as the heroic 'Dispute Resolver'.  It is more often than not these days built on keeping the parties at arms length (no messy emotions to sidetrack proceedings) and try and cut a deal between the opening positions. It's a narrow positional  approach.

The alternative approach is to treat the mediation process as a series of interactions and counter interactions in which the mediator holds the space for something new and unexpected to emerge.  From a complexity science perspective it's called a 'Complex Adaptive System.  The approach for the mediator is to probe, sense and respond to the immediacy of the moment, looking for an adjacent possible step to move forward.  It's about emergence. It's going with the flow.  See as an example -The Art of the Simple in Mediation - Mediate.com  

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 13-02-2024 12:03 PM
From: Archie Zariski
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Professor John Lande, a leading American dispute resolution academic, has recently authored two useful papers on this topic. They are available at:

Real Practice Systems Project Menu of Mediation Checklists

and

Practitioners Tell Why Real Practice System Checklists Are So Useful

Cheers

------------------------------
Archie Zariski
Professor, Legal Studies - Athabasca University Canada
Athabasca University
Edmonton AB
------------------------------

AI is really just harvesting past data to inform present decision-making.   

It's in that context that I was critiquing Archie's Prof Lande's checklists, Christopher Moore's 'Circle of Conflict' linking causes to interventions through the many papers with lists of tips and tricks that pass for mediation theory. These lists are just another form of data.

I am not criticising the continent of the data as it is all very good advice. Perfect for basic mediation training and for novice mediators as they learn to master their skills.

But there comes a point for mediators where you have to let go of these training wheels and engage in the flow of uncertainty and complexity of human interaction inherent in the mediation setting.

The main problem with these lists of good advice is that they are context free.

 Context is everything in mediation. Context is a fluid property changing constantly. For a mediator, it requires nuance, common sense, intuition, abstraction, discrimination, discretion and just being a social human being. It can't be distilled into a list of tips and tricks.

This is very relevant in light of the decision of the Mediator Standards Board (MSB) to introduce the concept of Advanced Mediator, Specialist Practitioner and Leading Practitioner.

The challenge for the MSB is to define what constitutes advanced practice. It cannot be just  longer training hours, more advanced mediation tips and tricks, war stories and data.  It has to face the issue  of the complex unpredictable nature of mediation practice.

A good start would be a set of mediator heuristics that would apply in all mediation contexts that would be a way of framing advanced practitioner assessments. 

See Part 11 of the following paper for a suggested list of mediator heuristics at page 10.

 NMC-2023-Final-.pdf (gregrooney.com.au) also available on SSRN at To Be or Not to Be Human That is the Question for Mediators by Greg Rooney, Margaret Ross :: SSRN

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 20-02-2024 09:24 AM
From: Joanne Karamesinis
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Hello everyone,
It's been very interesting to hear the discussion about AI in mediation. I think one of the most frustrating aspects of AI is that often it's inflexible in understanding comments or questions. Anyone tried to ask an AI customer service assistant a simple question and it pertly answers " I do not understand!"?

I think anything that frustrates communication in any way would be detrimental to meditation. In fact one of the most transformative components of meditation is being heard (and hopefully understood). Anything that would impede this critical process would seriously undermine the effectiveness and efficiency of Mediation.

By the way these comments may be completely self serving as a newly accredited Mediator- anyone willing to be my Mentor?

Best wishes Joanne Karamesinis


Original Message:
Sent: 2/18/2024 3:25:00 PM
From: Anthony Photiadis
Subject: RE: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Original Message:
Sent: 2/18/2024 3:29:00 AM
From: Greg Rooney
Subject: RE: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Wow Archie. How will an AI mediator bot work?

Will it be something parties buy off the shelf at the post office like you can currently buy do-it-yourself wills? 

AI is essentially an algorithm that uses data to produce other data.

One of the biggest issues is transparency about who has trained the AI and how have they done it.

What if the mediation data is drawn from just white Anglo-Saxon middle-aged males with certain social, religious, political and commercial attitudes. What if the data is drawn from neo-Nazis.   'There is no discrimination in AI, discrimination is in the data you feed into it' (Dave Snowden, Impact of AI on HR, with Dave Snowden (youtube.com) )

Therefore, vendor disclosure is essential.

If for instance it is disclosed that the algorithm is based on the data of Prof Lande or Prof Wade, will they have any propriety rights.

If the data is drawn from a composite of every practicing mediator and mediator academic harvested from the Internet, including this conversation we are having on Resolution Institute Open Forum, then there is an averaging distortion. As no two disputes or people are ever the same then this is a problem. AI cannot think independently, understand nuance or the concept of common sense.

Will smart entrepreneurs develop a celebrity deep fake mediator like Elvis, Nelson Mandela or Donald Trump to mediate your dispute.  Will there be a nice guy version through to the head kicker for hard positional disputes. Will there be a package that includes an AI lawyer to give legal advice?

It will be a brave new world where we choose to make our decisions based on algorithms rather than on human judgement and human interaction.

(No AI was used in formulating this response -it was me!!)

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 15-02-2024 10:16 AM
From: Archie Zariski
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Greg, thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

I have no doubt that the practice of mediation, like all human services, has elements of both "art" and "science". Checklists like these are intended to provide a foundation for the "magic" of sincere human interaction to flourish. They also contribute to preserving and transmitting the knowledge gained through practice.

I am curious about the potential of AI to mediate using checklists like these, and all the other digital tools at its disposal (voice, face, and emotion recognition, etc.).

------------------------------
Archie Zariski
Professor, Legal Studies - Athabasca University Canada
Athabasca University
Edmonton AB

Original Message:
Sent: 14-02-2024 09:37 PM
From: Greg Rooney
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Thank you Archie for introducing these two papers to the Resolution Institute Community.

I have always thought that the RI Members Connect Portal would be a good vehicle for RI Practitioners to exchange thoughts and instigate debates on mediation 'theory to practice' issues.  These two papers certainly do that.

To kick off a discussion, it would be my reflection that Prof Lande's papers are the continuation of a long line of what I would call the linear cause-and-effect approach to mediation practice.   Starting with Christopher Moore's 1986 book 'The Mediation Process' where he describes a sphere of conflict where in each of the five quadrants he lists particular interventions for each cause, to the many papers by John Wade (formally of Bond University) where he provides extensive lists of mediator interventions for particular issues such as 'The Last Gap in Negotiations- How it can be crossed'. All good general advice but it all ends up being just lists of lists.

 It is the mechanical almost Newtonian approach based on the primacy of the mediator's role where power is centered in the mediator to instigate, control and resolve the dispute for the parties. It places the mediator as the heroic 'Dispute Resolver'.  It is more often than not these days built on keeping the parties at arms length (no messy emotions to sidetrack proceedings) and try and cut a deal between the opening positions. It's a narrow positional  approach.

The alternative approach is to treat the mediation process as a series of interactions and counter interactions in which the mediator holds the space for something new and unexpected to emerge.  From a complexity science perspective it's called a 'Complex Adaptive System.  The approach for the mediator is to probe, sense and respond to the immediacy of the moment, looking for an adjacent possible step to move forward.  It's about emergence. It's going with the flow.  See as an example -The Art of the Simple in Mediation - Mediate.com  

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 13-02-2024 12:03 PM
From: Archie Zariski
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Professor John Lande, a leading American dispute resolution academic, has recently authored two useful papers on this topic. They are available at:

Real Practice Systems Project Menu of Mediation Checklists

and

Practitioners Tell Why Real Practice System Checklists Are So Useful

Cheers

------------------------------
Archie Zariski
Professor, Legal Studies - Athabasca University Canada
Athabasca University
Edmonton AB
------------------------------

Greg, agreed, understanding what makes a good mediator is a complex subject which I touch on in my paper "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants" (attached). There is artistry as well as knowledge, experience, empathy and wisdom - all of which makes us human.

In the 1980s and 90s there was a wave of research on the qualities of a good mediator, but academia has, it appears, since lost interest in that question. I explored some of the theory that might help to form a competent mediator in my article "A Theory Matrix for Mediators", Negotiation Journal, Vol 26 No 2 pp.203-235 (April 2010).

The ADR Institute of Canada has adopted a scheme of professional designations which may be a useful reference in implementing the MSB categories.

AI is really just harvesting past data to inform present decision-making.   

It's in that context that I was critiquing Archie's Prof Lande's checklists, Christopher Moore's 'Circle of Conflict' linking causes to interventions through the many papers with lists of tips and tricks that pass for mediation theory. These lists are just another form of data.

I am not criticising the continent of the data as it is all very good advice. Perfect for basic mediation training and for novice mediators as they learn to master their skills.

But there comes a point for mediators where you have to let go of these training wheels and engage in the flow of uncertainty and complexity of human interaction inherent in the mediation setting.

The main problem with these lists of good advice is that they are context free.

 Context is everything in mediation. Context is a fluid property changing constantly. For a mediator, it requires nuance, common sense, intuition, abstraction, discrimination, discretion and just being a social human being. It can't be distilled into a list of tips and tricks.

This is very relevant in light of the decision of the Mediator Standards Board (MSB) to introduce the concept of Advanced Mediator, Specialist Practitioner and Leading Practitioner.

The challenge for the MSB is to define what constitutes advanced practice. It cannot be just  longer training hours, more advanced mediation tips and tricks, war stories and data.  It has to face the issue  of the complex unpredictable nature of mediation practice.

A good start would be a set of mediator heuristics that would apply in all mediation contexts that would be a way of framing advanced practitioner assessments. 

See Part 11 of the following paper for a suggested list of mediator heuristics at page 10.

 NMC-2023-Final-.pdf (gregrooney.com.au) also available on SSRN at To Be or Not to Be Human That is the Question for Mediators by Greg Rooney, Margaret Ross :: SSRN

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 20-02-2024 09:24 AM
From: Joanne Karamesinis
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Hello everyone,
It's been very interesting to hear the discussion about AI in mediation. I think one of the most frustrating aspects of AI is that often it's inflexible in understanding comments or questions. Anyone tried to ask an AI customer service assistant a simple question and it pertly answers " I do not understand!"?

I think anything that frustrates communication in any way would be detrimental to meditation. In fact one of the most transformative components of meditation is being heard (and hopefully understood). Anything that would impede this critical process would seriously undermine the effectiveness and efficiency of Mediation.

By the way these comments may be completely self serving as a newly accredited Mediator- anyone willing to be my Mentor?

Best wishes Joanne Karamesinis


Original Message:
Sent: 2/18/2024 3:25:00 PM
From: Anthony Photiadis
Subject: RE: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Original Message:
Sent: 2/18/2024 3:29:00 AM
From: Greg Rooney
Subject: RE: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Wow Archie. How will an AI mediator bot work?

Will it be something parties buy off the shelf at the post office like you can currently buy do-it-yourself wills? 

AI is essentially an algorithm that uses data to produce other data.

One of the biggest issues is transparency about who has trained the AI and how have they done it.

What if the mediation data is drawn from just white Anglo-Saxon middle-aged males with certain social, religious, political and commercial attitudes. What if the data is drawn from neo-Nazis.   'There is no discrimination in AI, discrimination is in the data you feed into it' (Dave Snowden, Impact of AI on HR, with Dave Snowden (youtube.com) )

Therefore, vendor disclosure is essential.

If for instance it is disclosed that the algorithm is based on the data of Prof Lande or Prof Wade, will they have any propriety rights.

If the data is drawn from a composite of every practicing mediator and mediator academic harvested from the Internet, including this conversation we are having on Resolution Institute Open Forum, then there is an averaging distortion. As no two disputes or people are ever the same then this is a problem. AI cannot think independently, understand nuance or the concept of common sense.

Will smart entrepreneurs develop a celebrity deep fake mediator like Elvis, Nelson Mandela or Donald Trump to mediate your dispute.  Will there be a nice guy version through to the head kicker for hard positional disputes. Will there be a package that includes an AI lawyer to give legal advice?

It will be a brave new world where we choose to make our decisions based on algorithms rather than on human judgement and human interaction.

(No AI was used in formulating this response -it was me!!)

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 15-02-2024 10:16 AM
From: Archie Zariski
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Greg, thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

I have no doubt that the practice of mediation, like all human services, has elements of both "art" and "science". Checklists like these are intended to provide a foundation for the "magic" of sincere human interaction to flourish. They also contribute to preserving and transmitting the knowledge gained through practice.

I am curious about the potential of AI to mediate using checklists like these, and all the other digital tools at its disposal (voice, face, and emotion recognition, etc.).

------------------------------
Archie Zariski
Professor, Legal Studies - Athabasca University Canada
Athabasca University
Edmonton AB

Original Message:
Sent: 14-02-2024 09:37 PM
From: Greg Rooney
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Thank you Archie for introducing these two papers to the Resolution Institute Community.

I have always thought that the RI Members Connect Portal would be a good vehicle for RI Practitioners to exchange thoughts and instigate debates on mediation 'theory to practice' issues.  These two papers certainly do that.

To kick off a discussion, it would be my reflection that Prof Lande's papers are the continuation of a long line of what I would call the linear cause-and-effect approach to mediation practice.   Starting with Christopher Moore's 1986 book 'The Mediation Process' where he describes a sphere of conflict where in each of the five quadrants he lists particular interventions for each cause, to the many papers by John Wade (formally of Bond University) where he provides extensive lists of mediator interventions for particular issues such as 'The Last Gap in Negotiations- How it can be crossed'. All good general advice but it all ends up being just lists of lists.

 It is the mechanical almost Newtonian approach based on the primacy of the mediator's role where power is centered in the mediator to instigate, control and resolve the dispute for the parties. It places the mediator as the heroic 'Dispute Resolver'.  It is more often than not these days built on keeping the parties at arms length (no messy emotions to sidetrack proceedings) and try and cut a deal between the opening positions. It's a narrow positional  approach.

The alternative approach is to treat the mediation process as a series of interactions and counter interactions in which the mediator holds the space for something new and unexpected to emerge.  From a complexity science perspective it's called a 'Complex Adaptive System.  The approach for the mediator is to probe, sense and respond to the immediacy of the moment, looking for an adjacent possible step to move forward.  It's about emergence. It's going with the flow.  See as an example -The Art of the Simple in Mediation - Mediate.com  

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 13-02-2024 12:03 PM
From: Archie Zariski
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Professor John Lande, a leading American dispute resolution academic, has recently authored two useful papers on this topic. They are available at:

Real Practice Systems Project Menu of Mediation Checklists

and

Practitioners Tell Why Real Practice System Checklists Are So Useful

Cheers

------------------------------
Archie Zariski
Professor, Legal Studies - Athabasca University Canada
Athabasca University
Edmonton AB
------------------------------

Greg, agreed, understanding what makes a good mediator is a complex subject which I touch on in my paper "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants" (attached). There is artistry as well as knowledge, experience, empathy and wisdom - all of which makes us human.

In the 1980s and 90s there was a wave of research on the qualities of a good mediator, but academia has, it appears, since lost interest in that question. I explored some of the theory that might help to form a competent mediator in my article "A Theory Matrix for Mediators", Negotiation Journal, Vol 26 No 2 pp.203-235 (April 2010).

The ADR Institute of Canada has adopted a scheme of professional designations which may be a useful reference in implementing the MSB categories.

AI is really just harvesting past data to inform present decision-making.   

It's in that context that I was critiquing Archie's Prof Lande's checklists, Christopher Moore's 'Circle of Conflict' linking causes to interventions through the many papers with lists of tips and tricks that pass for mediation theory. These lists are just another form of data.

I am not criticising the continent of the data as it is all very good advice. Perfect for basic mediation training and for novice mediators as they learn to master their skills.

But there comes a point for mediators where you have to let go of these training wheels and engage in the flow of uncertainty and complexity of human interaction inherent in the mediation setting.

The main problem with these lists of good advice is that they are context free.

 Context is everything in mediation. Context is a fluid property changing constantly. For a mediator, it requires nuance, common sense, intuition, abstraction, discrimination, discretion and just being a social human being. It can't be distilled into a list of tips and tricks.

This is very relevant in light of the decision of the Mediator Standards Board (MSB) to introduce the concept of Advanced Mediator, Specialist Practitioner and Leading Practitioner.

The challenge for the MSB is to define what constitutes advanced practice. It cannot be just  longer training hours, more advanced mediation tips and tricks, war stories and data.  It has to face the issue  of the complex unpredictable nature of mediation practice.

A good start would be a set of mediator heuristics that would apply in all mediation contexts that would be a way of framing advanced practitioner assessments. 

See Part 11 of the following paper for a suggested list of mediator heuristics at page 10.

 NMC-2023-Final-.pdf (gregrooney.com.au) also available on SSRN at To Be or Not to Be Human That is the Question for Mediators by Greg Rooney, Margaret Ross :: SSRN

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 20-02-2024 09:24 AM
From: Joanne Karamesinis
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Hello everyone,
It's been very interesting to hear the discussion about AI in mediation. I think one of the most frustrating aspects of AI is that often it's inflexible in understanding comments or questions. Anyone tried to ask an AI customer service assistant a simple question and it pertly answers " I do not understand!"?

I think anything that frustrates communication in any way would be detrimental to meditation. In fact one of the most transformative components of meditation is being heard (and hopefully understood). Anything that would impede this critical process would seriously undermine the effectiveness and efficiency of Mediation.

By the way these comments may be completely self serving as a newly accredited Mediator- anyone willing to be my Mentor?

Best wishes Joanne Karamesinis


Original Message:
Sent: 2/18/2024 3:25:00 PM
From: Anthony Photiadis
Subject: RE: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Original Message:
Sent: 2/18/2024 3:29:00 AM
From: Greg Rooney
Subject: RE: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Wow Archie. How will an AI mediator bot work?

Will it be something parties buy off the shelf at the post office like you can currently buy do-it-yourself wills? 

AI is essentially an algorithm that uses data to produce other data.

One of the biggest issues is transparency about who has trained the AI and how have they done it.

What if the mediation data is drawn from just white Anglo-Saxon middle-aged males with certain social, religious, political and commercial attitudes. What if the data is drawn from neo-Nazis.   'There is no discrimination in AI, discrimination is in the data you feed into it' (Dave Snowden, Impact of AI on HR, with Dave Snowden (youtube.com) )

Therefore, vendor disclosure is essential.

If for instance it is disclosed that the algorithm is based on the data of Prof Lande or Prof Wade, will they have any propriety rights.

If the data is drawn from a composite of every practicing mediator and mediator academic harvested from the Internet, including this conversation we are having on Resolution Institute Open Forum, then there is an averaging distortion. As no two disputes or people are ever the same then this is a problem. AI cannot think independently, understand nuance or the concept of common sense.

Will smart entrepreneurs develop a celebrity deep fake mediator like Elvis, Nelson Mandela or Donald Trump to mediate your dispute.  Will there be a nice guy version through to the head kicker for hard positional disputes. Will there be a package that includes an AI lawyer to give legal advice?

It will be a brave new world where we choose to make our decisions based on algorithms rather than on human judgement and human interaction.

(No AI was used in formulating this response -it was me!!)

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 15-02-2024 10:16 AM
From: Archie Zariski
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Greg, thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

I have no doubt that the practice of mediation, like all human services, has elements of both "art" and "science". Checklists like these are intended to provide a foundation for the "magic" of sincere human interaction to flourish. They also contribute to preserving and transmitting the knowledge gained through practice.

I am curious about the potential of AI to mediate using checklists like these, and all the other digital tools at its disposal (voice, face, and emotion recognition, etc.).

------------------------------
Archie Zariski
Professor, Legal Studies - Athabasca University Canada
Athabasca University
Edmonton AB

Original Message:
Sent: 14-02-2024 09:37 PM
From: Greg Rooney
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Thank you Archie for introducing these two papers to the Resolution Institute Community.

I have always thought that the RI Members Connect Portal would be a good vehicle for RI Practitioners to exchange thoughts and instigate debates on mediation 'theory to practice' issues.  These two papers certainly do that.

To kick off a discussion, it would be my reflection that Prof Lande's papers are the continuation of a long line of what I would call the linear cause-and-effect approach to mediation practice.   Starting with Christopher Moore's 1986 book 'The Mediation Process' where he describes a sphere of conflict where in each of the five quadrants he lists particular interventions for each cause, to the many papers by John Wade (formally of Bond University) where he provides extensive lists of mediator interventions for particular issues such as 'The Last Gap in Negotiations- How it can be crossed'. All good general advice but it all ends up being just lists of lists.

 It is the mechanical almost Newtonian approach based on the primacy of the mediator's role where power is centered in the mediator to instigate, control and resolve the dispute for the parties. It places the mediator as the heroic 'Dispute Resolver'.  It is more often than not these days built on keeping the parties at arms length (no messy emotions to sidetrack proceedings) and try and cut a deal between the opening positions. It's a narrow positional  approach.

The alternative approach is to treat the mediation process as a series of interactions and counter interactions in which the mediator holds the space for something new and unexpected to emerge.  From a complexity science perspective it's called a 'Complex Adaptive System.  The approach for the mediator is to probe, sense and respond to the immediacy of the moment, looking for an adjacent possible step to move forward.  It's about emergence. It's going with the flow.  See as an example -The Art of the Simple in Mediation - Mediate.com  

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 13-02-2024 12:03 PM
From: Archie Zariski
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Professor John Lande, a leading American dispute resolution academic, has recently authored two useful papers on this topic. They are available at:

Real Practice Systems Project Menu of Mediation Checklists

and

Practitioners Tell Why Real Practice System Checklists Are So Useful

Cheers

------------------------------
Archie Zariski
Professor, Legal Studies - Athabasca University Canada
Athabasca University
Edmonton AB
------------------------------

Wow Archie. How will an AI mediator bot work?

Will it be something parties buy off the shelf at the post office like you can currently buy do-it-yourself wills? 

AI is essentially an algorithm that uses data to produce other data.

One of the biggest issues is transparency about who has trained the AI and how have they done it.

What if the mediation data is drawn from just white Anglo-Saxon middle-aged males with certain social, religious, political and commercial attitudes. What if the data is drawn from neo-Nazis.   'There is no discrimination in AI, discrimination is in the data you feed into it' (Dave Snowden, Impact of AI on HR, with Dave Snowden (youtube.com) )

Therefore, vendor disclosure is essential.

If for instance it is disclosed that the algorithm is based on the data of Prof Lande or Prof Wade, will they have any propriety rights.

If the data is drawn from a composite of every practicing mediator and mediator academic harvested from the Internet, including this conversation we are having on Resolution Institute Open Forum, then there is an averaging distortion. As no two disputes or people are ever the same then this is a problem. AI cannot think independently, understand nuance or the concept of common sense.

Will smart entrepreneurs develop a celebrity deep fake mediator like Elvis, Nelson Mandela or Donald Trump to mediate your dispute.  Will there be a nice guy version through to the head kicker for hard positional disputes. Will there be a package that includes an AI lawyer to give legal advice?

It will be a brave new world where we choose to make our decisions based on algorithms rather than on human judgement and human interaction.

(No AI was used in formulating this response -it was me!!)

Greg, thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

I have no doubt that the practice of mediation, like all human services, has elements of both "art" and "science". Checklists like these are intended to provide a foundation for the "magic" of sincere human interaction to flourish. They also contribute to preserving and transmitting the knowledge gained through practice.

I am curious about the potential of AI to mediate using checklists like these, and all the other digital tools at its disposal (voice, face, and emotion recognition, etc.).

Thank you Archie for introducing these two papers to the Resolution Institute Community.

I have always thought that the RI Members Connect Portal would be a good vehicle for RI Practitioners to exchange thoughts and instigate debates on mediation 'theory to practice' issues.  These two papers certainly do that.

To kick off a discussion, it would be my reflection that Prof Lande's papers are the continuation of a long line of what I would call the linear cause-and-effect approach to mediation practice.   Starting with Christopher Moore's 1986 book 'The Mediation Process' where he describes a sphere of conflict where in each of the five quadrants he lists particular interventions for each cause, to the many papers by John Wade (formally of Bond University) where he provides extensive lists of mediator interventions for particular issues such as 'The Last Gap in Negotiations- How it can be crossed'. All good general advice but it all ends up being just lists of lists.

 It is the mechanical almost Newtonian approach based on the primacy of the mediator's role where power is centered in the mediator to instigate, control and resolve the dispute for the parties. It places the mediator as the heroic 'Dispute Resolver'.  It is more often than not these days built on keeping the parties at arms length (no messy emotions to sidetrack proceedings) and try and cut a deal between the opening positions. It's a narrow positional  approach.

The alternative approach is to treat the mediation process as a series of interactions and counter interactions in which the mediator holds the space for something new and unexpected to emerge.  From a complexity science perspective it's called a 'Complex Adaptive System.  The approach for the mediator is to probe, sense and respond to the immediacy of the moment, looking for an adjacent possible step to move forward.  It's about emergence. It's going with the flow.  See as an example -The Art of the Simple in Mediation - Mediate.com  

------------------------------
Greg Rooney
Mediator
Mediator
Mount George SA
61405612789

Original Message:
Sent: 13-02-2024 12:03 PM
From: Archie Zariski
Subject: Mediation Practitioner Checklist

Professor John Lande, a leading American dispute resolution academic, has recently authored two useful papers on this topic. They are available at:

Real Practice Systems Project Menu of Mediation Checklists

and

Practitioners Tell Why Real Practice System Checklists Are So Useful

Cheers

------------------------------
Archie Zariski
Professor, Legal Studies - Athabasca University Canada
Athabasca University
Edmonton AB
------------------------------

Professor John Lande, a leading American dispute resolution academic, has recently authored two useful papers on this topic. They are available at:

Real Practice Systems Project Menu of Mediation Checklists

and

Practitioners Tell Why Real Practice System Checklists Are So Useful

Cheers