Mediation Competency Models

Another basic conflict arena that early researchers explored was mediation. Mediation differed from negotiation in that a third party intervened to assist the dispu­tants in managing conflict.

Drawing from negotiation research, ini­tial studies of communication and mediation compared strategies and tactics, phases of successful and unsuccessful mediations, and communication patterns of competent media­tors. One of the earliest studies in the field focused on persuasion and wrestled with dif­ferences among bluffing, coercion, and influ­ence in mediation (Keltner, 1965). This study also highlighted the mediator’s role in framing issues for disputants, serving as a communica­tion conduit between parties, and helping par­ties explore solutions.

Disenchanted with the growing list of tac­tics drawn from labor-management media­tion, Jones (1989b) developed a taxonomy of communication strategies and tactics used in divorce mediations, one that clustered into the general functions of facilitation, substan­tive direction, and procedural control. Using a systems interaction approach, she compared the distribution of these tactics across phases of agreement and no-agreement mediations.

The role of different tactics at various stages of mediation, then, pointed to the need for competency models based on the appropriate timing of mediator interventions (Donohue, 1989, 1991). For example, to avoid conflict cycles, mediators should intervene immedi­ately following a disputant’s attack on the other party. To adjust to the disputants’ emo­tional intensity, mediators needed to intensify framing early in the process, use structuring strategies in the middle, and decrease lan­guage intensity in the latter stages (Donohue, 1991).

Overall, communication research has made important contributions to understanding the microprocesses of mediator interventions. Critique of this work has led to the growth of new models that challenge problem-solving approaches to mediation. In particular, trans­formational mediation is an interaction-based model that treats disputes as opportunities for moral growth, empowerment, and recogni­tion (Bush & Folger, 1994). Empowerment refers to restoring an individual’s sense of value and ability to handle life’s problems, while recognition focuses on strengthening a person’s empathy and understanding of a situ­ation. Eschewing stage models, this approach advocates that mediators allow disputants to engage in uninterrupted dialogues, pursue diversions, reflect on the significance of events, and provide opportunities for recognition.

In a similar way, Shailor (1994) focuses on empowerment in mediation through the way that each participant structures the meaning of the situation. Also drawing on disputants’ stories, he examines how participants co­construct rules and how structures of meaning are reflexively constituted and transformed. These new models situate communication and conflict in a different relationship, one that examines how they produce each other.

Models of negotiation and mediation rooted in feminist theory have emerged and challenged the dominant assumptions of exchange, reciprocity, and concession making that characterized integrative and distributive bargaining (Kolb & Putnam, 1997; Putnam & Kolb, 2000). This overview of these three models indicates that the field has clearly matured since its beginnings in the 1960s and 1970s, particularly in terms of research con­texts and methods.

Research Approaches

Particular conflict models encourage specific research approaches to the study of conflict. Research reflects both traditional social sci­ence approaches to research, as well as those that emphasize social construction and systems theoretical perspectives. This section discusses the conflict settings and types of methods used in the study of conflict.