Table Of Content

\ Articles Alternative Disputer Resolution in mative dispute resolution): commu M edical Malpractice A\ Survey or Hation using oO counterpto we Emerging Trends and Practices,” 71—96 promotion of Bridging Th1 e Th1 eory-And-P] racticc Gap ediation Mediator Power In Practice,” 433 ‘SI; Building Trust with Parties Are Medi tors Overdoing It? >] 331; Co-resolution participation by 369 \ Cooperative Structure for Dispur norms of 966; Mediation S« Resolution 26, 239-256; “Education in rticipation b 570-375 Peace Agreements, 1989—2005 125 thnicity difference 149-166 Evaluation — of Intergroup Alchemist mediator profile, 4] Dialogue: \ Review of the Empirical Literature, 126, 199-238; “From Sulha to ; ' iam: 4 onnecting Local Knowledge with ternational Negotiations for Lasting ADR Peace in Palestine/Israel,” 125, 127—] +8 366—367 How Our Worldviews Shap« ystems for health ca »—/6 Practice,” 405-431: Managing Cor lining medica malpractice case use of, Construction Megaprojects: | trends in healt' h care use of ind = Third-party Principles, : lth care profession growing 167—198 Mediation by Any Other Name > imple menting in thl e Would Smell as Sweet—or Would It? The 5; medical malpractice Struggle to Define Mediation and _ Its 76-86; medication distin Various Approaches,” 293-316; “Mediation 104; Sieve Model of, 258 ind Ineq Reconsiderec also Mediation Discussion to the lative Disputer Resolution in \ 4 Mediation lalpractice: ‘A Emerging Practice 123 The Politics ind Practices 1-96 Community Mediation Study American Bar Association (ABA). 86 ( ommunity Mediation I Israel American Society of Civil Engineers, 153-479; “Practice Note: Community AMOS (analysis of moment structures) soft Mediation ‘ cial iS] 195 Managing Conflict in Mediations, Reconstructing zaprojects: Leadership Ripeness I: A tudy of Constructive 198 Protracted Social School for intergroup Conflicts,” 3—42 Reconstructing Ripeness dialogue model, 216 II: Models and Methods for Fostering med conflict: dehinit onstructive Stakeholder engagement agreements ending, 15] Across Protracted Divides 43-69; Contlict; Pal1e stine/Israel confli]c t Research Note lwo Measures of Conflict 198 Orientation, 365—379; “Shadows, Conflict tilding vith Parties: Are Mediators ind the Mediato 349-364 The Sieve verdol ? 17-331 Model: An Innovative Process for Identifying Alternatives to Custody Evaluations 323 240 III-IA umbodia agreement \rush1 a Peace and ] R’ econ | \gre imp David negotiat tor Burundi (2000), 159 aptait ian Americans: Attitude Toward tor International Conflict Resolution Scale study participation by CICR) [Columbia Univers confli}c t norms of, 366 entral coalition model tudy parti t by, 3 505 , FA confirmatory facto1 S ssociation about AFLP description block]s for sustaini Statement on Custody E, 67; conflict as source 9 36e—337 e; Sieve Model for lict and desire for, 43—44:; « ition recommended by t84—489 Social intery tons: participant sults of, 370 Actractor metaphor, 34 Artribution theory, 268 B , 1 ‘ ) Bartoli \ Reconstructing Models and Methods Constructive Stakeholder: ‘ D Across Protracted Divides BATNA (best alternative to uwreement), LOO hypothes« ite nildrens Hospital Atlanta plaintitt/defendant é 164-2y 6 nediator 1\ court mneeddi ation hypotheses technique lowerinogf perceive weaknesses and Beyond Neutrality (Mayer), 48 parties, 266; 2. plaintiffs make Bias. See Mediator bias concessions in mediated negotiations than Bottom-up constructiv defendants, 2 267; 3. mediators y can obtain higher concessions from plaintiffs, 267 n ‘ apply 365 more assertive techniques than do defen Bridging Tryh e Theory-And-Practice Gap dants, 267-268; 5. mediators’ assertive aMsetd iator Power In Practice : techniques are employed ' against pl'a intiffs Buck, R Mediation by Any in nonagreement cases, 268; 6. defendants \W ouldij Smelll l as Sweet—or Would j It? ire more satished in nonagreement cases Struggle to Define Mediation and plaintiffs are more satisfied in agreement Various Approaches,” 293-316 cases, 268-269 Index 499 mn ediation study: description of trust building study by, 3272972 —+322 5; discus /l iscussion of mediator tactics sion of trust building study by 7-33»02 ; 182-287: mediator plaintiff, and mission statement of, 321 teractions during, 264fx% building study conducted by, 32 1ethod used for testing mediator trust buil1d ing study\ results 1b y I>L> Ig—DZ> ypotheses, 2 y. ] number of ommission on National Reconciliation ‘ nedia omomwais utte.e on \ ¢ a = aDfeLeIs t 7h t ymmunication mediators engagement in l t ind open 4-4 . metaphoric power framed by meanu o Narratives community mediation +90—492; understood ctive, 491 ommunity mediation (CM): ambiguity and contradictory political rationalities inherent t 3; collective targets of +89—490 community 1 itext of, 490-492; devel opment and applicat of, £98; different forms of, 455—456; differing views nterests witl respect to 164-473 'p ropose / em nt ywvweerrmmee!n esource or { +; theory <aminin the uniqij uc C failures and criticism findings and implications for, 4/5 form < social intervention formal ind informal mechanisms ipplying 2-463 Israel's experience solution clients 5 +64; neutrality and, 456—457; recon \ 1 ' neutrality in 245 vg SSIDIC downfalls ind social merits 16-248; process f, 475-47 ee also ADR (al! ternative j ' mediation compared to C resolution Mediation Maryland study: background information on, 297; discus 313; implications for media trators, and future research, von meth| odology used | results during itions, and summary 062-30 metaphor of Shadow: descri n « 5 lispute \ 2; gender differences related ion of t ne, 3d 56 - t ict t of th| e intervener on unconscious 4 ~)U-—3) 1 intercommunal reconciliation la i€ a ce plan n 1ecessary for intercommunal, 1 141-142;) Columbia | n iversity intereth1n ic | Israel’s ethnic ComAbstracts, 21 democracy and resulting, 459; language of Commission des normes du travial du Québec literature on, 350; measuring mediation CNT data collection/analysis during 365-375 minority versus dominant perspectives on, 465 ‘3 olving, 63; typof emotsive s by, 16—18 Shadow in order to I 5 €€ a Negotiation yeace and cooperation Va I 59; lict system: dynamical systems pt erspte c projection as increasing, 3‘ ; ! IV on evolving 32; reconstructing infrastructure construction related ripeness for negotiation in, 34—3 self 168—196 racial/ethnic difterences sustaining hostilities of, 32 expressing, 366; ritual expression through ynflict Tactics Scale, 367 34:1 ( tion in outbreak of, mstruction industry: alternati social construction of ICTH resolution methods adopted by . l l l gement ind tO 1 I construction conflict resolution guild 71 types of confn4i ct conflict lestin lict ee also Public infrastrt Conflict Communication Scale 3 VWN oodrow Wilson Conflict measures: assessed prior t I istruction 366-367; Attitude Toward Conflict | ISCrUCTI ag x stake stuay, 90 lalieng net I ; conditions of standing u y vali te) uffecting d constraints to currently ivailable $67—368: Mediation 369 Conflict resolution: co-resolut } conflict eng social constru resolutulor ining of, | nm lat I mi al motives for social cons Mina practl e for y I politica . ; United Nations en 1 nstructive/Realistic meta Dialogue Project focus on Wilson Br 1dg¢ 196. See ace agrec eory, 396—400 ultural conflic ulctural differ ition CRO) Web site neutrality t 39] stakeholders nstructiv ngag powel framed by meanings o! constral 2 network Worldview openness to ge by, ; Culture: CM (community mediation) influ CONS—t—r uctive. en¥g agemenetnt enced 1D yb,y 4 SS ,4>%5 8 +04; conflilcitc tr resolliuet ion 1 Index 501 406; dialogue to cl Dispute systems design 226; — elicitive lispute systems design study 1g model on m 1 embedded by conflict 102 s int ergroup communication barrier, | 9; mediation inequali] in rms of 409 evaluations during incre ising ratetes of. 335. S uuations 540 ) I\ OSCa rch Iwo Me sures ) s tor spec inc Model approach De Ritis, ¢ Mediatiobny Any Ot her Na : mediators techniques > 1 ' | NiV OUICl d Smell as Swe or Would It? ; method Of testing Civil : fediation ArvAe pproache| s 193_3] con mediation mediators trust deficit endant ns lask Group (Maryland 1 ov Conflict Resolution Study), 2 t in ( igreements addressing ratic Dialogue 1 l ik— Of conflqi ct and Diraoll e of 1greement inclusion Democratic Repru bll | Evaluati ents, 1989—2005 behav “, So 103; Foucault employe rroouucgl {o0—46 | 5 1 directions negotiation n fostering trust irces Of trust auring study1 on, 73) 20-35»20 Empowerment: as community medi ition FI orida 20th Judicial Circuit: alternatives to CM resource 157—458 particiy custodyj evai\u ations used In, D22D 4 example ot ability to access 391. See also Powe focused evaluation ordered by, 345 report IE nde j angered Species Act, 188 on f{ indings trom prelj iminary studyj of Sieve Engagement Framework NCDD), 214 Model cases of, 345 346; Sieve Model EPP (environmental/public policy media developed through efforts of, 33 344 tion Native American scenario o! Focused evaluation I lorida court system pot 105 +06; pure neutrality idea rejected in review of, 345; Sie ve Model recommenda +10-411; , worldview issues raised } for 106 tions for 338he¢ 343 ' worldview-mediation study on +1142 19) ames: definition and uses ot, 408; practi Ethnicity differences. S et Racial ethnici ty tioner applications of 108 409 Realistic differences (Lonstructive European \mericans Artitude lo ward mediators, 41 9/f¢ Conflict Scale study participation also Retraming; Worldview 369—370 conflict norms ramework A Agreement for Ma4 cedo] nia (200i 1 Mediation \S« ile study 1S 46 369~—375 From Sulha to Salaam ( on nec Local Eval uation of Intergroup Dialogu Knowleds with International Negotiations : ' : Empirical Literature,” 199-238 in Palestine/Israel,” 125, ided parent education, 338f¢, 339 idvisory mediation 109 ' a9 ' acl litative mediat i—|] icilitative narrow mediator quadrant 11 Ti airness: allotting same Ut ul From Sulha_ to 398 399; cultural differ | oca l Knowledge to norms of, 409 Nativ Negotia 1oOns norms on neutrality in Palestine Israel,” 125, 12 elemento f, 390—591 render conflict/mediation differences : e* 1 umily Law Advisory (¢ seneral enginee¢ ring consultant Woodrow Wilson Br dg1 e P)r oject : prohie 9 Lo 0, 181, 183, 184, 186, 188, \ rCOTge Mason University, 413 Administration seram a Bridging Che Theory And Practice Gap: \ N fediator| ower In 1P ractice (3345 2005), 169 iF] (goodness of fit index), 369 First Nation peopl 356 oldberg R. M How Our Worldvie VS AA mericans Our Practice 4105-431 rirst-speaker narrati AOR 4 Sh1 ado' w, 4> 3> | isher Yoshida B Reconstr ucting Ripenes Grounded _ theory coding I: A Study of Constructive Ey igveme nt in ripeness theory study, 11 Protracted Social (¢ onfiicts into CONStructive engagement, R ec ymniussttrtr uctinin e RUiunpeenn ess |L odej! 5 id [ y|n ases oT « or F eriinpeenn ess theory ‘ Methods for Fostering ( ONStructive stuc jLy £7| .08 social construction Stakeholder engagement Acress Protr acted conflict/engagement, 46—54 Divides,” 43-69 Gsuan, A Research Note: Two Measures of Florida Gulf Coast University Conflict Orier itation |b y, 365- —5 9 9 suatemalan agreements (1996), 156, 15 Inter- Tajik Dialogue, 226 . 158, 160 Interaction mediation dimension: description of, 102-103, 107; practice modeofl msed i H ation relationship to, 106—117 Reconstructing Ripeness I: A Interest-based (or facilitative mediation, Study ONS(tructive Engagement in 111-112 Interest-based (or integrative) negotiation Protracted Social Conflicts, } 4.22; Reconstructing Ripeness II]: Models and discourse 102 Methods for s Constructive Interethnic conic Ct: comparison of studies on Stakeholder engagement Across Protracted intergroup dialogue and, 202-2104 exam Divides,” 43-69 ining intergroup dialogue to_ resolve, }I larmony mediiia ation 100 199-201; study of intergroup dialogue to Health care dispute systems design study: on resolve, 218-228 inalysis of ADR process, 84-86; on chal Intergroup dialogue comparison or studies enges and successes of ADR programs 2104 dehinition of 201, 211 ; data and methods used in, 76 examining interethnic confli1c; t resolution findings on S62; |l iterature review of using, 199-201; goals of, 214-217; Mix It 15-76 Up, 220, 225; recommendations for use of He' alth \ care industry dispute systems desigi 2728-23] research\ on outcomes of 217-218; School for Peace model of Arab in 5-34 growing interest in using ADR in, 71—72; implementing ADR in the Jewish, 216; theoretical basis for, 212—214 Intergroup d}i alogue study:j data colTlT ection 7275; resistance to ADR in the, 73--74 Hewlett Foundation, 29 methods and measures used } in, 2211 —22”3 ; confli: ct divorce track, 3_3 8f¢, 323 9 d|i scussion of, 2I2 I7 228; methodologies and Hispanic Ame ricans. See Latinos research designs used for, 218-219 Hodnj a (granting consent), 1123 0, 13=7 -138T summary of dgio al8 ogue interventions in, House of Hope Peace Centre (Galilee), 133 23; summary of outcomes in, 224—227 How Our Worldviews Shape Our Practic« summary of participants in j 4105-43] nternational Center for Cooperation and Human Security Brief, 151, 152 Conflict Resolution (ICCCR), 38 Hunting Terrace VDOT case nternational Institute for Sustained Dialogue study 8—179 1 Interuniversity Consortium on the Framing of Intractable Environmental Disputes, 406 deological metaframes of mediators, 419f¢ nterveners: myth of neutrality of, 350—351 420-421 three stages of developmenotf , 351 I’m sorry’ legislation, 83—84 ntervention mediation dimension descrip Impartiality: definition and core meaning of, tion of, 103 105, 107; practice models of 43. 6; neutrali't y and element of, 436—438 mediation relationship to, 106-11 l See also Mediator bias ntr ictable conflict study: AssuMpTLONsS about mplicit Association Tests (IATs 30 the nature of change in, 51—53; discussion ndependent mediators, 104 of, 64-65: on fostering constructive nequality. See Mediation inequalities engagement in conflict 1>—46; framing Informal justice,” 455-456 the, 49-51; on initial decisions by inter nstitute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution venors, 53—54; literature review of, 44—45 George Mason University), 413 metaphors used in, 47-49; methods of , nstrumental trust hypothesis, 32 constructive engagement reviewed in, Inter-Congolese negotiations agreement 54-64; on social construction of conflict 2003). 157. 159 160 and engagement, 46—54 t 506 BATNA as, 265; method for tes 139-446; wise yunsel mediation practice hypotheses predicting, 269-274 113; worldview affecting bia used per mediation, 276¢ {08—409: writer and tiffs versus defendants +39-440 ting predictions on Medical malpractice disputes implementing ;l isting of, 2732: ADR in 75; opportunities for ADR in Mediator-defendant interactions: Dynamic t >; resistance to ADR implementation Influence Model on, 265 66; illustrated in, 73—74; study on dispute systems design diagram on, 264/i¢ IR 1 he | lict ting n T5-_RG 1} ' i : of defendant techniques Mental health coaching, 338f¢, 340 assertive tactics Metaphor inalysis: of mediator roles and See also Detendants mission perceptions, 416—4] Re> ali]s tic Mediator-plaintiftt interaction Dynamic Constructive meta-frame continuum of Influence Model 1 on, 265—266 illustrated t:19f¢, 420-421, 4: Sheriff, Pastor d]i agram on, 264fig, 281 fig; sample] 1t isting Alchemist Family R>a dical profile é ' ' 7 of plainuff techniques during lf study patterns of, 4] of assertive tactic used d]u ring worldview theorists See also Plaintift: worldview-mediation study Mediators: |b arriers to neutrality of, 23¢ 91 +15—426. See also Narrative analysis 34; building parties’ trust Metaphoric communication, 415 at — i 320-330; challenges facing 133; as Metaphors: attractor for conflict, 34—37; “ripe conflict specialists,” 457; expert advisory moments as negotiation, 4—5; social mediation practice by, 107—109; facilitative construction of conflict and engagement, a i 2% mediation practice by, 1 111 1 12; ideological ] 47-49 metatrames of, 419fig, 420-421; impar Mexican Americans. See Latinos tiality of, 436—438; as instrument of social Mexican Chiapfa s peace agreement (1996). justice, 493; myth of intervener neutrality 160 proalret icofi,p ant350 —351:; selof bdejteercmtiniatvieonso f,r el1a0t5io—n1s0h\ 6i p Minara” pt asscaagsee , st3u5d9y . See Israeli community to neutrality of, 390-404; predicting tactics mediation stud and behavior of civil court, 257-258 Mix It Up dialogues, 220, 225 ) 62? 287; professional background and Motivation: changing through course of education of, 103—104; responsibility to conflict, 15; contradictory and comple mediate ethically of, 446-449; roles and mentary conflict, 15—18; decision making mission perceptionosf , 319-320, 350-351, involving both preventative and 416-417, 439 440; settlement mediation promotive, 18; prevention-focused vs practice by, 109-111 Sheriff Pastor promotion-focused, 50; ripeness theory Alchemist, Family, and Radical profiles of, on, 4-8. See aiso Constructive engagement 117, 419fg, 421; social network vs. inde constraints pendent, 104; strategies producing media Mulligan, M., “Alternative Disputer Resolution tion inequalities, 396-400; three types of in Medical Malpractice: A Survey of discourse used by, 102—103; tradition-based Emerging Trends and Practices,” 71-96 | > 446 1 1 mediation practice by, 1 13—115; traditional Mutually enticing opportunity (MEQ), 5, 6 vs. professional, 101 transformative media Mutually hurting stalemate (MHS), 5, 6 tion practice by, 115-117; two studies N predicting behavior and tactics of, 294-313; understanding cultural conflict Narrative analysis: research applications of, styles, 366; unpredictability of behaviors by, 414; research findings on mediation value 101; various dimensions of power of, of, 400-401. See also Metaphor analysis