Advertisement

Negotiation Journal

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 229–244 | Cite as

Seeing Theory in Practice: An Analysis of Empathy in Mediation

  • Dorothy J. Della Noce
Article
  • 83 Downloads

Abstract

Bush and Folger (1994) in The Promise of Mediation articulated 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.

Keywords

Social Interaction Theoretical Orientation Material Difference Single Construct Material Implication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bellah, R.N., R. Madsen, W.M. Sullivan, A. Swidler, and S.M. Tipton. 1985, 1996. Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Calif.: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. ——.,—.,—., and —. 1991 and 1992. The good society. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  3. Broome, B.J. 1993. Managing differences in conflict resolution: The role of relational empathy. In Conflict resolution theory and practice: Integration and application, edited by D.J.D. Sandole and H. van der Merwe. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Burkitt, I. 1999. Relational moves and generative dances. In Relational responsibility: Resources for sustainable dialogue, edited by S. McNamee and K.J. Gergen. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Bush, R.A.B. and J.P. Folger. 1994. The promise of mediation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Cobb, S. and J. Rifkin. 1991. Practice and paradox: Deconstructing neutrality in mediation. Law & Social Inquiry 16 (1): 35–62.Google Scholar
  7. Deetz, S. and W.J. White. 1999. Relational responsibility or dialogic ethics? A questioning of McNamee and Gergen. In Relational responsibility: Resources for sustainable dialogue, edited by S. McNamee and K.J. Gergen. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Della Noce, D.J. 1998. President's message: Conflict in the field is a challenge to be met. Mediation News 17 (3). Lexington, Mass.: Academy of Family Mediators.Google Scholar
  9. —. 1999. Mediation policy: Theory matters. Virginia Mediation Network News, 6 (2): 4–5.Google Scholar
  10. Dingwall, R. 1988. Empowerment or enforcement? Some questions about power and control in divorce mediation. In Divorce mediaton and the legal process, edited by R. Dingwall and J. Eekelaar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Duan, C. and C.E. Hill. 1996. The current state of empathy research. Journal of Counseling Research 43 (3): 261–274.Google Scholar
  12. Eagleton, T. 1991. Ideology: An introduction. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  13. Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power. London: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.Google Scholar
  14. Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.Google Scholar
  15. Fairclough, N. and R. Wodak. 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In Discourse as social interaction, edited by T. A. van Dijk. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Filner, J. 1999. The voluntary mediator certification project: A discussion. Conference Program and Proceedings Book. Lexington, Mass.: Academy of Family Mediators.Google Scholar
  17. Fisher, R., E. Koppelman, and A.K. Schneider. 1994. Beyond Machiavelli: Tools for coping with conflict. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  18. Fisher, R. and W. Ury. 1983. Getting to YES: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  19. Folger, J.P. and R.A.B. Bush. 1994. Ideology, orientations to conflict, and mediation discourse. In New directions in mediation: Communication research and perspectives edited by J. P. Folger and T. S. Jones. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. —. and —. 1996. Transformative mediation and third party intervention: Ten hallmarks of a transformative approach to practice. Mediation Quarterly. 13 (4): 263–278.Google Scholar
  21. Folger, J.P. and T.S. Jones. 1994. Epilogue: Toward furthering dialogue between researchers and practitioners. In New directions in mediation: Communication research and perspectives, edited by J.P. Folger and T.S. Jones. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gray, B. 1994. The gender-based foundations of negotiation theory. In Research on negotiations in organizations, vol. 4, edited by R.J. Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard and R. Bies. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  24. Greatbatch, D. and R. Dingwall. 1989. Selective facilitation: Some preliminary observations on a strategy used by divorce mediators. Law & Society Review, 23 (4): 613–641.Google Scholar
  25. —. and —. 1994. The interactive construction of interventions by divorce mediators. In New directions in mediation: Communication research and perspectives, edited by J.P. Folger and T.S. Jones. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Greenhalgh, L. 1995. Competition in a collaborative context: Toward a new paradigm. In Research on negotiation in organizations, Vol. 5, edited by R.J. Bies, R.J. Lewicki and B.H. Sheppard. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  27. Harre, R. and van L. Langenhove. 1999. The dynamics of social episodes. In Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action, edited by R. Harre and L. van Langenhove. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Haynes, J.M. 1994. The fundamentals of family mediation. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hekman, S.J. 1995. Moral voices, moral selves: Carol Gilligan and feminist moral theory. University Park, Penn.: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Held, V. 1990. Mothering versus contract. In Beyond self-interest, edited by J.J. Mansbridge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Holmes, S. 1990. The secret history of self-interest. In Beyond self-interest, edited by J.J. Mansbridge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Honeyman, C. 1990. The common core of mediation. Mediation Quarterly, 8 (1): 73–82.Google Scholar
  33. Irving, H.H. and M. Benjamin. 1995. Family mediation: Contemporary issues. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Jack, R. and D.C. Jack. 1989. Moral visions and professional decisions: The changing values of women and men lawyers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Koehn, D. 1998. Rethinking feminist ethics: Care, trust and empathy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Kolb, D.M., ed. 1994. When talk works: Profiles of mediators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  37. Kolb, D.M. and L.L. Putnam. 1997. Through the looking glass: Negotiation refracted through the lens of gender. In Workplace dispute resolution: Directions for the 21st Century, edited by S. Gleason. East Lansing: Michigan State Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lannaman, J.W. 1999. On being relational in an accountable way: The questions of agency and power. In Relational responsibility: Resources for sustainable dialogue, edited by S. McNamee and K.J. Gergen. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Lewicki, R.J., D.M. Saunders and J.W. Minton. 1997. Essentials of negotiation. Chicago: Irwin.Google Scholar
  40. Mansbridge, J.J. 1983. Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. —. 1990. Beyond self-interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mazanec, M.J. and S. Duck. 1999. Responding and relating: Response-ability to individuals, relating, and difference. In Relational responsibility: Resources for sustainable dialogue, edited by S. McNamee and K.J. Gergen. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. McAdoo, B. 1998. Comments made as panel member at Program 1.01, “Hot Topics: Experienced practitioners address the challenges of our profession. ” 1998 annual conference, Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution. Audiotape available from The Sound of Knowledge, Inc. San Diego, Calif.Google Scholar
  44. McNamee, S. and K.J. Gergen. 1999. Relational responsibility: Resources for sustainable dialogue. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Mediator Skills Project. 1998. An interim report of the mediator skills project: Assessing and supporting effective mediation. Submitted to the State Justice Institute and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.Google Scholar
  46. Menkel-Meadow, C. 1995. The many ways of mediation: The transformation of traditions, ideologies, paradigms, and practices. Negotiation Journal, 11 (3): 217–242.Google Scholar
  47. Mnookin, R.H., S.R. Peppet and A.S. Tulumello. 1996. The tension between empathy and assertiveness. Negotiation Journal, 12 (3): 217–230.Google Scholar
  48. Moore, C.W. 1996. The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Morris, C. and A. Pirie. 1994. Qualifications for dispute resolution: Perspectives on the debate. Victoria, B.C.: UVic Institute for Dispute Resolution.Google Scholar
  50. Mumby, D.K. and R.P. Clair. 1997. Organizational discourse. In Discourse as social interaction, edited by T. A. van Dijk. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Picard, C.A. 1994. The emergence of mediation as a profession. In Qualifications for dispute resolution: Perspectives on the debate, edited by C. Morris and A. Pirie. Victoria, B.C.: UVic Institute for Dispute Resolution.Google Scholar
  52. Potter, J. and M. Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Putnam, L.L. 1994. Challenging the assumptions of traditional approaches to negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 10 (3): 337–346.Google Scholar
  54. Rifkin, J. 1994. The practitioner's dilemma. In New directions in mediation: Communication research and perspectives, edited by J.P. Folger and T.S. Jones. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Rubin, J.Z., D.G. Pruitt and S.H. Kim. 1994. Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. 2nd ed.. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  56. Sandel, M.J. 1996. Democracy's discontent: America in search of a public philosophy. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Scimecca, J.A. 1993. Theory and alternative dispute resolution: A contradiction in terms? In Conflict resolution theory and practice: Integration and application, edited by D.J.D. Sandole and H. van der Merwe. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Slaikeu, K.A. 1996. When push comes to shove: A practical guide to mediating disputes. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  59. Slaikeu, K.A., J. Pearson and N. Thoennes. 1988. Divorce mediation behaviors: A descriptive system and analysis. In Divorce mediation: Theory and practice, edited by J. Folberg and A. Milne. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  60. Stewart, J. 1983. Interpretive listening: An alternative to empathy. Communication Education, 32: 379–391.Google Scholar
  61. Test Design Project. 1995. Performance-based assessment: A methodology, for use in selecting, training and evaluating mediators. Washington: National Institute for Dispute Resolution.Google Scholar
  62. Toben, S. 1998. Acceptance speech on behalf of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, on receiving the 1998 Peace Award from the Academy of Family Mediators. Reprinted as “Hewlett Foundation officer speaks about future of organizations, ” Mediation News, 17 (4), pp.12–13. Lexington, Mass.: Academy of Family Mediators.Google Scholar
  63. Ury, W. 1991. Getting past no: Negotiating your way from confrontation to cooperation. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  64. van Dijk, T.A. 1997a. The study of discourse. In Discourse as structure and process. (Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, Vol. 1), edited by T.A. van Dijk. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. —. 1997b. Discourse as interaction in society. In Discourse as social interaction. (Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, Vol. 2), edited by T.A. van Dijk. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  66. —. 1998. Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. Wetherell, M. and J. Potter. 1992. Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Williams, M. 1997. Can't I get no satisfaction? Thoughts on The promise of mediation. Mediation Quarterly. 15 (2): 143–154.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorothy J. Della Noce
    • 1
  1. 1.Temple UniversityPhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations