Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Toward a Program-Based ADR Research Agenda

  • Published:
Negotiation Journal

Abstract

Program evaluation research is often too narrowly focused to build theoryabout dispute resolution while theory-driven ADR research is frequentlytoo far removed from programmatic realities to inform practice. To developan ADR evaluation research agenda that connects theory and practice, weneed to consider: making ADR context a central focus of research; undertakinga fuller account of the processes and the work of third parties inrelation to what skills and orientations parties bring with them to ADR asnegotiators; widening our view of ADR impact or result; and reexaminingwhat research methods are best for studying ADR programs. By shiftingour perspectives, placing negotiating parties closer to the center of ourstudy of ADR, and grounding research in the contexts that matter to policy-makersand practitioners, we could significantly advance research onthird-party intervention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arrow, J., R. H. Mnookin, L. Ross, R. Wilson, A. Tversky, eds. 1995. Barriers to conflict resolution. New York: W.W. Norton

    Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitch, J. 1991. International mediation and dispute settlement: Evaluating the conditions for successful mediation. Negotiation Journal 7: 17-30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, G. 1986. Resolving environmental disputes: A decade of experience. Washington: The Conservation Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brett, J. M., R. Drieghe, and D. L. Shapiro. 1986. Mediator style and mediation effectiveness. Negotiation Journal 2: 277-285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brett, J. M., Z. I. Barsness, and S. B. Goldberg. 1996. The effectiveness of mediation: An independent analysis of cases handled by four major service providers. Negotiation Journal 12: 259-269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnevale, P. J. 1992. The usefulness of mediation theory. Negotiation Journal 8: 387-390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnevale, P. J. and D. G. Pruitt. 1992. Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of Psychology 43: 531-582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, S. H. and E. E. Gordon. 1997. Public sponsorship of private settling: Court-ordered civil case mediation. Justice System Journal 19: 311-339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, S. 1993. Empowerment and mediation: A narrative perspective. Negotiation Journal 9: 245-261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conley, J. and W. O'Barr. 1990. Rules and relationships: The ethnography of legal discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakalik, J. S., T. Dunworth, L. A. Hill, D. McCaffrey, M. Oshiro, N. M. Pace, and M. Vaiana. 1996. An evaluation of mediation and early neutral evaluation under the Civil Justice Reform Act. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keilitz, S. 1994. Civil dispute resolution processes. In National symposium on court-connected dispute resolution research: A report on current research findings — Implications for courts and future research needs, edited by S. Keilitz. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiboer, M. 1996. Understanding success and failure of international mediation. Journal of Conflict Resolution 40: 360-389.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEwen, C. A. 1994. An evaluation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's pilot mediation program. Washington: Report to the Equal Opportunity Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. Organizing for mediation: Variations in corporate approaches to dispute resolution and their implications for time, cost and quality. The Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution 14: 1-28.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEwen, C. A. and R. J. Maiman. 1984. Mediation in small claims court: Achieving compliance through consent. Law & Society Review 18: 11-49.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. and ———. 1988. Coercion and consent: A tale of two court reforms. Law & Policy 10: 3-24.

  • McEwen, C. A, L. Mather, and R. J. Maiman. 1994. Lawyers, mediation, and the management of divorce practice. Law & Society Review 28: 149-186

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostermeyer, M. and S. Keilitz. 1997. Monitoring and evaluating court-based dispute resolution programs: A guide for judges and court managers. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D. G. 1995. Process and outcome in community mediation. Negotiation Journal 11: 365-378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. 1996. Conditions of successful third-party intervention in intrastate conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution 40: 336-359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolph, E. and E. Moller. 1995. Evaluating agency alternative dispute resolution programs: A user's guide to data collection and use. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ury, W., J. Brett, and S. Goldberg. 1988. Getting disputes resolved: Designing systems to cut the costs of conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bowdoin College, 5800 College Station, Brunswick, Maine, 04011

    Craig A. McEwen

Authors
  1. Craig A. McEwen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

McEwen, C.A. Toward a Program-Based ADR Research Agenda. Negotiation Journal 15, 325–338 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007597603838

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007597603838

Keywords

Search

Navigation