Toward a Program-Based ADR Research Agenda

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 to check access.

References

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

  12. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. ———. 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 

  16. 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 

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

  18. 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 

  19. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  22. 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 

  23. 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

Affiliations

Authors

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

Keywords

  • Research Method
  • Research Agenda
  • Program Evaluation
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Evaluation Research