Abstract
Despite claims that ADR offers "better" solutions than traditional approaches (such as the courts), the field of dispute resolution has trouble proving its case. The reason is that we lack baseline data on the effectiveness of both traditional and nontraditional dispute resolution methods. Practitioners and researchers of dispute resolution should work together and in collaboration with public and private sector institutions to incorporate systemized data collection and evaluation into ADR practice. The growing subfield of dispute system design offers particularly rich ground for such collaboration between the research and practice communities.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Bingham, L. B. and Pitts D. W. 2002. Highlights of mediation at work: Studies of the national REDRESS® evaluation project. Negotiation Journal 18(2): 135-146.
Henry, J. F. 2000. Some reflections on ADR. Journal of Dispute Resolution 2000: 63-70.
Kuhn, T. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McEwen, C. A. 1999. Toward a program-based ADR research agenda. Negotiation Journal 15: 325-338.
O'Leary, R. and L.B. Bingham, eds. Forthcoming. Evaluating environmental and public policy conflict resolution programs and policies. Washington: Resources for the Future Press.
Sander, F. E. A. 2000. The future of ADR. Journal of Dispute Resolution 2000: 3-10.
Ury, W.L., J.M. Brett, and S.B. Goldberg. 1988. Getting disputes resolved: Designing systems to cut the cost of confict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Welsh, N. 2001. All in the family: Darwin and the evolution of mediation. Dispute Resolution Magazine 7: 20-24.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Bingham, L.B. The Next Step: Research on How Dispute System Design Affects Function. Negotiation Journal 18, 375–379 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021062408499
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021062408499