Our series of ADR Research Network blog posts for October concludes with a profile of network member, Dr Kathy Douglas.

1. ​Introductory information:​

• Full title and name:Dr Kathy Douglas, Deputy Head, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University
• Primary professional identity (i.e., academic, RHD student, practitioner – please include a link to your staff ID page/website): Academic (http://www1.rmit.edu.au/staff/kdouglas)
• Institutions/Organisations that you work for: RMIT University
• Where research fits in your professional work (i.e., your primary professional identity, or something that supplements other activity): Research in ADR is a prime focus of my work at RMIT

2. Why did you become interested in the dispute resolution field? I took a Masters level course in ADR at Monash University and fell in love with the field.  Soon after I trained with LEADR and then began work as a sessional mediator.
3. What is your particular area of dispute resolution research interest? Mediation theory and practice, ADR in legal education and conflict resolution and planning.
4. Whose research has influenced you? Why/How? I think that Laurence Boulle influenced me due to his thinking about models of mediation practice and his focus on the emerging ADR field in Australia.
5.   What dispute resolution research are you involved in at the moment? ADR in Legal Education; Procedural justice and mediation; Conciliation and industry schemes and conflict in planning in Melbourne.  I have a forthcoming article on ADR in legal education coming out in the International Journal of the Legal Profession.
6. Where would you like to take your dispute resolution research work over the next ten years? I would mainly like to focus on better integrating the theory and practice of mediation. I like being a ‘prac-academic’.  Someone who tries to improve practice in mediation.
7. What advice do you have for emerging dispute resolution researchers? Join the network.  It’s a wonderful group of generous academics and practitioners.

John Woodward’s recommendation for the ADR Reading List is Tania Sourdin, Alternative Dispute Resolution (4th ed, Thomson Reuters, 2012).

I would have to say that the book which opened my eyes to the possibilities of ADR (after 30 years of legal practice as a litigator) and which encouraged me to read more widely was Sourdin’s book on Alternative Dispute Resolution.  I also like Spencer and Hardy’s Dispute Resolution in Australia. 

UNSW Law has announced its postgraduate coursework scholarship for 2016, worth $10,000. It can be used across all of the UNSW Law masters programs, including the Master of Dispute Resolution. For full details, see http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/future-students/postgraduate/scholarships-prizes

Information about a fellowship opportunity open to non-US citizens:

The Weinstein JAMS International Fellowship Program, inaugurated in 2008,
provides opportunities for qualified individuals from outside the United
States to study dispute resolution processes and practices in the U.S. to
assist them in their efforts to advance the resolution of disputes in their
home countries.

The JAMS Foundation will approve Fellowships of up to $20,000 in support of
projects outlined by Fellowship applicants. The Program is intended for
individuals who have demonstrated experience with and commitment to the field
of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and who seek to increase the
availability of dispute resolution education, training and services in their
own countries and beyond.

The Fellowship Program is designed to be flexible and open to innovation, and
applicants are encouraged to be creative in pursuing activities in the U.S.
that will serve to expand the use of ADR in their home countries.

Fellowships may be from one month to four months in duration. While
applicants may propose activities lasting longer than four months, Fellowship
funding is limited to the Fellowship period.

It is anticipated that Fellows will come from countries that do not have an
established culture of using alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for cases
in litigation. Part of Fellows’ time in the U.S. will be spent observing how
JAMS administers and resolves such cases.

Depending on the nature of their proposal, Fellows may also participate in
university-based programs or be affiliated with other organizations or
institutions that may help to advance their interests and goals. Such
affiliations can take many forms, from formal enrollment in graduate degree
programs to more informal arrangements providing varying degrees of access
and support.

Applicants are strongly encouraged to research and begin to establish such
affiliations prior to or concurrent with their Fellowship application. While
the JAMS Foundation makes every effort to facilitate introductions where
possible, it is Applicant’s responsibility to research available
opportunities and to establish affiliations with the organizations or
institutions with which they intend to work or study.

More details are available at  http://www.jamsadr.com/weinstein-fellowship/

Sam Hardy’s contribution to the ADR Reading List is Michael D Lang and Alison Taylor, The Making of a Mediator: Developing Artistry in Practice (Jossey-Bass, 2000).

What I love about this book is its focus on artistry and reflective practice — for me two things that underpin any theoretical knowledge of mediation or other conflict resolution processes or intervention (and also, for that matter, any DR research). I think this is essential reading for any beginning conflict resolution practitioner — and indeed for any experienced conflict resolution practitioner!

Kate Curnow recommends a number of items for the ADR Reading List today relating to the issue of bargaining in the shadow of the law.

Bargaining in the shadow of law theory and research into why the ‘haves’ come out ahead have been key to shaping my DR research because of what they show about the role and nature of ‘law’ in dispute resolution.

In terms of bargaining in the shadow of law, obviously the classic original piece by Robert Mnookin and Lewis Kornhauser, ‘Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce’ (1979) 88 Yale Law Journal 950 is a must read.

Becky Batagol and Thea Brown, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Family Mediation (Themis Press, 2011) contains a great analysis of subsequent development of Mnookin and Kornhauser’s original theory by other authors and further refinement of the theory itself through empirical research.

On the why the ‘haves’ come out ahead, a great starting point is Marc Galanter, ‘Why the “Haves” Come out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change’ (1974) 9 Law and Society Review 95.

Our next item in the ADR Reading List is from Becky Batagol, who recommends Tom Tyler, ‘The Quality of Dispute Resolution Procedures and Outcomes: Measurement Problems and Possibilities’ (1989) 66 Denver University Law Review 419.

I really like this piece, despite its age, because it cuts through what is often presented when measuring the quality/success/effectiveness of a dispute resolution process. Tyler argues that agreement rates and participant satisfaction have a seductive quality but should be avoided as sole measures of process quality. I often recommend this to PhD students as a starting point for their research into a particular dispute resolution process and Tyler’s approach has been central to the design of some of my own research projects.

Today’s ADR Reading List recommendation comes from Kathy Douglas, who recommends John Winslade and Gerald Monk, Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution (Jossey-Bass, 2000) to new researchers.

Even if the model is not widely practised, the discussion of the theory is worth the trouble.

This month the ADR Research Network blog will feature a series of posts sharing members’ reading recommendations for both new and experienced researchers.

The first item on our ADR reading list comes from Olivia Davis, who recommends Peter T. Coleman, The Five Percent: Finding Solutions to Seemingly Impossible Conflicts (Public Affairs, 2011).

He takes a systems view of conflicts and discusses the powerful effects that context has on a conflict, and also the limitations of tackling problems in a rational problem-solving way. He suggests looking for ways to disrupt the dynamic of the conflict, rather than attempting to resolve the manifesting issues.

This month the ADR Research Network blog will feature a series of occasional posts from our members responding to the following questions:

What book or article has most influenced your approach to researching dispute resolution and why?

What book or article would you most recommend to beginning researchers in the dispute resolution field?

We hope to offer both new and established researchers some helpful tips for further reading!