Massimiliano Ferrari’s creation of Medianos, a board game designed to help parties align with “interests and needs” rather than “positions”, demonstrates measurable success in Western mediation training contexts (Tambù Creative Team, 2023). The board game is designed to effectively teach collaborative problem-solving skills and transform adversarial thinking patterns. Ferrari’s intent to democratize mediation knowledge through accessible gameplay merits recognition (Gowers, 2025).

However a critical problem emerges as the western Medianos board game expands internationally: “most standard mediation practice is the antithesis of social transformation; it is interculturally incompetent” (Gowers, 2023). When Western-derived intervention tools spread globally, regardless of noble intentions, they risk reproducing colonial paradigms. At this point in history, we need “a new intercultural competence playbook” that honours Ferrari’s democratic vision while co-creating genuinely inclusive, inter-culturally capable conflict responsive approaches.

The Cultural Assumptions Challenge

Medianos succeeds within Western contexts because it aligns with specific cultural values of individual agency, rational discourse, and negotiated outcomes. However, Ting-Toomey’s (1988, 2005) face negotiation theory reveals that conflict parties must manage “face-related concerns” that vary widely between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. The core issue is that game-based mediation training may embed the implicit cultural assumptions of its creator.

Xiao and Chen (2009) observed that Western communication competence (defined as “goal-oriented, self-oriented, lauding assertiveness”), directly contradicts what Chinese and other Asian cultures have considered communicatively competent for centuries. When mediation training reinforces Western competence models, it undermines inter-cultural rapport.

Māori scholar Tauri (2024) warns that Western alternatives become “a way for policymakers and politicians to silence Indigenous critique” by “repackag[ing] and sell[ing] the system back to itself.” Research (Gowers, 2023) confirms this pattern, showing how standard practices “restrict access to justice by using negotiation powerplay to deny the potential for greater benefit for all parties.”

Indigenous Epistemological Challenges

Contemporary indigenous scholarship identifies fundamental clashes with Western conflict resolution approaches. Latin American decolonial theorists document how Western models emerge from “the project of modernity and the ongoing expansion of a European cultural imaginary” (Rodriguez & Inturias, 2018; Quijano, 2000). Australian Aboriginal experts specify that Indigenous approaches “embrace a deeper level of healing and renewal of relationships” compared to Western “dispute resolution” (ADRAC, 2020).

Indian Adivasi philosophy of “Adivasiyat” emphasizes “a strong sense of connection to land, nature, spirits and community” (Xalxo, 2021) that conflicts with the anthropocentric individuality in Western mediation training. When conflict resolution focuses exclusively on person-to-person negotiation while excluding relationships with land, community, ancestors, and spiritual dimensions, it violates fundamental worldviews of numerous global communities.

Smith (2012) identifies this as reproducing “imperial and colonial discourses” that marginalize non-Western ways of knowing within supposedly inclusive frameworks.

Research Imperatives

To honour Ferrari’s democratic vision while avoiding colonial reproduction, research must build on the insight that “interculturally competent mediators recognize these gaps and propose just and intelligent solutions that include all relevant third parties” (Gowers, 2023).

Specific requirements include:

• Collaborative epistemological mapping that documents indigenous and traditional conflict resolution approaches from specified continents, understanding their philosophical foundations rather than extracting techniques.
• Critical analysis of embedded assumptions in game-based mediation training through “crossing over with appropriate immersion in at least one other culture” (Gowers, 2023) to identify where Western individualism, rationality, and anthropocentrism conflict with other worldviews. Of course, in instances where other dominant cultures implicitly enforce their worldview the same concerns may also require critical appraisal.   
• Development of genuine intercultural frameworks where Western innovations like Medianos engage with other traditions as equals, applying for example the “7 steps of RESPECT” methodology (Gowers, 2023).
• Testing of hybrid approaches that integrate indigenous knowledge systems as equal partners, recognizing the principle that “conflict is endemic in the process of social change itself” (Gowers, 2023).

The Intercultural Mastermind Initiative

This moment demands concrete action aligned with a call for stakeholder collaboration to “define the principles, practices, and techniques necessary to navigate intercultural complexity sensitively and effectively” Gowers’ (2023). We propose establishing an Intercultural Mastermind Working Groupbringing together Ferrari, Gowers, and indigenous knowledge holders from specified continents to co-design Medianos Alternative Protocol (MAP): An Intercultural Framework for Constructive Problem-Solving and Peace-Building.

This initiative embodies the vision that “interculturally competent mediation practice is adaptable to social transformation” through equal partnership including:

• Indigenous knowledge holders from Australian Aboriginal (including Professor Marcia Langton’s frameworks), Māori, Latin American, Middle Eastern, and Indian Adivasi traditions
• Intercultural communication theorists who understand both Western and non-Western approaches
• Community practitioners working at the intersection of traditional and contemporary conflict responses
• The original creators bringing expertise in game-based learning and mediation theory

The MAP Development Process

The Medianos Alternative Protocol would emerge through the “7 steps of RESPECT” (Gowers’ (2023) methodology:

1. Reframe the Context by revealing foresight and establish focus. Each tradition shares its cultural background and expectations about conflict resolution. Identify how different approaches engage with mediation based on their cultural contexts.
2. Resolve the Content by specifying facts, pondering feelings and examining findings. Document where approaches complement, contradict, or offer alternatives while honouring diverse motivations.
3. Recreate the Contract by confirming finalization and tracking fulfilment. Co-create methodologies integrating multiple epistemologies, test through community implementation with relationship tracking. Verify that agreements are fulfilled or re-negotiated until complete.

This framework develops “inter-cultural respect-ability” (Gowers 2023) terms through the insight that effective intercultural mediation requires “crossing over with appropriate immersion in at least one other culture” while maintaining cultural integrity.

Modelling the Solution

The Intercultural Mastermind approach provides specific advantages over traditional research-then-application models:

• Immediate Impact: Creates practical tools while building theoretical understanding
• Authentic Partnership: Positions indigenous knowledge holders as co-creators rather than consultants
• Living Laboratory: The collaborative process models the intercultural problem-responses it teaches
• Scalable Innovation: Success informs broader cross-cultural program development

Conclusion: Beyond Cultural Wars to Co-Creation

Current trajectories risk reproducing patterns where Western innovations spread globally with cultural modifications while fundamental power dynamics remain unchanged. The Intercultural Mastermind approach requires courage to question whether appropriate participation demands genuine co-creation from the foundation level.

Ferrari’s vision of democratizing mediation knowledge through accessible, engaging methods deserves fulfillment through the most ambitious interpretation possible. True ‘democratization’ (spoiler alert – a western paradigm) requires surrendering Western centrality for multicultural co-creation that produces innovations none of the traditions could create alone.

The proposed Intercultural Mastermind Working Group represents both urgent scholarly priority and opportunity to model “transforming our viewpoints, priorities, and actions” to “create a new era of intercultural mediation” (Gowers 2023). Rather than studying cross-cultural adaptation, we could demonstrate inter-cultural innovation and answer the question: “How do you plan to come out of these current crises?” (Gowers, 2023).

This moment calls for investigation matching the scope of the challenge, not merely examining how diverse human traditions might inform conflict responses but bringing them together to create new possibilities for our interconnected world.

Note: This Intercultural Mastermind approach demands international collaboration, indigenous partnership, and creative courage that could transform not just conflict response education but our broader approaches to respectful intercultural collaboration. What might be the learnings to use in future IT and AI developments?

---

References

• Australian Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (ADRAC). (2020). Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander dispute resolution. Available at: https://www.adrac.org.au/aboriginal-torres-strait
• Gowers, R (2025). What’s the alternative to mediation? Meet the European Board Game Going Global. Available at: https://adrnetwork.blog/2025/06/20/whats-the-alternative-to-mediation-meet-the-european-board-game-going-global/
• Gowers, R. (2023). A call for a new intercultural playbook in mediating social transformation. Lex Electronica, 28(5), 195-215. Available at: https://lexelectronica.openum.ca/articles/volume-28-2023/volume-28-numero-5/lhumanite-face-aux-conflits-actuels-nouveaux-defis-pour-la-mediation/
• Langton, M and Corn, A (2023). In Margo Neale (Ed.), LAW: The Way if the Ancestors (pp. 10-21). First Knowledges series, Thames and Hudson, Port Melbourne.
• Langton, M. (2015). From conflict to cooperation. Canberra: MINERALS COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA, p. 43. https://minerals.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/MCA-Monograph-7-From-Conflic_on-by-Professor-Marcia-Langton-1.pdf
• Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of power, eurocentrism and Latin America. Nepantla: Views from South, 1(3), 533-580.
• Rodriguez, I., & Inturias, M. L. (2018). Conflict transformation in indigenous peoples’ territories: doing environmental justice with a ‘decolonial turn’. Development Studies Research, 5(1), 90-105.
• Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books.
• Tambù Creative Team. (2023). “Mediano, a game that can teach a lot!” Tambù Create Blog. Available at: https://tambucreate.com/blog/medianos-board-game
• Tauri, J. (2024). Restorative justice is not Māori justice. E-Tangata, October 17. Available at: https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/restorative-justice-is-not-maori-justice/
• Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflicts: A face-negotiation theory. In Y.Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213-235). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 71-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Xalxo, R. P. (2021). Tribal philosophy: fusion of tradition and modernity. In India’s Indigenous Peoples: Struggles and Survival. New Delhi: Concept Publishing.
• Xiao, X.-S., & Chen, G.-M. (2009). Communication competence and moral competence: A Confucian perspective. Journal of Moral Education, 38(1), 85-96.