The ADR Research Network is a group of Australian dispute resolution academics. Blogging & tweeting high quality, critical dispute resolution scholarship.
Milan Nitopi a Sydney-based lawyer and mediator whose passion surrounds people, law, and resolution. He writes with a focus on conflict management and legal dispute resolution. Connect with Milan via LinkedIn and Instagram!
The Australasian Dispute Resolution Research Network is pleased to be hosting its 13th research roundtable on 27-28 November 2025 at Monash University Clayton campus, Melbourne. The roundtable is supported by the Faculty of Law at Monash University and the Australian Centre for Justice Innovation.
We are accepting paper proposal’s for the Roundtable. We welcome proposals that consider dispute resolution from a scholarly, critical and/or empirical perspective. Topics can be addressed for any disciplinary perspective and we are especially interested in interdisciplinary approaches to dispute resolution. We particularly encourage submissions from postgraduate students and early career researchers. All proposals will be considered. Papers must not have been published or submitted for publication, as the focus is work in progress.
For several decades, the Australian family dispute resolution literature has examined the operation of family mediation and other family dispute resolution procedures. Much of this data comes from funded evaluations and projects following the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibilities) Act 2006. However, the English and Welsh literature on contemporary family mediation is limited in comparison. Much of our research has remained focused on the court system, even though many, if not most, people involved in child arrangements or post-separation financial matters deal with their disputes outside of it. My monograph, Rethinking Family Mediation: The Role of the Mediator in Contemporary Times, seeks to reinvigorate discourse and debate on family mediator practice within not only England and Wales, but also other jurisdictions, including Australia. Its opening paragraph reads:
‘Family mediation, like many other procedures, is in a transitionary period. Several traditional concepts – neutrality, facilitation and non-legal support – continue to dominate the discussions around the role of family mediation and the family mediator. These notions remain fundamental to family mediator practice, though their hold has weakened over time. Following decades of reform to the family justice landscape, the work of family mediators is now underpinned by a number of other concepts: flexibility, evaluation and, sometimes, quasi-legal oversight. Family mediators continue to perform their traditional functions, but balance them alongside a rising demand to adapt. They follow a flexible conceptualization in order to provide more comprehensive support to their clients, many of whom have limited access to legal or other advice in the early 21st century.’ (Blakey 2025, p. 1)
Today’s English and Welsh family justice system is very different to that in Australia. We do not have any triage system like the Child and Family Hubs, nor is family dispute resolution mandated. In fact, the Ministry of Justice recently backtracked from 2023 proposals to require most private family law disputants to demonstrate a ‘reasonable attempt to mediate’ before initiating court proceedings, citing concerns about the use of family mediation in cases of domestic abuse. Interestingly, amendments to our Family Procedure Rules in April 2024 mean that judges now have more power to adjourn court proceedings to encourage the use of ‘non-court dispute resolution’ (including family mediation). Judges can also impose a cost order on parties who do not attend a non-court dispute resolution process ‘without good reason’. Whether the Family Procedure Rules have led to non-court dispute resolution becoming mandatory has yet to be seen. Regardless, Rethinking Family Mediation offers valuable insights for family dispute resolution practitioners and academics in various other jurisdictions. It illustrates how policy and legislation can shape mediator practice over time, highlighting mediation’s central positioning within the broader family justice system.
Uncovering the transition from limited to flexible mediator practice
The key thesis underpinning Rethinking Family Mediation is that the role of the family mediator (particularly in England and Wales) has broadened over time, and it is the lack of recognition that this development has occurred, not the development itself, that is inherently problematic. More specifically, I argue that there has been a transition from a limited mediator archetype to a flexible mediator archetype.
The limited mediator archetype is how family mediation practice was, and typically continues to be, conceptualised. They are facilitative and strictly neutral, ensuring that decision-making power rests with the parties at all times. This limited archetype was logical in the traditional English and Welsh family justice system when funding was accessible for many separating parties. Many individuals could still afford a lawyer, even if they were not eligible for legal aid. The limited mediator’s strictly facilitative role was thus appropriate, as more evaluative support and guidance was provided by a lawyer (or other legal practitioner) (figure 1). Nonetheless, the monograph uncovers a long-standing neutrality dilemma for family mediators: neutrality prohibits them from reacting to a power imbalance, yet, in many instances, to do nothing is also an unneutral act. This paradox suggests that the limited mediator was never a perfect or perhaps even ideal archetype.
Figure 1: A binary understanding of facilitative and evaluative behaviours
This critique holds even more weight today. The family justice system in England and Wales is drastically different to when family mediation was first piloted in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Over several decades, policy has increasingly presented mediation as the norm, not simply an alternative, for family matters. This push for private ordering accumulated in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) which, as of April 2013, removed legal aid for the majority of private family law court proceedings. At the same time, traditional legal support has become increasingly inaccessible for most separating families. Both factors have led family mediation’s clientele to diversify, with many cases now involving complex legal disputes or difficult party dynamics. The limited mediator, who is unable to provide any form of evaluation, is poorly suited to this clientele. Calls for mediators to adapt have increased as a result.
The monograph argues that mediators have transitioned to a flexible archetype over several decades. It recognises that the demand – both within policy and academic scholarship – for mediators to do more is, in fact, a call for mediators to become more evaluative. The flexible mediator archetype continues to perform a facilitative role, but evaluation is woven within their practices. Facilitation and evaluation are thus not a binary distinction, but rather two concepts on a continuum of mediator practice (as originally proposed by Riskin in 1996, though much of the contemporary English and Welsh literature on family mediation does not acknowledge his work). Mediator neutrality is subsequently re-understood as a moderate concept that does not need to be strictly upheld when doing so would compromise fairness or another normative concept. My monograph recognises that the flexible mediator archetype operated prior to the LASPO reforms, with a number of earlier studies demonstrating the varied work of mediators. However, it is submitted that the contemporary family justice landscape necessitates the archetype even further.
Revealing the flexible mediator archetype after the LASPO reforms
In England and Wales, and many other jurisdictions, debates around how to reform family mediation often become circular. It is said that change is needed to provide a better service. However, such change is not possible under the traditional conceptualisation of the (limited) family mediator. Rethinking Family Mediation submits that this stagnancy is resolved if the flexible mediator archetype is explicitly recognised.
To inform debate, the book outlines findings from an empirical project, consisting of a content analysis of family mediation Codes of Practice and semi-structured interviews with 17 family mediators. Its empirical findings first reveal a new theoretical framework of four mediation functions, all of which are recognised and adopted by both family mediators and their regulatory bodies (figure 2). Mediators are primarily helpers, but regularly evaluate the proposed settlement or party dynamic to determine if they should become referrers to another service (notably legal advice). Mediator evaluation becomes significantly more prominent as they become assessors and, furthermore, intervenors. Additional interview data shows that mediators feel that they are responsible for responding to difficult party dynamics and unfair settlements, justifying their more evaluative practices. Of particular note within the empirical data is the mediator sample’s regular reference to legal rules, set out in both legislation and case precedent. This alludes to a growing quasi-legal role for today’s family mediators, most likely influenced by the withdrawal of accessible legal support after the LASPO reforms.
Figure 2: The mediator function framework, plotted on a continuum of facilitative to evaluative strategies
These more evaluative behaviours are discussed by the entire mediator sample, even if a participant understands their neutrality in very strict, absolute terms. Intriguingly, over two-fifths of the mediator sample prefer an alternative understanding of their neutrality that enables them to intervene in negotiations to encourage a good quality settlement. This stance appears more closely aligned with the concept of impartiality, rather than neutrality, though whether the former is a better term to describe the flexible mediator archetype is unclear (mirroring similar debates in Australia).
Implications for family justice going forward
The quasi-legal role of flexible mediators, as identified through the monograph’s empirical data, has significant implications for the professionalism and training of the profession. One chapter of Rethinking Family Mediation specifically considers the extrinsic and organisational barriers to reform, asking whether family mediation should be regarded as a ‘legal service’ under English and Welsh legislation. While the monograph does not provide a definitive answer to the question, it hopes to reinvigorate debate in the area. The chapter also uncovers findings on the current status of family mediation services at a time when the government expects parties to mediate but has provided very little government funding to support mediators themselves.
Importantly, the findings covered in this book have significant implications for our understanding of family justice. Family justice is generally understood as something that is only available through court (and supported by legal representation). Yet much of the empirical data discussed in the book is evidence of a shift in not only family mediator practice, but family justice itself. In the contemporary English and Welsh, as well as Australian, landscape, family justice is increasingly provided through non-lawyers, such as mediators, who are often informed by legal norms. The book connects these changes to a rising hybridity across family law practice, with lawyers additionally becoming more collaborative and less adversarial over time.
This contemporary vision of family justice is not ideal, nor perfect. Without further scrutiny of the various professionals within the family justice system, the risk of improper or unfair outcomes increases. However, Rethinking Family Mediation is premised on finding pragmatic solutions to the challenges within our modern family justice systems. In order to do so, the reality of non-dispute resolution practice must be identified and, importantly, recognised.
It is of no surprise that the monograph regularly returns to the concealment of the flexible mediator archetype – and most likely many other flexible practitioners – as a key issue within our current discourse around family justice reform. Ultimately, it argues that the changes in family mediator practice have been both a natural part of the profession’s development, as well as a consequence of the contemporary family justice system with limited funding and inaccessible legal support. The book will therefore be of significant interest to anyone interested in learning more about family dispute resolution in terms of not simply how the process was traditionally conceived, but how it operates in reality.
Author Biography
Dr Rachael Blakey is an Associate Professor at the University of Warwick. Her research focuses on family mediation and access to justice. She is a co-opted Director of the Family Mediation Council, the main regulatory body for family mediators in England and Wales. Rachael is interested in legal professionalism more widely, and is currently conducting the first empirical study on the English and Welsh ‘one-lawyer-two-clients’ format of family law support.
Dan Berstein & Robert Bergman This article has been republished with permission and the original publication can be located at Mediate.com.
It can be difficult to get on the same page when you are caught in the middle of an adversarial dispute. Each party has their own biases – they want to win! Amidst a deluge of seemingly endless “facts” to pick from, sometimes it can feel like the parties are living in entirely different universes. Seeing this, dispute resolution professionals often end up asking themselves: “how can I bring these people together so we are all talking in the same world?”
One answer is visualizations. This article shares how a dispute resolver (or an ambitious party) can use visualizations to accomplish progress in their matter. It was written by Dan Berstein, a mediator living with bipolar disorder who often finds himself amidst complicated conflicts related to his mental health advocacy work – with help from Bob Bergman, the founder of NextLevel™ Mediation.
Dan shares his struggles to visualize different problems and disputes related to his advocacy work and Bob provided the background of how Next Level Mediation’s software can do it almost instantly, and better than a person could on their own.
1: Illustrating Harms
Living with a mental illness means that I have behavioral differences that can lead to my being stigmatized and rejected, or just the fact that I am open with my bipolar disorder can be a reason some people form worries or biases that lead to them pulling away. On an organization-wide level, this kind of behavior can ripple out across people.
I had a dispute with one organization where they produced records, including their private e-mail correspondences, revealing dozens of people passing around disparaging comments about me and/or making plans to reduce or cut contact with me. I was working on a resolution process with their outside counsel and I felt that they were not appreciating how damaging it had been for me to be targeted with these negative predispositions and pushed away (in manners large and small) from so many people. Eventually, I developed a crude organizational network analysis (ONA) chart to demonstrate the network of people involved:
Through the use of this visualization, I then created a system that could be used to visualize any [i] Explicit Shunning, [ii] Ghosting (No Response), [iii] Short Responses, [iv] Delays, [v] Lies, [vi] Disparagements, and [vii] Mistakes – charting how they flowed between people and their impact.
This was incredibly valuable to me as a tool in my dispute, as well as for my personal coping with the trauma of experiencing so much rejection. However, it was also incredibly tedious and difficult to create.
In my search for software that could help make it simpler, I connected with Bob Bergman, who explained how NextLevel™ Mediation can create a diagram to map this kind of network analysis in minutes just by you uploading your dataset and asking the right queries:
The NextLevel Approach to Visualizing Impact
In the example above, the uploading of email communication to the NextLevel™ Mediation platform document research assistant can produce the following example (note these do not use real data, and are meant to illustrate):
QUERY: Visualize the roles, interests, and power dynamics of parties involved by creating a stakeholder diagram
RESULT:
Description: This diagram captures the roles and interests of each stakeholder, along with arrows representing the influence, authority, and relationships between them.
QUERY: Create an ONA diagram that can help visualize any Explicit Shunning, Ghosting, short Responses, Delays, and Disparagements, and how they flowed between people
Description: This diagram shows how various negative interactions flow between people and highlights their impact on communication and relationships within the organization. Each arrow represents a type of interaction, such as shunning or ghosting, and the direction indicates the flow of this interaction.
2: Documenting Delays and Timelines
In one dispute, an organization was accusing me of causing delays, which had lasted close to 9 months. It hurt my feelings to be falsely accused of this so I sat down and pored over all of our past correspondences, mapping out the delays.
I found that their changes in staff and processes were responsible for, I believed, over 70% of the delays even though they had perceived such high delays from me (presumably due to their frustrations). This analysis was a tedious process and I was worried that people would think I was weird, perhaps due to my mental illness, for even undertaking it.
The NextLevel™ Mediation platform was, once again, the answer to my prayers. Not only does it do all of the work for me, and faster – but I can just tell someone I used this software without being judged as some kind of oddball for having created the chart myself. Here are example results with some anonymous data:
QUERY: Using the uploaded documents, create a sequence diagram of the dispute timeline and possible delays:
Description: This sequence diagram captures the interactions and discussions among different participants as they address the causes and effects of project delays over time.
QUERY: Create a user journey diagram for the mediator given the delays in email responses and their emotional effects.
Description: This diagram outlines the steps the mediator takes, from receiving notifications of delayed email responses to analyzing communication patterns, considering emotional impacts, and reporting outcomes to stakeholders.
3: Identifying What Matters
The NextLevel™ Mediation platform is about more than just charts. You can also just ask it questions so it can use its “brain” to digest all of the meaningful facts and help you stay focused on the big picture. This is important for me – even if only as a gut check – as my mental illness means I can be prone to becoming obsessive and to fixating on some facts at the exclusion of others. NextLevel™ is an objective way to get a sense of the big picture.
Beyond asking it for charts and diagrams, you can also generate tables to help you organize key information. Take a look at the table it generated when asked what might be the relevant and irrelevant facts for a discrimination claim (both for the alleged victim to collect, and for the alleged discriminator who is defending themselves):
If you have ever found yourself overwhelmed sorting through what happened, or just looking for a way to double-check your perspective – the NextLevel™ Mediation platform can instantly provide you breakdowns and summaries like this to help you find your way.
Conclusion
Seeing is believing, but it can be difficult to create the right picture. Visualizations can help resolve disputes if you know how to use them. This article talked about different charts you can use to visualize the scale of damages, the responsibility for delays, and which facts prove disparities. We also shared how you can go use NextLevel™ Mediation, right now, to create charts like this of your own (and so much more).
It can seem intimidating to enter the world of charts and graphics and bring them into your dispute, but it can also add a lot of value. I am grateful that there is software like NextLevel™ Mediation to help make something that can seem – at first – to be complicated into an easy, user-friendly, and fast process.
Here are some ideas of ways NextLevel™ can help:
Collect and scan all of your data from a situation into its platform, including e-mails and documents, and ask it to tell you the key points that matter, and the key things that matter to each party
Use it to instantly chart relationships with people and show patterns of impact and harm
Have it list the points of disagreement between the parties
Create timelines and sequence diagrams to show the course of events and simplify a complicated, convoluted set of facts into something precise and digestible
Disputes are often painful. We find ourselves in so much distress that it can help to use an AI-empowered software assistant to keep track of the facts so we don’t have to worry – and to paint the big picture summaries of what matters so we don’t get lost.
Author Biography
Dan Berstein is a mediator living with bipolar disorder who uses conflict resolution best practices to promote empowering mental health communication and prevent mental illness discrimination. His company, MH Mediate, has helped thousands of professionals and organizations be empowering, accessible, and non-discriminatory toward people with disclosed or suspected mental health problems. Dan holds degrees from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the Wharton School. He is the author of the 2022 book, Mental Health and Conflicts: A Handbook for Empowerment.
Robert Bergman is a seasoned decision science expert with over 60 years of experience in software engineering, system dynamics, and strategic planning. He is the founder and CEO of NextLevel Mediation, a SaaS platform that applies decision analytics, Game Theory, and AI to dispute resolution. His expertise spans multi-criteria decision-making methodologies (AHP, ANP, MAUT), mediation, negotiation, and military systems such as flight simulations. Previously, he held senior leadership roles at Intel, focusing on mobile strategy and cybersecurity, and has consulted widely in strategic decision science. Bergman is also a published researcher in AI, technology addiction, and the future of dispute resolution.
Although the legal profession prides itself on rigorous training and high standards, recent research reveals a gap between education and practice.
On 9 April 2025, the New South Wales Legal Profession Admission Board (LPAB) released a research report conducted by Urbis that examined Practical Legal Training (PLT) in NSW (the report). This report offers crucial insights for legal educators, practitioners, and the profession as a whole as it provides a view of the current landscape of legal education.
The Graduate Perspective
Most interestingly, 1 in 3 PLT graduates (33%) did not agree that the coursework was useful and that the course lacked deep relevance to legal practice. Direct feedback included comments like:1
“The core and elective subjects were not particularly helpful for my career”
“… it is difficult to grasp what each subject is intended to achieve”
Many characterised their PLT experience as merely a “box-ticking” exercise, which is gravely concerning considering the program is designed to bridge the gap between academic learning and professional practice. The purpose of PLT is to prepare future lawyers with the knowledge and skills required to practice competently and confidently, though feedback signifies otherwise.
Further, graduates reported that professional experience gained as paralegals or in other legal roles proved more valuable than the coursework itself. This practical exposure apparently delivered what formal PLT could not.
Though this was not a shared experience for all. Some respondents reported inadequate supervision, including being stationed to complete mundane administrative tasks or working under difficult supervisors.
In particular, one participant highlighted the challenges that would typially be faced by ‘first-generation’ lawyers–those who lack established connections within the legal profession–and described witnessing exploitative practices, power imbalances, absent quality control, and a lack of accountability.
The Supervisor Perspective
On the other hand, the supervisor perspective appears to be equally troubling. Over 2 in 5 PLT supervisors (42%) expressed dissatisfaction with the practical legal skills demonstrated by graduates. Even more concerning, 4 in 5 reported that graduates frequently required support to complete basic tasks and that they were not adequately prepared for workplace realities. Supervisors were particularly blunt in their feedback, with some commenting that graduates:2
“… [were] not up to the standards in private practice compared to [those] before the pandemic”
“… [were] unable to construct a sentence, have no idea what a title deed is, how to put together a brief, answer the phone, address an envelope, construct a cogent argument or conduct legal research”
Yikes… the latter response particularly raises some alarm bells to say the least. However, the quality of work will naturally vary from person to person, as one supervisor identified.
Furthermore, and somewhat optimistically, many supervisors explained that essential skills were ultimately better taught “on the job”, particularly in small or ’boutique’ firms. This suggests that graduates who receive proper guidance early on in their careers can develop the necessary practical skills effectively regardless of any deficiencies or challenges they might face in their formal studies or training.
An Extension of an Invitation
On 14 April 2025, the Honourable Andrew Bell, Chief Justice of New South Wales, issued a statement responding to the findings in this report. His honour highlighted these concerns and extended an invitation to members of the profession to make a submission in response.
I encourage readers, particularly practising lawyers, to peruse that report and consider its relevance to your own legal practice. Perhaps even make a submission to the LPAB with your concerns, reflections, insights, and experience.
A Personal Reflection
As a recently admitted NSW practitioner myself, though not a participant in this research, I can share and appreciate others’ likely frustration post-PLT and the intimidating reality in beginning the journey as a young lawyer.
The major concern emerging from this research is that the current PLT program fails to adequately equip students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies required for professional excellence. And if this is true for PLT, what does it suggest about the overall law curriculum from which it extends?
This gap became immediately apparent to me upon entering the profession. As a ‘second-generation’ lawyer, I was fortunate to have benefited from opportunities that offered invaluable guidance. Having worked with both barristers and solicitors during my PLT and early career–those whom I am most grateful–I received mentorship that provided me with essential skills which were not covered in my formal legal education.
It is unacceptable that not all graduates are afforded the same basic level of guidance and respect by supervisors or colleagues within the profession. It is an absolute privilege to be part of this great legal profession, and it is shameful that some might not recognise that privilege in this same light.
When opportune and appropriate to do so, we all ought to guide future lawyers, colleagues, and even opponents. This is not merely a matter of goodwill but rather a professional duty toward maintaining a competent, credible, and reputable profession.
Addressing this Gap
This gap in education and practice requires our urgent attention and reform.
To address an aspect of this problem, I will be speaking alongside Philippe Doyle Gray, Barrister-At-Law at 8 Wentworth Chambers, at the 2025 Australasian Law Academics Association Conference this July in our address titled “Evidence in a ‘Paperless’ Practice: Bridging the gap between theory and practice in legal education”.
Our address will focus on just one gap, specifically, how the Evidence Law compulsory unit fails to translate theoretical knowledge into professional “real-world” skills. We will explain that theory alone is insufficient in today’s legal landscape, particularly in an increasingly digital practice environment, and that graduands desperately need practical skills development before they enter into the workforce.
What You Can Do
While I have highlighted certain aspects that were revealed within the report, it contains many additional findings worthy of your attention, including issues around the high cost of completing PLT and the shift from face-to-face to online learning.
I strongly encourage all members of the profession to review the report in its entirety and take a keen interest in these issues. The quality of legal education directly impacts the quality of our profession.
Rory Gowers & Milan Nitopi This article is Part 3 of 3 in our series ‘Informed, Involved, Inclusive’.
Rory and Milan (left to right) presenting at the 12th Conference World Mediation Forum – Foro Mundial de Mediación in Brazil in November 2024.
The story of fisherman Mark and how mediators are not so different…
Mark Schenk recently shared a fishing story to illustrate when 90% isn’t enough.1 Mark tells us that he loves beach fishing, and beach worms make great bait–but at $9 each, he decided to catch his own. Turns out, it’s trickier than he expected.
Over several months, Mark learned to pick the right beaches, attract worms, spot them, and get them to latch onto bait. But despite all that effort, he would spend two hours catching just one or two worms. He kept missing the final step–grabbing them.
Frustrated, Mark studied everything there was to know about catching worms and learned insight from a highly experienced fisherman. That’s when he discovered the problem, that his instincts were wrong. Mark was using a pincer grip, like picking up a pencil. But the right way? He needed to press the flat his thumb into the first joint of his index finger.
Once Mark changed his grip, he started catching worms immediately–but only if he was focused. Whenever his attention lapsed, old habits crept back.
We share this story because intercultural mediation is not so different.
Although Mark spent months learning the skills and techniques to catch beach worms, it would be entirely futile as what he lacked was insight and experience. Once he learned the ways of experienced fishermen, his ability to catch worms increased exponentially.
Although mediators might be highly trained and skilled in their own right, they can lack the experience and insight required to mediate intercultural interactions effectively. Mediators can prepare meticulously, understand the key players, and enter negotiations with good intentions–but it is justnot enough. Like Mark, they can often rely on ingrained instincts that don’t quite translate in another cultural context.
What is missing within intercultural mediation?
It is simply not enough to just understand different cultures, it is about recognising and appreciating how other people perceive fairness, respect, and the process within their own cultural lens. Ask yourself this:
Am I engaging with each parties’ culture on their own terms?
Am I identifying and discerning their expectations, needs, interests, or concerns accurately (including what they may require for the process to feel appropriate and fair)?
Am I adapting my approach to mediation so that each party can contribute their best in achieving mutually beneficial outcomes?
Without this level of intercultural predisposition, negotiations by and between parties may seem productive on the surface, but will fall apart in practice—just like Mark spending hours on the beach with only one or two worms to show for his efforts.
Why MIMI is the missing link–especially in 2025!
The world is shifting rapidly. Geopolitical tensions, economic realignments, and global challenges mean that current top-level negotiation skills are no longer enough.
Mediators need more than just knowledge of culture, they need an intercultural predisposition–a first-hand experience which complements their current knowledge and skills. The ability to move beyond rigid frameworks and adapt in real time to cultural expectations will produce fairness and respect from multiple perspectives.
Mediators must facilitate an environment where all parties can contribute their best, even when they feel like they are in foreign territory. Without this, agreements that are technically sound lack true buy-in, and those agreements will unravel under pressure or strain.
The cost of misalignment is growing. Whether in business, diplomacy, or public service, failure to navigate cultural expectations means failed projects, lost trust, and missed opportunities. MIMI helps mediators to develop that final 10% needed to excel within cultural interactions, and this cultural adaptability then turns competence into mastery. Like Mark’s fishing lesson, it’s a small shift that changes everything.
Who else can benefit from MIMI?
Mediators are not the only ones who can benefit from what MIMI has to offer. Leaders, coaches, negotiators, managers or executives in business, lawyers and legal professionals, doctors and nurses can all benefit immensely by mastering these intercultural skills.
Reflect on your own experiences… Has there ever been a time in your life, or the life of a person you might know, where there was a cultural disconnect? Where expectations within that interaction were not adequately met? Where needs, interests, or concerns were not accurately addressed? If you have, now imagine how others might feel where there is an even greater cultural disconnect–where the stakes, risks, and loss are substantial.
At MIMI, we have spent years refining our craft, and now we are guiding you to develop that same instinct—not by giving rigid rules, but by helping you see and feel the process differently. By completing our training program, you will begin your journey in becoming a master of intercultural mediation and you will be able to assist others in ways that are culturally relevant.
MIMI will teach you how intercultural mastery can become second nature, just like Mark adjusting his grip. MIMI is not just another training program–it is a transformational shift. This kind of shift, once made, cannot be unseen and will contribute to much beneficial change.
Join the MIMI Pilot Program—A Transformative Experience!
We invite you to express your interest in completing our pilot program and to contribute your thoughts on how we can make it better.
We are selecting only8 accomplished professionals for the exclusive pilot cohort: the Mastering Intercultural Mediation Initiatives (MIMI) Program.If you would like to be a part of this transformative experience, express your interest here.
Expressions of interests close 31 May 2025.
Who should apply?
✔️ Experienced mediators who have navigated complex, high-stakes disputes. ✔️ Senior leaders and negotiators who operate across cultural boundaries. ✔️ Professionals with a proven ability to build rapport in challenging intercultural situations.
As a pilot participant, you will:
Be the first to experience MIMI
Expand on your intercultural toolkit
Join an elite mastermind, shaping the future of intercultural mediation
Why Law School Faculty Should Increase Instruction in Mediation Representation
I’m a retired law professor who mediated and taught mediation for years. The main purpose of my article was to encourage law school faculty who teach mediation to increase their instruction about how attorneys can promote good decision-making by representing clients in mediation. About 90% of law school mediation instruction in the US focuses on the neutral role, with relatively little instruction in mediation representation.
Many faculty want to encourage their graduates to promote self-determination, and they focus on the mediators’ role in doing so. There are significant limits on mediators’ capabilities to do this. Attorneys actually are in a much better position to help clients make good decisions in mediation sessions by carefully preparing them before mediation sessions.
Unfortunately, many attorneys don’t do a good job of preparing their clients for mediation sessions. That’s one reason why faculty should teach students how to do it well. This also would prepare them for the NextGen bar exam in the US (which will include questions about client management and dispute resolution skills) and to represent clients after graduation. New graduates are much more likely to represent clients in mediation than to serve as mediators.
How Preparation Promotes Self-Determination
For many parties, mediation sessions are very stressful. They are in the middle of an unresolved conflict, and they don’t know how the process or outcome will turn out. They may experience strong emotions, possibly aggravated by hostile reactions from the other side (who might be represented by a scary attorney). They may not be sure whether the mediator will help them. And they may be forced to respond to the mediator and other side under time pressure. So mediation sessions may be challenging environments for parties to make decisions.
Some mediators can’t or don’t do much to help parties prepare before mediation sessions. My article, How Can Courts – Practically for Free – Help Parties Prepare for Mediation Sessions?, suggests things that courts and mediators can do, and it includes links to lots of resources. Parties represent themselves in many mediations, and that article includes suggestions to help self-represented parties.
Mediators should do whatever they appropriately can to help parties prepare. Even when they do encourage preparation, however, there are significant limits to the assistance they can provide because of their neutral role. Mediators typically do not provide advice that parties need before and during mediation sessions.
Attorneys are particularly well positioned to help their clients prepare for mediation sessions in legal cases. Attorneys can engage clients to make choices about dispute resolution processes (if they have a choice), obtain and exchange relevant information with their counterparts and the mediator, educate clients about the applicable law, provide legal advice, explain how the mediation process would work in their case, help them identify and prioritize their goals, anticipate the counterparts’ perspectives and tactics, consider the likely outcomes if the parties do not reach agreement, and plan possible mediation strategies.
When parties are well prepared before mediation sessions, they can participate as effectively as possible from the start of the sessions. Such parties are in a much better position than when the only efforts to promote self-determination occur when mediators do so during mediation sessions.
Realistically Promoting Self-Determination
Standard I.A of the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators defines self-determination as follows: “Self-determination is the act of coming to a voluntary, uncoerced decision in which each party makes free and informed choices as to process and outcome.”
Making “free” choices is an admirable ideal. What does it mean in practice?
My article noted that there are many factors that can limit parties’ decision-making freedom, including many they aren’t even aware of. Indeed, mediators generally have limited knowledge about what affects parties’ decisions.
So I suggested how we might practically operationalize this ideal. Mediators and attorneys can help parties become knowledgeable, confident, and assertive, with the goal of making the best possible decisions under their circumstances. I think that this is the best we realistically can do to fulfill the goal of self-determination.
Choosing Our Language
In our field, we use many vague terms that feel good, like self-determination. Unfortunately, many of these terms are opaque, so people can attach many different meanings to them and misunderstand each other.
In my article Oxymorons R Us, I suggested that we should communicate so that people actually do understand what we mean – especially people who are not in our field, like parties.
Some readers like our traditional concepts and want to continue using them. I hope to prompt people to reflect on the concepts they prefer and to consider whether other concepts would be more useful.
Author Biography
John Lande, JD, PhD is the Isidor Loeb Professor Emeritus at the University of Missouri School of Law and former director of its LLM Program in Dispute Resolution. He earned his JD from Hastings College of Law and his PhD in sociology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Since 1980, John has practiced law and mediation in California, and since the 1990’s, he has directed a child protection mediation clinic.
The American Bar Association has published John’s books, including ‘Lawyering with Planned Early Negotiation: How You Can Get Good Results for Clients and Make Money‘ and ‘Litigation Interest and Risk Assessment: Help Your Clients Make Good Litigation Decisions‘ (co-authored with Michaela Keet and Heather Heavin).
John frequently writes for the Indisputably blog and has received many awards for his scholarship, most recently the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution’s award for outstanding scholarly work. You can download articles on a wide range of dispute resolution topics from his website.
Rory Gowers & Milan Nitopi This article is Part 2 of 3 in our series ‘Informed, Involved, Inclusive’.
Rory and Milan (left to right) presenting at the 12th Conference World Mediation Forum – Foro Mundial de Mediación in Brazil in November 2024.
Disclaimer: This introductory story is a work of fiction and does not intend to resemble any person or their lived experiences. Names, persons, places, and incidents are products of the author’s imagination. Any resemblance to actual events, locales, or persons is purely coincidental.
In the past… Ashita had a promising future in Aressa, Syria. As a rising star in the development of artificial intelligence, she was ecstatic when her supervisor pulled her aside on Friday afternoon to share exciting news—her talents had been noticed. Come Monday morning, she would step into a new role, a significant leap forward in her career. As she travelled home that evening, she imagined the innovations she would contribute and the problems she would solve. But by Sunday night, the world she knew was gone.
Then something happened… The war arrived without warning. Bombs shattered in the night sky, and chaos erupted in the streets. Her family fled in the back of a cattle truck that night, carrying with them only what they could. As the days turned into weeks, and the weeks turned into months, her past was slowly stripped away as she crossed each border.
But eventually she arrived in her host country, and she was alone—her family was scattered, lost in the chaos of displacement. In her host country, Ashita faced a new kind of struggle. The temporary permit allowed her to stay, but it did not offer any sense of belonging. She could barely communicate her basic needs, let alone articulate her expertise in AI–employers saw a refugee, not a specialist. The locals eyed her with suspicion, their mistrust became a barrier she could not break down. Without any support or others willingness to understand, her talents and her livelihood began slipping away.
So now we’re doing this… But there is another way. We offer a fresh and constructive path forward with specific application of the myRESPECTability model (Gowers, 2023) and through the Mastering Intercultural Mediation Initiatives (MIMI) training program. MIMI equips professionals in all fields with the skills to turn challenging intercultural communication into innovative and constructive dialogue with the involved stakeholders central to the issues in question. MIMI trained professionals will gain enhanced skills and competencies that enable them to facilitate sophisticated intercultural bridges to overcome long-standing cultural divides and reflect the current realities of our diverse, complex, and globalised world.
So we can have a future like this… With skilled intercultural professionals, Ashita does not have to remain unseen. Professionals who are interculturally competent can help resolve situations–like Ashita’s–by adapting the standard mediation principles, processes and practices to ensure all parties feel able to express and address their interests, needs, and concerns in culturally relevant ways so that they may have an equal place at the table.
In this way, people who may be experiencing a sense of ‘out-culture’ can come into their foreground and make significant contributions for the benefit of the whole community as they now have an opportunity to share their insights and talents.
The Author/s have labeled this AI-generated content (AIGC). This indicates that this content was completely AI-generated or significantly edited with AI.
We share this so that we can create a future that bridges the gap between culture and encourages collaboration between people of all nations. We share this so that we can all work together to address global challenges and achieve solutions that promote peace, equity, and sustainability for all life on this planet. And, we share this so that we can equip the world with the knowledge and skills required for tomorrow’s challenges. But let us explain how we propose to do this…
In our first article we laid the foundations that underpin our proposed intercultural competency training model. In this article, we share our working developments that set out curriculum and rubric which outline the key assessments and learning objectives we intend to achieve.
As becoming interculturally competent is more than an intellectual and mindful journey, we decided it is crucial to centre our training model on participant transformation. This means ensuring that key learning objectives are met, including:
Participant engagement
Research informed learning
Self-reflection
Flexibility
MIMI Foundation 1: Interculturally Informed
As the first foundation is a structured learning process centered on establishing the baseline knowledge of intercultural competence, we decided that participants would benefit most by undergoing an intensive workshop whereby they can both learn theory as well as engage in practical exercises with their cohort.
We envision the workshop to be a total of 12 hours completed over a 3 day period (4 hours each day). Throughout the 3 days, participants will engage in collaborative style learning to learn intercultural theory as well as participate in group discussions and completion of case studies. Upon completion of the 3 days, participants will submit a portfolio detailing their reflections of the theory and activities they engaged in.
Group discussions will focus on key interculturality issues in mediation practice, root causes for communication and dialogue issues, as well as a discussion of case studies to address questions such as:
How did each party feel about the experience?
What was the impact on the parties?
What could the facilitator have done differently?
How did the different communication skills influence the outcome?
What does that tell us about the importance of intercultural principles in mediation?
We expect participants will satisfy the following rubric components to demonstrate their competence in being interculturally informed:
To engage in the workshop including all group discussions, case study analyses, and other activities. This will be evidenced by their attendance and their portfolio submission following the 3 days.
To learn and demonstrate an understanding of intercultural theory and its application to communication and dialogue within mediation practice. This will be evidenced by their portfolio submission following the 3 days.
To self-reflect on learnings, insights, and peer contributions. This will also be evidenced by their portfolio submission following the 3 days.
MIMI Foundation 2: Interculturally Involved
As the second foundation is centered on developing a deeper understanding of other-cultural needs, values, and expectations, we decided that participants would benefit most by undergoing a full other-culture immersion program whereby they can become practically involved to witness, first-hand, their stories, songs, and symbols.
We recommend that participants undergo 10 consecutive days of immersion (with no less than 3 consecutive days). However, it is not a ‘one size fits all’ situation. Some participants may require more or less time to become fully involved in the other-culture–and that is okay! We support flexibility and we encourage participants to be self-determined in their own learning. During and upon completion of their immersion experience, participants will be required to submit a portfolio documenting their daily and final reflections.
In documenting their daily reflections, participants will be prompted on a variety of intercultural issues, such as:
What is a specific cultural difference and similarity you experienced today?
What was a communication and dialogue challenge you perceived today?
How and why did you address and/or manage the intercultural challenge that you faced today?
Record one specific cultural story, song, or symbol that you experienced today.
In documenting their final reflection, participants will be prompted on key interculturality issues in mediation practice or root causes for communication and dialogue issues by drawing on their own knowledge, insights, and immersion experience, such as:
How have your learnings and experiences affected your approach to peoples of an other-culture in your day to day life and/or in your mediation practice?
What communication or dialogue skills will you bring into your life and/or mediation practice?
How are those communication or dialogue skills relevant to effective mediation practice?
What do your learnings and experiences tell you about the importance of intercultural principles in mediation?
We expect participants will satisfy the following rubric components to demonstrate their competence in being interculturally informed:
To engage in at least 3 days of immersion in the other-culture and demonstrate a willingness to participate despite feeling a sense of discomfort, unease, or unfamiliarity. This will be evidenced by their attendance and daily reflections.
To learn and develop an acceptance of the needs, interests, concerns, expectations of the other-culture in a way that is culturally relevant to their own intercultural interactions and mediation practice. This will be evidenced by their daily and final reflections.
To self-reflect on learnings, insights, and lived experience. This will also be evidenced by their daily and final reflections.
MIMI Foundation 3: Interculturally Included
As the third foundation is focused on putting learnings and reflections into practice, we decided that participants would benefit most by engaging in a final practical workshop to adapt their current core principles, practices, and processes to the interests, needs, concerns, and expectations of the other-culture they immersed themselves in.
We envision the workshop to be a total of 20 hours completed over a 5-day period (4 hours each day). Throughout the 5 days, participants will engage in activities such as group discussions, case studies, and role-play exercises. The key focus of this workshop is for participants to demonstrate they are able to accurately identify and address communication and dialogue issues within an intercultural context. Upon completion of the 5 days, participants will be required to submit an ‘Intercultural Practice Statement’ as well as a portfolio detailing the activities they engaged in.
Group discussions, case studies, and role-play exercises will focus on key interculturality issues in mediation practice, root causes for communication and dialogue issues, as well as a discussion of case studies to address questions such as:
How did each party feel about the experience?
What was the impact on the parties?
What could the facilitator have done differently?
How did the different communication skills influence the outcome?
What does that tell us about the importance of intercultural principles in mediation?
The ‘Intercultural Practice Statement’ is a refined methodology for intercultural interaction and participants will be required to present this with their cohort. This provides an opportunity for them, as well as their cohort, to share insights and experience so that they can learn from each other. Participants will be asked to address a final question such as:
What are you going to do differently (i.e., how are you planning to include your learnings and experience into your life) now that you are informed and involved with the other-culture?
We expect participants will satisfy the following rubric components to demonstrate their competence in being interculturally informed:
To engage in the workshop including all group discussions, case study analyses, role-plays, and other activities. This will be evidenced by their attendance and their portfolio submission following the 5 days.
To apply their learnings and insights accurately to identify and address communication and dialogue issues within an intercultural context and in a way that is culturally relevant to their own intercultural interactions and mediation practice. This will be demonstrated by their portfolio submission following the 5 days.
To present their intercultural practice statement to their cohort. This will be evidenced by their attendance and portfolio submission following the 5 days.
To self-reflect on learnings, insights, lived experience, and peer contributions. This will also be evidenced by their intercultural practice statement and portfolio submission following the 5 days.
Intercultural Competency Specialisation (optional add-on) As an optional add-on, practitioner-based participants (mediators, family dispute resolution practitioners, lawyers, etc.) can elect to undergo a further 1.5 hour role-play assessment to apply their learnings in a practical scenario.
Our vision for the future is to incorporate this training model within leading institutions (such as mediator Recognised Accreditation Providers, Law Societies, Bar Associations, etc.) to develop an intercultural competency specialisation that practitioners can obtain and enhance their own competencies and professional practices.
Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
Each foundation addresses a different, but very necessary, aspect in intercultural competence development. But, because we believe that competency requires ongoing and continual development, the program will provide life-time access to resources and be supported by mentors, alumni, and peers in the online myRespectAbility community.
Professional Members will also receive exclusive discounts on registration in other myRespectAbility or Affiliate programs and workshops.
Participants who demonstrate extraordinary performance throughout the program may be invited to add a chapter to the Intercultural Competence Playbook–a journal that we will publish, print, and mail annually–and is an opportunity for all to learn from others’ insights and experiences.
Author Biography
Rory Gowers is a Master of Dispute Resolution (MDR), a Master of Education (MEd), an intercultural mediator, and a business strategist, residing in Greater Sydney, Australia. Rory has extensive international experience as a visionary business problem solver, and certified results coach. Rory’s mission is to facilitate a more respectful world by inspiring people and groups to transform business ecosystems with practical sustainable solutions with a vision to facilitate a place for all and peace for all in our time. Contact Rory via Webpage: www.myRESPECTability.com Email: rory.gowers@gmail.com Mobile: +61 425 292 811 LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/constructiveconflictsolutions
Milan Nitopi is an accredited lawyer and mediator with a Master of Laws in Family Dispute Resolution (LLM FDR). Milan has a passion concerning people, law, and resolution and he strives to equip people with skills for better communication and dialogue to address all kinds of conflict. Contact Milan via Email: manitopi@outlook.com Mobile: +61 432 547 538 LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/manitopi/
Whatever the reason for it and whoever it comes from, rejection hurts.
In 2022 I wrote a book called Mental Health and Conflicts: A Handbook for Empowermentwith hopes to teach people skills for managing challenging behaviors without writing off people with mental illnesses. At the time, this book represented a culmination of my life’s work and it meant a lot for to me that it found a home at the American Bar Association (ABA).
Three years later, my ABA affiliation was unfortunately terminated following a difficult saga, for me and many others, as I was wrestling with interpersonal struggles and bipolar symptoms. The news of my termination was very difficult. I have been hospitalized five times due to my bipolar disorder–always during times when I became overwhelmed by similar interpersonal challenges. During each episode, I would break down, my mind would get stuck on a problem, and I would decompensate into mania or even psychosis. My condition has a high risk for instability and suicide, with research showing that each subsequent episode means a decreased odds of returning to normal functioning.1
Being terminated from the ABA overwhelmed me. It was a sudden emotional crisis that put me at risk. I required emergency medication, emergency therapy sessions, and emergency support from friends and family. We summoned all of the lessons from decades of managing my condition in order to make it through.
Even though it was an immensely challenging period in my life, this time something was different. In 2023, and as part of my professional work as a conflict resolver, I had developed a system for responding to avoidance, rejection, and social exclusion. I presented a three-step model to get through these especially challenging situations, which I call the 3 R’s, at the Association for Conflict Resolution conference and the Academy of American Law Schools ADR Works-In-Progress conferences.
Without the skills of the 3 R’s, I do not know how I would have coped with being terminated. That system consists of:
Respect.
Reply.
Reorient.
The 3 R’s approach readily lends itself to any situation and can be easily used by anyone when they face rejection from friends, family, colleagues. Here’s how it works:
1. Respect the person’s decision even if you find it stigmatizing or you disagree with it.
While it is tempting to try to convince them of your worth, dispel lies or inaccuracies, and seek ways to still have the relationship, it can also be dangerous.
Sadly, I’ve learned in my life that, given I’m open with my bipolar disorder, it is easy for people to stigmatize my persistence to fight being rejected. Studies have shown that it is common that people with bipolar disorders are sensationalized in the media (such as TV shows or movies, and other portrayals).2 There is also research that shows people are more likely to worry someone that has a mental health problem is some kind of stalker.3 Amidst that kind of climate, it can be risky to continue contacting someone who may be seeing any follow-up through a stigmatizing lens. Arguing with their portrayal may only feed into the narrative.
Stigma aside, in any conflict it is helpful to separate the person’s decision to cut contact with you from the explanation you are given or the style with which it is delivered. It may feel offensive, demeaning, disrespectful to be ghosted or to hear a story that does not ring true or clearly is contrived. But no matter how poorly implemented or inaccurate the rejection may seem to be, it still provides notice of a decision: however painful the circumstances, this person wants to diminish or end their relationship to you.
Years of dispute resolution have taught me to prioritize self-determination,4 and made it easier for me to come to a place of accepting that a person made a rejection decision.
While it does not feel good to be rejected, it has been a relief to readily accept it instead of debating. If there are other problems related to what is happening, such as bullying or discrimination, it still can be best not to fight and instead look for other kinds of support.5
2. Reply one last time to confirm the boundary.
You may not always get a formal letter or confirmation (such as a letter of termination–like I received) when it comes to rejection and social exclusion with friends, family, or others.
We live in a world filled with “ghosting” patterns–where people just pull away without contact–and things are left rather ambiguous and unclear.6 Sometimes it can be extremely ambiguous, such as in one of the latest dating trends where people engage in “breadcrumbing” to keep romantic partners on the hook or on hold.7
This is why, whenever anyone seems to be avoiding contact with me, I send one final reply to let them know that I am acknowledging what I perceive to be their boundary to be and that I plan to follow it. Depending on your personal boundaries, you might also let them know you are available in the future if they change their mind on reconnecting. In the course of my mental illness discrimination advocacy work, I typically take that approach, with hopes that one day the people or organizations who are avoiding me will evolve and want to engage. In that case, I want them to know the door is still open for that.
Sending this reply is important because it is possible–given any ambiguity–that there was a misperception. Sometimes people will immediately let you know that they didn’t mean to make you feel rejected and they might undo the boundary. On the other hand, if they are intent on the rejection, your reply documents that you are honoring their boundary and that record can be helpful, particularly to guard against the stigmas mentioned earlier.
3. Reorient to next steps rather than stay stuck in pain.
This is my favorite “R” because this approach has truly changed my life. Before the 3 R’s, I would stay fixated obsessing on hating myself, endorsing self-stigmas, wallowing, and reliving the loss over and over whilst descending into a dark place in my mind.
But there is another way. If we commit to focusing on reorienting ourselves to discover new opportunities, we can enrich our lives. Since I started using the 3 R’s model in my life, I have connected with new friends and colleagues, developed new projects and partnerships, and become active in new communities–all because I decided to immediately accept the person’s decision to cut contact with me and start looking for new people and places to be involved instead. Since 2023, when I first created this system, my life has grown at a meteoric rate with many new opportunities which I have found and nurtured every time I reorient.
My initial connection to Australia came by my efforts to reach out to someone in early 2024 and during a time when I received a different rejection letter related to my anti-discrimination advocacy work. This new relationship was a welcoming one where we collaborated on programs, and eventually led to a conference invitation from someone else and then to my writing on this Blog. None of this would have happened if I had not decided to reorient and move forward. And that example is just a fraction of the rich relationships I have developed when I took chances on reorienting toward new things instead of fighting to cling onto what I had already lost.
I am sad that my bipolar disorder and interpersonal struggles led to difficult circumstances with the ABA and led to my termination. At the same time, I am grateful that the 3 R’s helped me get through it and land on my feet. This method has helped me in a time of need where I have felt unwelcomed in any community or with any person. Remembering to do it when I am feeling hurt has allowed me to make healthier, more empowering decisions.
Even when I was so dysregulated by my serious mental illness and wrestling with an influx of distressed energy, I was still able to tap into those 3 R’s to ensure I made the best possible decisions to:
Respect peoples’ choices instead of fighting to prove my worth,
Reply to work things out instead of begging to return, and,
Reorient to fill my life with opportunities that were a better fit for me and my sometimes-challenging mental health problems.
I will still love the American Bar Association, albeit from afar and via nostalgic memories, I still have a page posted summarizing much of my anti-discrimination work there and other projects from my four years as Co-Chair of the ABA’s Dispute Resolution Section Diversity Committee. During this time, I made many friends and did a lot of important work. Though I will certainly miss being connected with so many great opportunities and new ideas, I will keep reorienting amidst the loss. Meanwhile, I will always recommend that anyone who does have access avail themselves of the myriad of resources disseminated by the ABA and often developed from their community of over 200,000 members.
The 3 R’s have helped me prevent complete breakdowns and manage challenging times in my life. These skills have helped me find and new opportunities during times I might have otherwise fallen apart. Anyone can use this simple yet powerful system when they face rejection in their lives.
Author Biography
Dan Berstein is a mediator living with bipolar disorder who uses conflict resolution best practices to promote empowering mental health communication and prevent mental illness discrimination. His company, MH Mediate, has helped thousands of professionals and organizations be empowering, accessible, and non-discriminatory toward people with disclosed or suspected mental health problems. Dan holds degrees from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the Wharton School. He is the author of the 2022 book, Mental Health and Conflicts: A Handbook for Empowerment.
Gergel, T., Adiukwu, F., & McInnis, M. (2024). Suicide and bipolar disorder: opportunities to change the agenda. The Lancet Psychiatry; Peters, A. T., West, A. E., Eisner, L., Baek, J., & Deckersbach, T. (2016). The burden of repeated mood episodes in bipolar I disorder: results from the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 204(2), 87-94. ↩︎
Klin, A., & Lemish, D. (2008). Mental disorders stigma in the media: Review of studies on production, content, and influences. Journal of health communication, 13(5), 434-449. ↩︎
Wheatley, R., & Underwood, A. (2023). Stalking and the impact of labelling “There’sa difference between my offence and a stalker”. Journal of criminal psychology, 13(2), 91-104. ↩︎
Baruch Bush, R. A., & Berstein, D. (2023). Orienting Toward Party Choice: A Simple Self-Determination Tool for Mediators. J. Disp. Resol., 1. ↩︎
Tuckey, M. R., Li, Y., Neall, A. M., Chen, P. Y., Dollard, M. F., McLinton, S. S., … & Mattiske, J. (2022). Workplace bullying as an organizational problem: Spotlight on people management practices. Journal of occupational health psychology, 27(6), 544. ↩︎
Freedman, G., Powell, D. N., Le, B., & Williams, K. D. (2019). Ghosting and destiny: Implicit theories of relationships predict beliefs about ghosting. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(3), 905-924. ↩︎
Navarro, R., Larrañaga, E., Yubero, S., & Víllora, B. (2020). Psychological correlates of ghosting and breadcrumbing experiences: A preliminary study among adults. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(3), 1116. ↩︎
Rory Gowers & Milan Nitopi This article is Part 1 of 3 in our series ‘Informed, Involved, Inclusive’.
Rory and Milan (left to right) presenting at the 12th Conference World Mediation Forum – Foro Mundial de Mediación in Brazil in November 2024.
Every culture is in conflict; and, we are all moderated by cultural norms and expectations. Where there is more cultural diversity, there is a greater chance for misunderstanding and an escalation of conflict.
In the context of meditation, facilitators who are not equipped with the necessary intercultural competencies risk undermining that process, which can contribute to difficult or unproductive communication and dialogue. Although competencies standards exist (such as the Intercultural Competence Specialisationby the International Mediation Institute), facilitator training in intercultural predisposition is limited.
We presented our proposition to counter this serious gap in mediator development at the 12th Conference World Mediation Forum – Foro Mundial de Mediación in Brazil in November 2024 in our address: ‘Informed, Involved, Inclusive: A New Chapter In Intercultural Competence’. The Mastering Intercultural Mediation Implementation (MIMI) training program is based on three core foundations:
Informed,
Involved, and,
Inclusive.
MIMI is a specific application of the my-RESPECT-ability model which entails the intercultural mediation principles, processes, and practices at the heart of the Intercultural Competence Playbook (Gowers 2023).
Visit my-RESPECT-ability to read more on the model or to enrol in introductory webinars.
In developing the MIMI training program we explored intercultural research concepts and approaches (including Dai & Chen, Sveiby & Skuthorpe, Gowers) as well as drawing on our combined lived experience and extensive mediation practice. Rory has lived in over 7 countries and brings insights from over a decade of real-life intercultural mediation practice (in public, private, and voluntary sectors).
Becoming interculturally competent is more than an intellectual and mindful journey. Therefore we decided it is crucial to centre our training model on participant transformation. As participants become more aware, more accepting, and more appreciative of an ‘other-culture’, they begin to develop competencies which enable them to facilitate intercultural interactions effectively.
An ‘other-culture’ is a class, community or sub-culture of any kind (social status, ethnicity, spiritual, gender identity, wealth, occupation, species, etc.) that is so different that it reveals in you a sense of personal discomfort or powerlessness (such as fear or anxiety or a capacity to interact). It is the feeling of being a total foreigner, in contrast to the feeling of being a relaxed tourist. It may be experienced as a feeling of alienation. This is what people from an other-culture experience when they enter into a new, dominant culture where they lack the capacity or the social skills to interact or negotiate on a level playing field.
The word ‘gudiya’ refers to non-Indigenous people in the context of Aboriginal-English. Indigenous Australians adapted English to communicate with non-Indigenous people after their traditional languages were stolen and is a variety of English, distinct from Australian English.
There are many words to refer to an ‘outsider’ and we all have experienced this feeling at some point in our lives.
Communication and dialogue is an essential and fundamental aspect of mediation, but how do we consider this through the lens of the three cultural motifs:
the Eastern “We”
the Indigenous “Be”
the Western “Me”
In a Western context, ideals such as self-determination and non-partisanship (including neutrality and impartiality) are often discussed as being critical to an effective mediated outcome. But what do these aspects actually mean with consideration of other-cultures?
Whereas in an Eastern context, the ideal of achieving harmony appears critical to an effective mediated outcome. And, in an Indigenous context, ideals of responsibility and collective existence appear critical to an effective mediated outcome. Yet the Western understanding of ‘mediation’ does not translate well with ideals belonging to other-cultures.
We see here that ethical practice is shaped by varying culturally embedded needs and these needs are not exclusive to just one specific cultural perspective. In the context of communication and dialogue, they illustrate the interests, needs, concerns, and expectations of other-cultures. Unless a mediator is interculturally aware, accepting, and appreciative of other-culture perspectives and ethical frameworks, their ability to facilitate effective and enduring outcomes is significantly diminished.
Where all parties to an intercultural dispute are able to express and address their interests, needs, and concerns in culturally relevant ways, then a more creative, sustainable, and harmonious outcome can be achieved.
Mastering Intercultural Competence
Our intercultural competence training model is built on three foundations:
Informed
Involved
Inclusive
Foundation 1: Informed (awareness)
The first foundation is focused on being better informed. By being better informed, we are led to an increased awareness. And, to be better informed we must turn our minds to the facts, feelings, and findings of intercultural research.
This foundation is a structured learning process centered on establishing the baseline knowledge of intercultural competence.
As it has been observed that a person’s experience of other-cultures is both an intellectual and mindful journey, knowledge of an other-culture is not itself enough to develop intercultural competence. Although the International Mediation Institute sets out the minimum standards for intercultural competence specialisation and set the pathway for internationally accepted mediation principles, we recognised that more was required in order to have a complete and comprehensive understanding of an other-culture.
In a Western context, unless we become aware and address our own inner conflict, we are unable to take a ‘balcony view’ of others’ conflict. By failing to adopt a balcony view, we lack impartiality and neutrality; concepts that are cornerstone to Western facilitative mediation practice. However, within other-cultures, a different approach might be taken.
Foundation 2: Involved (acceptance)
The second foundation is focused on being more involved. By being more involved, we are led to a greater acceptance of other-cultures. And, to be more involved we must immerse ourselves within an other-culture and listen to their stories, songs, and symbols.
We created this foundation to allow participants the opportunity to develop a deeper understanding of the other-cultures needs, values, and expectations by providing a full other-culture immersion program. This foundation is the heart of our training model.
This immersion program is crucial as participants must initially feel uncomfortable and confronted with unfamiliar aspects of an other-culture. This makes for a more profound intercultural learning experience. It is ourselves actually undergoing the change where we arrive at a deeper level of understanding and respect for other-cultures and their voice at the ‘table’.
As it takes time to begin immersing ourselves in an other-culture, some participants may elect to extend their immersion program to develop an even deeper understanding of the other-culture that they immersed themselves in.
Immersion is more than assimilation with, or imitation of, the other-culture. In their experience, participants learn respect for the values, needs, and expectations embedded within those other-cultures. It is to understand and accept that our eyes are but only one perspective in the world and that there are many eyes which look upon the face of this earth differently. All perspectives are valued.
Unlike how the International Mediator Institute Standards emphasise mediator proficiency of a particular culture and advocates for cross-cultural application, our approach is focused on competence in intercultural interaction.
To be cross-cultural is not to be intercultural. They are different. ‘Intercultural’ is described by Paula Schriefer as:
“communities in which there is a deep understanding and respect for all cultures. Intercultural communication focuses on the mutual exchange of ideas and cultural norms and the development of deep relationships. In an intercultural society, no one is left unchanged because everyone learns from one another and grows together.”
Foundation 3: Inclusive (appreciation)
The third foundation is focused on being more inclusive. By being more inclusive, we are led to a greater appreciation of other-culture’s wisdom, needs, and ways of working with conflict. And, to be more inclusive, we must turn our minds to choosing the most appropriate principles, processes, and practices of intercultural mediation for that culture.
We created this foundation to allow participants the opportunity to further develop their intercultural mindset and heart-set behaviours. A participant is to adapt their current core principles, practices, and processes to the interests, needs, concerns, and expectations of the other-culture they immersed themselves in.
By putting learnings and reflections into practice, participants are able to accurately identify and address communication and dialogue issues within an intercultural context. This can be achieved with case studies or role play exercises.
Authors Biography
Rory Gowers is a Master of Dispute Resolution (MDR), a Master of Education (MEd), an intercultural mediator, and a business strategist, residing in Greater Sydney, Australia. Rory has extensive international experience as a visionary business problem solver, and certified results coach. Rory’s mission is to facilitate a more respectful world by inspiring people and groups to transform business ecosystems with practical sustainable solutions with a vision to facilitate a place for all and peace for all in our time. Contact Rory via Webpage: www.myRESPECTability.com Email: rory.gowers@gmail.com Mobile: +61 425 292 811 LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/constructiveconflictsolutions
Milan Nitopi is an accredited lawyer and mediator with (soon) a Master of Laws in Family Dispute Resolution (LLM FDR). Milan has a passion concerning people, law, and resolution and he strives to equip people with skills for better communication and dialogue to address all kinds of conflict. Contact Milan via Email: manitopi@outlook.com Mobile: +61 432 547 538 LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/manitopi/
Samantha Hardy This article has been republished and adapted with permission. The original publication can be located within The Conflict Management Academy.
When we look at how people typically promote conflict-related services, such as mediation, the services are often presented as a better option than other alternatives. In fact, this thinking is even found in the name “alternative dispute resolution”.
However, psychological research shows that using ‘scare’ tactics to try to motivate someone to do something tends not to work. This can be explained by what Wayne Hershberger (1986) first called “the law of approach and avoidance” and means that we tend to move towards pleasure and away from pain.
While you might think that telling someone about all the bad things that might happen if they leave their conflict unresolved would motivate them to move away from those bad things towards something better (e.g. mediation), the problem is that we have promoted our service by reference to the bad things, so they may well subconsciously move away from us!
When we feel an emotion that we find unpleasant, our brain’s natural response is to move away from the thing related to that emotion. In contrast, when we feel an emotion that we find pleasant, our brain is wired to approach.
However, in Shari Talbot’s book The Influential Mind, she explains that when we are trying to influence someone to do something, we have to be careful how we apply this logic. While we tend to move away from something that we see as unpleasant, we can also stop moving altogether if we are not sure about what we are moving towards.
Our brains are wired in such a way that anticipating a reward not only triggers approach, it is more likely to elicit action altogether. If you want someone to act quickly, promising a reward that elicits an anticipation of pleasure may be better than threatening them with a punishment that elicits an anticipation of pain.
In short – if we are trying to avoid something bad, we may move away from it, but we may also freeze if we are uncertain about what lies ahead of us. In contrast, if we know that something positive and rewarding lies ahead of us, we are more likely to actively take steps towards that better option.
This works for both words and images.
A study of crowd funding requests carried out by Alexander Genevsky and Brian Knutson in 2015 examined 13,500 online requests for funding. These requests were often for financial support for people needing expensive medical treatment, and counter-intuitively, the research found that crowd funding requests were more likely to raise money if they showed someone happy and well rather than someone sick in a hospital bed.
If you search online stock photo libraries for photos relating to “conflict resolution”, you will perhaps be surprised to find that many of the images do not illustrate “resolution” but rather show people in conflict.
Here are some examples:
As well as the law of approach and avoidance, we need to consider people’s need for a sense of certainty and control.
Warnings and threats limit people’s sense of control, so instead we need to emphasize what needs to be done to reap rewards – which increases their sense of control.
So, what does this mean for marketing a service like mediation?
Firstly, talk about the benefits that clients will achieve by participating using an approach framework. Don’t just talk about the bad things they will avoid; also talk about the good things they will gain so that they can manage risk and also know what they can work towards.
Secondly, emphasise the client’s opportunities to make choices and take control of their future.
Thirdly, use positive images on your website, that show how people will feel and behave after they have used your services.
Here are some examples:
Review your promotional material. If you want to make sure you are marketing your mediation services effectively, think about how much of your content is about what clients can avoid by engaging your services and how much of your content is about what clients can gain (rewards, pleasure) by engaging your services.
Think about the kinds of images you use. Consider whether those images show the problem a client wants resolved or how the client will feel after they work with you? Consider ideas that describe the outcomes people will gain from working with you and the associated positive emotions that those people will elicit.
Author Biography
Dr Samantha (Sam) Hardy is the Director and Lead Trainer of the Conflict Management Academy. Sam is an experienced mediator, conflict coach, and the founder of the REAL Conflict Coaching System™. She provides conflict support to managers and leaders across the world as well as professional development training, supervision and mentorship to mediators and coaches who work with clients in conflict. Sam is an accredited mediator under the Australian National Mediation Accreditation System (NMAS), a certified transformative mediator by the United States Institute of Conflict Transformation, and a certified narrative coach. She has been awarded Conflict Coach of the Year at the Australian Dispute Resolution Awards in 2022 as well as the Australian Resolution Institute Award for Service to Dispute Resolution in 2021 for her leadership and innovation in the field. Sam also publishes widely in dispute and conflict resolution, including Dispute Resolution in Australia, Mediation for Lawyers and Conflict Coaching Fundamentals: Working with Conflict Stories.
The Australian Dispute Resolution Research Network 