Traditionally, as we all know, mediators were identified as neutral third parties and mediation itself was defined as involving the intervention of a third party neutral. Neutrality has been widely criticised to the extent that it no longer appears as a  defining feature or even an ethical requirement in the National Mediation Accreditation Standards (NMAS). An early construction of the idea of neutrality was that it meant mediators exercised no power in mediation.

We have come along way from this early view about power in mediation. Scholarly critique and practitioners’ reflections have debunked the idea that mediators have no power. Questions remain however about the sources of mediator power and the proper limits of its exercise. Traditionally mediators attributed power to the process of mediation itself, and constructed the parties’ voluntary consent to engaging in the process as giving them authority (legitimised power) to control that process. This approach was consistent with constructing mediators as neutral as to the content of mediation but in control of the process.

The distinction between process and content in mediation no longer appears in the NMAS. This change is consistent with the development of ‘newer’ models of mediation, namely, narrative and transformative models, extending the traditional  problem-solving (facilitative and evaluative) models. Postmodern constructions of power are more consistent with these later models. At the same time facilitative and evaluative models are the most commonly practised, with practitioners’ sometimes incorporating ‘aspects’ of narrative and transformative approaches.

Authority to mediate is increasingly mandated by legislation. But the scope of mediator power is only loosely delineated in the broad definitions of mediation itself. Questions about the mediator’s role in ensuring substantive fairness in addition to procedural fairness raise further questions about the scope of mediator power and its proper exercise. Questions of mediator ethics equally pose questions about how much power mediators should have and how they should exercise it.

What is the basis of mediator power? What is its proper scope? How should it be constrained and directed?

What are your thoughts?

Some food for thought (a few selected,but not an exhaustive list of relevant,references):

Astor, H. 2005, “Some Contemporary Theories of Power in Mediation: A Primer for the Puzzled Practitioner”, Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 30-9.

Bagshaw, D. 2003, “Language, Power and Knowledge”, Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 130-41.

Bayliss, C. and Carroll, R. 2002, “The Nature and Importance of Mechanisms for Addressing Power Differences in Statutory Mediation”, Bond Law Review, Vol. 14, pp. 285-318.

Bayliss, C. and Carroll, R. 2005, “Power Issues in Mediation”, ADR Bulletin, Vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 134-38.

Field, R. 1996, “Mediation and the Art of Power (Im)balancing”, QUT Law and Justice Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 264-73.

Field, R. 2000, “Neutrality and Power: Myths and Reality”, The ADR Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 16-20.

Mayer, B. 1987, “The Dynamics of Power in Mediation”, Mediation Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 75-86.

Wade, J. 1994, “Forms of Power in Family Mediation and Negotiation”, Australian Journal of Family Law, Vol. 6, pp. 40-57.

This is a call for all researchers in the Dispute Resolution field reminding of the National Mediation Biennial Conference to be held on the Gold Coast from Monday, 12 – Wednesday, 14 September 2016.

The conference theme is ‘Thought, Innovation and Creativity: The Next Decade’

This is a unique opportunity to exchange ideas, results, evaluations, and proposals for future research. The research day provides an ideal opportunity to discuss between practitioners and researchers thought, innovation and creativity in the DR research area for the next decade.

A specific Dispute Resolution Research Forum Day will be held post-conference on Thursday, September 15, 2016 at Bond University. Attendance at the DR Research Forum is included in the cost of the Conference.

Abstracts are due 15 March 2016. Further details are available at www.mediationconference.com.au

Broad area of inquiry: What drives lawyer behaviour in dispute settlement?

Dr Olivia Rundle would love to work with some new research higher degree candidates, and applications are open this month to apply to enrol in a scholarship supported PhD or Masters by Research at the Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania.

It is well recognised that the lack of clarity about what lawyers ought to be doing in consensus based processes (as opposed to the traditional adversary system of judicial determination) can contribute to widely variable ideas about the boundaries of ethical behaviour in negotiation, mediation and other dispute resolution processes. Factors that influence lawyers’ behaviour are likely to include: lawyers’ professional identity, conceptualisation of their professional responsibilities, guidelines, client demands, time pressures, billing pressures, skills, training, and personality. Important contributions to this area of inquiry include the following (by no means an exhaustive list):

There is a need for more empirical research about the actual drivers behind lawyer behaviour in the settlement of clients’ disputes. Understanding the practitioner’s perspective would make an important contribution to the field of non-judicial dispute resolution. There is also a need for more empirical work that investigates the lawyers’ perspective of reforms that have been made in the civil justice system. Just as lawyers’ behaviour in dispute resolution is at times cause of complaint, lawyers’ behaviour in litigation is also subject to some criticism. Dr Rundle is curious about why lawyers do things the way they do.

Olivia has a strong background in researching about lawyers in dispute resolution. Her own PhD investigated the practices and perspectives of lawyers engaging in court-connected mediation at the Supreme Court of Tasmania. Since her PhD, Olivia has written extensively about the role that lawyers play in mediation, and explored in a hypothetical sense the drivers that could sit behind lawyer behaviour in dispute resolution processes. See Olivia’s profile regarding her work in the dispute resolution area on the ADR Research Network blog. Some of her key publications to date are as follows:

If you would like to explore a research question within this broad area of inquiry with Olivia, then please consider submitting an application. The application process for research higher degrees is explained on the UTAS Gradute Research Website. Olivia can be contacted at Olivia.Rundle@utas.edu.au with topic related queries. See PhD/Masters Scholarships for Hot Topics on the UTAS Faculty of Law Scholarships Page for details of the competitive scholarship process – this topic is one of three “Hot Topics” and we have a limited number of scholarships to allocate. The University will award the scholarships to the most highly ranked applicants. Olivia will not be involved in the ranking or decision making about scholarships. Applications close 31 March 2016.

Thanks to Fiona Hollier, an opportunity just came to my attention. The US based Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR) is calling for emerging researchers to submit proposals to present at their conference in October in Baltimore. The selection criteria aim to support the dissemination of interesting research that might not otherwise come to the attention of their members.

The presentation serves three primary functions: 1) to inform our membership about a topic in which they might not have engaged and/or excite them about new possibilities in the field; 2) to inspire our membership with the high quality of work being done by those preparing to enter or newly practicing in the field; 3) to give an opportunity to a number of our newest professionals to demonstrate the contribution being made by the “New Voices” in the field.

Further details are available at http://www.imis100us2.com/ACR/ACR/Education___Training/Conflict_Resolution_Training.aspx

Additional opportunity

The conference presentation will also be videoed and featured on the ACR website.  Additionally, a select number of submissions that were not selected for presentation at the conference will be invited to submit a video for the website.

Who is eligible to apply

All current or recent students in programs specializing in conflict resolution or interdisciplinary programs in which conflict studies are an integral part may apply.  Practitioners who may not have been students in certificate or degree programs but have done other forms of training and have entered the field in the last five years are also invited to apply.

If you are doing some research in an innovative space or from a unique angle, consider applying for this fantastic opportunity to disseminate your work on the international stage.

I haven’t heard anything official yet – but on the grapevine it seems that the Law Admissions Advisory Committee (LACC) might be listening to those of us advocating for the recognition of DR in the law curriculum.

Members of the ADR Research Network, and the DR community more broadly – particularly the DR legal academic community – have long been arguing that the law curriculum needs to better integrate ADR knowledge, skills and attitudes if law schools are to prepare their students adequately for entry into the legal profession and the wider world of work. This view was very clearly reflected in the Threshold Outcomes for Law (Sally Kift, Mark Israel and Rachael Field, Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project: Bachelor of Laws Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement December 2010 (Australian Learning and Teaching Council, 2011)).

In March 2015, members of the Wellness Network for Law (Madeleine Dupuche, Lecturer, College of Law, Dr Anna Huggins, Senior Lecturer, QUT Faculty of Law, and myself) made a submission to LACC’s Review of Academic Requirements for Admission to the Legal Profession.  That review is reconsidering the content of the Priestley 11 – the 11 subjects required for eligibility for admission to legal practice.

Our submission made a number of recommendations. We argued that the law curriculum should be intentionally designed to better equip law students for success in legal education and in the law, and that an important strategy in achieving this involves including DR as a core subject in the law degree (we chose to use the term ADR for clarity in our communication with the members of LACC who we thought would be more familiar with it).  The relevant part of the submission reads as follows:

Alternative Dispute Resolution

In response to paragraphs 6.4 and 6.5 of the LACC discussion paper the Network makes the following submissions:

• Alternative Dispute Resolution (‘ADR’) should be added as an academic requirement.
• Field and Duffy argue that the majority of Australian law schools are fundamentally failing future practitioners, and the future of the legal profession more broadly, by only offering ADR as an elective subject, thereby highlighting the disconnect between the law school curriculum and 21^st century legal practice (James Duffy and Rachael Field, ‘Why ADR must be a Mandatory Subject in the Law Degree: A Cheat Sheet for the Willing and a Primer for the Non-Believer’ (2014) 25(1) Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 9). They contend that the following reasons, and others, exist for including ADR as a compulsory subject in the law school curriculum:
  • An absence of compulsory ADR does not reflect current legal practice (for example, ‘it has been estimated that the number of commenced civil actions that culminate in adjudication is less than 5%’;
  • Participation in ADR processes is mandatory under legislation in many Australian jurisdictions;
  • Lawyers have ethical duties to advise about ADR;
  • Good lawyers are emotionally intelligent and ADR instruction contributes to the development of emotional intelligence;
  • Lawyers need to understand about the theory and nature of conflict and this necessarily requires instruction;
  • It is impossible to meet the threshold learning outcomes without exposing all students to ADR instruction;
  • ADR instruction can help students develop a positive professional identity;
  • Teaching ADR supports students’ psychological well-being.

These are compelling reasons for the inclusion of ADR as an academic requirement.

• The High Court of Australia has recently emphasised the need for practitioner cooperation in the resolution of disputes. In Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited [2013] HCA 46 (6 November 2013), the Court emphasised the over-riding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (‘CPA’) as being the facilitation of the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the dispute. It noted that the solicitors involved had a responsibility to conduct themselves in a way which would assist the court to facilitate the overriding purposes of the CPA: ‘[Cooperation] is an example of professional, ethical obligations of legal practitioners supporting the objectives of the proper administration of justice’ [at 67].

• The National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (‘NADRAC’) supported the mandatory inclusion of ADR in the law curriculum, particularly in its 2012 Report: Teaching Alternative Dispute Resolution in Australian Law Schools. That Report made the case for compulsory ADR in the law degree based on the results of a survey of Australian law schools conducted by NADRAC during late 2010 and early 2011; views expressed by forum participants during a panel discussion facilitated by NADRAC at the RMIT University: ADR in Legal Education and Promoting Student Wellbeing Forum, and NADRAC’s own research, analysis and consideration of the topic, including substantial input from a number of NADRAC members with long-standing and specialist expertise in the tertiary sector.In a 2009 report, NADRAC also stated: ‘NADRAC is of the view that more professional development is needed. NADRAC believes that better training at universities is required and that ADR must be elevated from a mere adjunct to civil procedure or litigation subjects to being taught as a full course. An ADR course should be a compulsory core subject that is a prerequisite for admission’ (NADRAC, The Resolve to Resolve: Embracing ADR to Improve Access to Justice in the Federal Jurisdiction (September 2009), 62)

(Note that NADRAC  was unfortunately abolished in late 2013 but its work still remains very valuable and relevant: See Dr Becky Batagol’s Blog for the ADR Research Network: Dumb Decision— The Closure of NADRAC posted on 12/11/2013)

• If a dispute resolution culture is to be achieved in Australia, this must necessarily commence at a grass-roots level in Australian law schools, where it is appropriate for ADR to be a compulsory subject for law students. For this reason, and the reasons articulated above, ADR should be included as an academic requirement for admission to practice.

Fingers crossed we will see some official good news about the inclusion of DR in a revised articulation of the Priestley 11 soon!

Feminist writing in the 80’s and 90’s questioned whether family mediation could be a fair process resulting in just outcomes where there was a history of domestic violence. Informed and inspired by the work of some of Australia’s great legal feminist thinkers – such as Hilary Astor, Kathy Mack, Reg Graycar and Jenny Morgan, my own stance was, for at least a decade, quite critical about the efficacy of the use of informal dispute resolution processes in such circumstances.  This stance is documented in, for example, ‘Mediation and the Art of Power (Im)Balancing’ (1996) 12 QUT Law Journal 264; ‘Family Law Mediation: Process Imbalances Women Should Be Aware of Before They Take Part’ (1998) 14 QUT Law Journal 23; ‘Federal Family Law Reform in 2005: The Problems and Pitfalls for Women and Children of an Increased Emphasis on Post-Separation Informal Dispute Resolution’ (2005) 5 QUT Law and Justice Journal 28; and ‘Using the Feminist Critique of Mediation to Explore “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” Implications for Women of the Introduction of Mandatory Family Dispute Resolution in Australia’ (2006) 20(5) Australian Journal of Family Law 45.

My work as a feminist dispute resolution academic has always been informed by my involvement (as a volunteer since 1993) with Women’s Legal Service in Brisbane (WLS).  A Service like Women’s is very special – the staff do amazing work every day advocating for justice for vulnerable women, specializing in complex family matters and domestic violence.  At Women’s, we are committed to respecting the lived experience of the women we serve.  This sometimes means questioning whether polemical theoretical feminist stances are supporting or hindering the cause of advocating for justice for them in a real sense.

In the mid to late 2000’s we were collectively starting to think that perhaps some of our clients who were victims of domestic violence could benefit from access to a safe form of family mediation. We believed that the standard model could not be applied or experienced fairly and with just outcomes for women and children in the particular circumstance of a history of DV.  And we knew that the alternative options available to our clients (who often are unable to access legal aid as well) would almost certainly result in injustice for them: on the one hand they could negotiate over the kitchen table with the perpetrator of violence against them, and on the other hand they had the spectre of self-representation in the Family Court.

For a number of years we advocated at a national level, and in a range of forums, for a safe model of family mediation.  We argued that in order to ensure that the voices of vulnerable parties can be heard in family mediation, an intentionally designed process with specific steps and strategies was necessary.

In 2009, the Australian Federal Attorney-General’s Department came to us at WLS and asked if we would design the model we were arguing for.  In collaboration with many experts and friends of WLS and in consultation with a national reference group, Angela Lynch (of WLS) and I designed a model of family mediation which was called Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (CFDR).  It was an innovative, distinct, new model of family mediation with theoretical, scholarly foundations, using a multidisciplinary approach within a framework designed to ‘provide a safe, non-adversarial and child-sensitive means for parents to sort out their post-separation parenting disputes’ (R Kaspiew, J De Maio, J Deblaquiere and B Horsfall, ‘Evaluation of a Pilot of Legally Assisted and Supported Family Dispute Resolution in Family Violence Cases: Final Report (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2012), ix). CFDR was piloted between 2010 and 2012 in five different locations around Australia.

CFDR is resource intensive. But it accurately represents the level of resources that are necessary for safe mediation where there is a history of DV.  CFDR involves a strong focus on preparing the parties to be ready, as a result of counselling, and legal and information sessions, for their participation in family mediation. Its coordinated and multi-disciplinary nature means that a number of professional participants are asked to bring their unique professional expertise to the model. The team of professionals required for the implementation of CFDR includes: mediators who specialise in the process and conduct of mediation; lawyers who provide each of the parents with independent legal advice, advocacy and representation; domestic violence workers who conduct specialist risk assessment, counselling and support, information and advocacy to victims of domestic violence; and men’s workers who work with a gendered analysis of violence and follow recognised best practice standards for working with perpetrators of family violence and provide counselling and advice to perpetrators in the process (R Field and A Lynch, ‘Hearing Parties’ Voices in Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (CFDR): An Australian Pilot of a Family Mediation Model Designed for Matters Involving a History of Domestic Violence’ (2014) 36(4) The Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 392). The model also envisages a specialist children’s practitioner to be involved in matters where appropriate, along with other specialist workers, such as disability and migrant workers, depending on the needs of the family.

The pilot was evaluated by the highly respected researchers at the Australian Institute of Family Studies under the leadership of Dr Rae Kaspiew. A number of the evaluation findings affirmed the efficacy of the design elements of the model in terms of facilitating the safe and effective practice of family mediation where there is a history of domestic violence (Kaspiew et al, 2012). For example, it was found that adequate risk assessment for the parties’ safety and well-being is critical in domestic violence contexts; preparation for the parties’ participation in the process was key; and vulnerable parties have more chance of making their voice heard in mediation in the context of lawyer-assisted models, as long as those lawyers are trained adequately in dispute resolution theory and practice. In short the report said that CFDR was ‘at the cutting edge of family law practice’ because it involved the conscious application of mediation where there had been a history of family violence, in a clinically collaborative multidisciplinary and multi-agency setting.

Despite the positive evaluation and the ardent belief by many in the pilot agencies that this model is necessary in the family law system as a safety measure for victims of violence and their children post-separation, CFDR has not been rolled out due to political, resource and funding issues. This is unfortunate, and the Australian government’s failure to capitalise on the proven efficacy of CFDR jeopardises the safety and value of family dispute resolution practice in domestic violence contexts, and compromises the hearing of the voices of family violence victims and their children.

I strongly urge the Australian government to better acknowledge that the safety of victims of violence in family dispute resolution is an important family governance and justice issue. The future lives of families are ultimately at stake.  The CFDR model should be reintroduced.

What does it mean to be an Australian lawyer in the 21^st century? What are the contemporary demands of effective and efficient lawyering to adequately meet the diverse needs and interests of clients and society?  How can lawyers be part of a profession and a business at the same time? Dispute resolution knowledge, skills and attitudes are the key to answering these questions.

The legal profession professes the rule of law which provides a foundation for civic systems of law and government; serving society by supporting social stability and order, giving ‘vitality to peace, freedom and decency’, and ensuring freedoms (Gerard Brennan, ‘The Role of the Legal Profession in the Rule of Law’ Address at the Supreme Court, Brisbane 31 August 2007, 1). For this reason members of the legal profession engage in an enterprise that is more than simply a commercial industry driven by the neo-liberalist market ideology of the maximization of individual personal gain through the provision of services for profit. As Justice Kiefel of the Australian High Court has said:  ‘Practising lawyers do not just run a business, selling their skills and services to clients in return for fees. The practice of law is a profession and this sets it apart from other, commercial, enterprises’ (Susan Kiefel, ‘Ethics and the Profession of the Lawyer’, Address to the Queensland Law Society The Vincents’ 48th Annual Symposium 2010, 1).

Nevertheless, the practice of law is a business as well as a profession, and it is certainly influenced, if not driven, by the reality of market forces.  It could be said that the legal profession is a ‘market organisation whose legitimacy rests on a social bargain’, an exchange of status and privilege resulting from intellectual and organisational standing for ‘ethical and altruistic service’ (Joanne Bagust, ‘The Legal Profession and the Business of Law’ (2013) 35 Sydney Law Review 27, 27-28).

Professor Richard Susskind first challenged the legal profession to rethink its position in society, the nature of legal work and legal service provision, and the construct of a lawyer’s professional identity, in his work The End of Lawyers? (Richard Susskind, The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services (Oxford University Press, 2008). His next work, Tomorrow’s Lawyers, also provokes the legal profession to engage with profound challenges to familiar ways of knowing, working and being (Richard Susskind, Tomorrow’s Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future (Oxford University Press, 2013).

Susskind’s predictions are for significant change in the practice of law and the provision of legal services.  There may be disagreement over the detail of his forecasting, but the general direction and tenor of his arguments are compelling. Susskind has said that we are seeing the decline of the ‘Golden Age of Law’ as we have known it. New ways of working and providing legal services – ways that are more collaborative, less adversarial and more efficient – will replace the practices of the past. He predicts that our relatively staid and conservative profession will see more change in the next two decades than it has in the last 200 years. To cope with this change the profession will need to be grounded, resilient, flexible, responsive and skillful.

Simply knowing what the law is has never been sufficient for successful legal practice in any context, but these days it is even more important that lawyers have the necessary skills and attitudes – legal thinking and reasoning skills, legal research skills, communication and collaboration skills, self-regulation skills and an ethical disposition. The Australian Threshold Learning Outcomes (TLOs) for Law acknowledge this.  The TLOs were developed by Sally Kift, Mark Israel and Rachael Field in 2010 as part of the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project for the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (available at <http://www.olt.gov.au/resources?text=law>) and articulate what law graduates need to know and be able do. Many of these skills and attitudes are effectively taught in dispute resolution courses at Law Schools around Australia.

In the new environment of 21^st century lawyering there is no doubt that dispute resolution knowledge, skills and values are increasingly critical to effective legal practice – for lawyering that continues to uphold the rule of law whilst also responding to market pressures.

Law schools and the legal profession are still some way, however, from adequately acknowledging dispute resolution as a core element of legal knowledge and competence, central to both transactional and dispute resolution lawyering, and important to the future viability of the legal profession, not only in Australia but also globally. Most Australian law schools, for example, do not yet have a compulsory dispute resolution subject, and are creating law graduates without some of the critical skills and attitudes necessary for 21st century legal practice.

The ADR Research Network is contributing to achieving the changes that are necessary in legal culture, practice and education for the law profession’s future sustainability.

James Duffy published a valuable piece in 2010 probing the value of emotional intelligence for mediation practice. Emotional intelligence (EI) is an established conceptual framework for harnessing the impact of mediator’s emotions in a purposive and positive way in practice. What is EI? It is a conceptual framework emanating from positive psychology and made popular by the work of Dan Goleman. EI emphasises reflective practice in relation to the emotional dimensions of intra and interpersonal experience.

EI has great potential as a framework for incorporating existing practice in relation to the emotional experiences of mediators and parties. It’s reflective emphasis resonants with established practice and developing theory about reflective practice in mediation. Its inclusion of intra and inter personal dimensions enable consideration of both a mediator’s reflection on his/her own emotional responses and the interplay of emotions within mediation sessions.

There are several models of EI. Goleman’s model is the most accessible in terms of its relative succinctness and practical application. The five components of EI developed by Goleman are depicted in the table below, which identifies them according to two dimensions and includes Goleman’s definitions.

Table 1: Adapted from Goleman (2004: 3)

Whatever model is ascribed to, emotional intelligence is foremost about feelings. To be emotionally intelligent signals an ability to monitor feelings our own and those of others, and to use this information to respond in appropriate and effective ways.  EI is recognised as a set of learned skills that can be incorporated into educational programs, including mediation training. It’s food for thought !

 See

Goleman, D. 2004. ‘What Makes a Leader?’ Harvard Business Review, January: 1.

Goleman, D. 1998. Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam.

Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam.

Duffy, J. 2010. ‘Empathy, Neutrality and Emotional Intelligence: A Balancing Act for the Emotional Einstein’ 10 (1) Law and Justice Journal  44-61.

2016 is promising to be an important year for presenting about research into ADR as there are a number of upcoming conferences (see previous posts for details).  First there is the upcoming conference at the ACIJ at Monash University’s law premises in the city of Melbourne.  This Conference on the Civil Justice system will address, along with a range of civil issues, the place of ADR in our legal system.  Second, there is the National Mediation Conference in September at the Gold Coast.  This biannual event is always the highlight of research for me as there is a mix of practitioners, industry bodies and researchers.  I have fond memories of meeting with people from industry and later collaborating on projects sprung from conversations held at this Conference.

Later in the year is our own ADR Research Roundtable which will be held in December in Tasmania at UTAS.  It promises to be another exciting venue for cutting edge research.  The Roundtable in Sydney in 2015, held at UNSW, was a big success.

My paper at the conference dealt with conflict in planning.  It was a work in progress paper that I received valuable feedback about.  I will give you a short description of the paper and then outline the feedback to highlight the value of presenting research in ADR.  As you are probably aware planners routinely deal with issues involving conflict. Planners working in development approval roles in particular are regularly engaged in situations involving people who may be upset, angry and at times aggressive. Individuals involved in planning disputes may represent powerful vested interests or hold passionate personal views, heightening emotions for a whole range of reasons.

My joint paper with Professor Robin Goodman reported on recent interviews conducted with 17 planners employed in four differing local governments in Melbourne, Australia. In these semi-structured interviews planners discussed their experience with conflicts, the adequacy of their training in areas of conflict resolution and reflected on their preparation for some of the most challenging aspects of their profession. The results confirmed the need for greater emphasis to be placed on teaching a range of personal and professional behaviours relating to conflict in planning education.

The interesting feedback that we received at the Sydney Roundtable queried whether we had realised that many of the issues relating to planners and conflict were likely caused by poor dispute resolution design.  If the design was more innovative, allowing for better “voicing” of community concerns, it may be that planners would not bear the brunt of objectors and developers anger.  This feedback has led us to a new fork in our research, exploring the development of innovative dispute resolution design in planning conflicts.  We hope to present our new paper at the National Mediation Conference.  This is one example of the value of presenting your research because the peer feedback can give that “aha” moment beloved of researchers!

Consider getting involved in presenting…..it can have some great benefits!

For all those interested in presenting about their research into Mediation!!!!

To all researchers, Academics and Research Higher Degree students in Arts, Humanities, Law, Justice, Judicial Science, Social Science, Psychology (clinical, child psychology, counselling) and other DR related fields.

The National Mediation Conference Queensland Board encourages you to present and share your work with like-minded researchers at the bi-annual National Mediation Conference 2016 which will be held from Monday, 12 – Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at the Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre on the Gold Coast, Queensland. Pre-conference workshops will be held on Sunday 11^th September 2016. See www.mediationconference.com.au

A specific Dispute Resolution Research Forum will be held post-conference on Thursday, 15 September 2016 at Bond University. Attendance to the DR Research Forum is included in the cost of the Conference.

The conference theme is ‘Thought, Innovation and Creativity: The Next Decade’

This is a unique opportunity to exchange ideas, results, evaluations, proposals for future research and to discuss thought, innovation and creativity in DR research area for the next decade!

Abstracts are due 15 March 2016. As in past conferences, presenters at the Research Day will not receive a speaker’s fee and will have to register for the day if they are not attending the whole conference.

Early Career Researchers along with more established researchers are encouraged to participate in presenting on their latest research.

Delegates include academics, policy makers, and practitioners across the DR spectrum, authors, and participants from the private and public sectors, agencies and organisations.

Presentations will be disseminated via the Conference website and become freely available. Additionally each presenter will be encouraged to publish their material in recognised journals such as the Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal (ADRJ), Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Australian Journal of Family Law, Family Law Review and the Arbitrator & Mediator, Resolution Institute Journal, formally the IAMA Australia Journal.

Please forward this invitation to your networks and others who may be interested to attend the Conference and or present at the Research Forum.

Opportunity to explore, time to surprise and impress