Category Archives: Dispute resolution

Enhancing Conflict Management Theory and Practice through Insights from Psychology and Neuroscience

Posted on by
Reply

This post has been written by Judith Rafferty, adapted from her Open Educational Resource (OER) Neuroscience, psychology and conflict management (2024), licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 Licence by James Cook University.

Conflict Management: A Multidisciplinary Field

While there are designated conflict management scholars and practitioners, many ideas that inform both theory and practice come from outside the field. Individuals involved in conflict management often come from a broad spectrum of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences, such as psychology, sociology, history, geography, communication studies, political science, international relations, organizational behavior, and anthropology.

Contributions to conflict management are also made from the formal sciences like mathematics, physics, biology, and neuroscience. By exploring some of these disciplines in more detail, we can gain valuable perspectives that deepen our understanding of conflict formation, escalation, management, and resolution. Psychology and neuroscience offer some especially useful perspectives and are the focus of this post.

The Role of Psychology in Conflict Management

Psychology and some of its branches are highly relevant for both theory and practice in conflict management. For instance, the American Psychological Association has a division specifically dedicated to applying psychology knowledge to conflict situations, called “The Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology”. In fact, peace psychology is a distinct field of study with an International Centre for Peace Psychology, and the journal Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology.

Similarly, the Australian Psychological Society (APS) highlights the contributions psychologists make to understanding and managing conflict. According to the APS, psychology provides key insights into the psychological factors that underpin social conflict and aims to identify effective ways to foster positive relationships and productive outcomes. These approaches include strategies for resolving conflicts and governance models that prioritise cooperation over coercion (APS, 2023).

Understanding Psychology: A Foundation for Conflict Management

Psychology focuses on the study of mental processes and behaviour (and their relationship) (Zimbardo, Johnson, & McCann, 2009). The field of psychology comprises multiple sub-groups, or branches of psychology (Mullin, n.d.). Some of these branches are especially relevant to conflict management, including personality psychology, cognitive psychology, and social psychology. So, what do these branches focus on and how are they relevant to conflict management?

Cognitive psychology

Most generally, cognitive psychology is concerned with the study of mental processes such as thinking, learning, remembering, perception, information processing, language, problem-solving, decision-making, and reasoning. Cognitive psychology also considers people’s emotions and the impact of emotions on cognition. All cognitive processes mentioned earlier, as well as the effect of emotions on them, are highly relevant to the experience and management of conflict. For example, multiple mental processes and emotions are involved when people try to resolve conflicts, e.g. they must retrieve information about past conflict events and make decisions as to how to move forward. At the same time, mental processes and emotions are likely to have contributed to and have been affected by the conflict in the first place. For example, many conflicts arise because people have perceived events differently. More information about how cognitive psychology may relate to conflict management can be found here.

Figure 2.2.1. Six or Nine? Image generated with Adobe Firefly; Rafferty, J. (2024). Neuroscience, psychology, and conflict management. James Cook University. https://doi.org/10.25120/k4vd-86×5

Personality Psychology

Personality psychology is the scientific study of the whole person (McAdams, 2009). It focuses on human individuality and may address questions like:

  • Why does Paul act more violently than Peter in the same situation?
  • Why do Tracey and Sam have such different ways of communicating and managing conflict?

Personality psychology is distinct from other branches of psychology by focusing more on the person than on the situation. This is not to say though, that personality psychology neglects the situation. But rather than exploring how most people would act under certain circumstances, personality psychology tries to explain or predict how a specific type of person would most react in each situation. Conflict management practitioners and theorists have noted the effects that individual differences in personality may have on the formation and escalation of conflict, as well as on conflict resolution processes and their outcomes (Sandy et al., 2014). More information on how personality psychology may inform conflict management can be found here.

Social psychology

Social psychology seeks to answer questions like:

  • Why do people act differently when they are in a group compared to when they are on their own?
  • Why do people behave differently among their co-workers compared to when they are with their friends and family?
  • Why do people hold prejudice and stereotypes against certain groups and how may these affect their behaviours?
  • How can social cohesion best be strengthened to prevent social division and conflict?

Social psychology may be defined as “the scientific study of how individuals think, feel, and behave in a social context” (Kassin et al., 2020, p. 4). All three areas, thinking, feeling, and behaving are involved and affected during the emergence, escalation, management, and resolution of conflicts. Several notable books in the field have focused on the applications of social psychology for conflict theory and practice, such as:

A more detailed discussion of the application of social psychology for conflict management can be accessed here.

Neuroscience and Conflict: Bridging the Gap

Beyond psychology, the field of conflict management is increasingly looking to neuroscience for insights into why conflicts occur and how they can be effectively managed or resolved. Many conflict management scholars and practitioners recognise that people’s brains and bodies are significantly involved in facilitating societal conflict.

For instance, Mary Fitzduff (2021) notes in her book Our brains at war that recent advancements in genetics, brain science, and hormonal research suggest that many personality characteristics are rooted in the brain’s biology. By offering “new and more sophisticated and nuanced insights into the way that people actually think”, neuroscience makes a critical contribution to the field of conflict management (Burgess, 2022). As another example, Bruneau (2015), in her book chapter Putting neuroscience to work for peace, emphasises the value of directly examining neural activity to transform psychology-based conflict theories into mechanistic understandings (p. 143).

Knowledge from neuroscience can also help inform and evaluate the purpose, potential, design and principles of justice and conflict resolution processes, as well as the role and skills of conflict practitioners. For instance, findings from neuroscience can increase our understanding of aggression in people, which again may have implications for processes like restorative justice, as discussed in a Ted Talk by Dan Reisel. Other examples of how neuroscience can inform conflict management theory and practice, as well as links to related readings, can be found here.

Neuroscience Meets Psychology: A Synergy for Conflict Management

Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system and an interdisciplinary field that integrates biology, chemistry, psychology, and more. Of particular interest for conflict management theory and practice are the intersections between neuroscience and psychology. It may help to think of neuroscience as dealing with the ‘physical’ (brain) and psychology dealing with the ‘abstract’ (mind).

The functioning of our brain, hormones and neurotransmitters significantly affects our behaviours, cognitions, and social experiences. That is why the links between neuroscience and different areas of psychology are increasingly being recognised, studied, and taught. The growing recognition of these links has led to the emergence of new interdisciplinary fields, such as social neuroscience and cognitive neuroscience (Ito & Kubota, 2022). Both are highly relevant to conflict management theory and practice.

Knowledge from social neuroscience, for instance, can increase our understanding of intergroup and social conflict, including the sources and factors that create, perpetuate, contribute to, and escalate intergroup conflict. This knowledge may again inform the planning and design of conflict intervention initiatives to help manage intergroup and social conflict. You can find further readings about social neuroscience and intergroup conflict in the previously mentioned Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology as well as other Peace Psychology publications, including the newsletter The Peace Psychologist and the blog Dialogues with Peace and Conflict.

Conclusion

The integration of psychology and its branches, as well as of neuroscience offers critical insights into the questions why conflict occurs, how it develops and how it may be managed. By exploring the connections between the human mind, brain, and behavior, conflict management can be more effective and nuanced. Many of these connections are discussed in more detail in Judith’s (2024) eBook Neuroscience, psychology and conflict management, from which this post has been adapted. A course on Neuroscience, Psychology and Conflict Management will also be developed next year to be offered through the Conflict Management Academy.

A full reference list of the readings referred to in this post can be found here.

Author Biography

Judith Rafferty is an Adjunct Senior Research Fellow at the Cairns Institute, JCU, and a Senior Trainer at the Conflict Management Academy. She integrates over 12 years of experience as a conflict management practitioner, researcher, and educator/trainer. She holds a PhD in Conflict Resolution, a Master of Conflict and Dispute Resolution, a Graduate Business Administration Diploma, and a Graduate Certificate in Psychology. As a Senior Lecturer and former Director of the postgraduate Conflict Management and Resolution program at James Cook University, Judith played a key role in developing curriculum and training resources that assist professionals in navigating complex conflict situations.
Judith can be contacted on:
Email: judith@conflictmanagementacademy.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/judith-rafferty-770a329b

Ongoing Research Required for Strategies to Engage with Conspiracy Theory Believers

Posted on by
2

Claire Holland and Pascale Taplin

Conspiracy theories and disinformation impact upon legal practice, and have the potential to cause conflict between parties who have different views on legal rights and personal interests. The term “disinformation” is appropriate to describe conspiracy theories because the actors who amplify conspiracy theories often deploy false information strategically, and with an intent to disrupt legal proceedings or conflict resolution processes. This blog will highlight insights into the nature and impact of Sovereign Citizen narratives and the importance of research informed approaches for legal and conflict resolution practitioners to engage with individuals holding such narratives.

The Sovereign Citizen Superconspiracy

The Sovereign Citizen conspiracy theory holds that government and legal institutions are illegitimate, and that an individual can declare themself sovereign (Berger, 2016).  Conspiracy theories are often adopted and adapted, or ‘localised’ for best fit. In defining Sovereign Citizen conspiracy beliefs Taplin, Holland & Billing (2023) suggest the term ‘superconspiracy’ is helpful as a term that describes how several conspiracies or beliefs can be interrelated into a metanarrative. When individuals share or repeat certain conspiracy theory beliefs, those beliefs can form an individualised narrative that may be adopted into an individual’s identity (Taplin & Holland, 2023). In a recent article published in The Journal of Information Warfare, Taplin and Holland (2023) suggest that,

In order to be considered in research, Sovereign Citizen rhetoric must be defined and distinguished as a discrete social phenomenon. Definitional clarity in relation to “Sovereign Citizens” as a group of people is difficult or impossible to achieve because many people influenced by Sovereign Citizen rhetoric do not subscribe to a consistent set of related beliefs (Vargen & Challacombe 2023). Nor do they always self-identify as holding something in common with others influenced by the same rhetoric. Because they do not constitute a definable group, Sovereign Citizen rhetoric (rather than Sovereign Citizens) is used here. ‘Rhetoric’ is preferred to other commonly used terms such as ‘movement’ or ideology because the disinformation amplified in Sovereign Citizen rhetoric is designed to make an argument— specifically, to delegitimise government and laws.

The question of when and how to counter the influence of Sovereign Citizen narratives is a vexed issue in Australia, where the right to freedom of expression and the right to protest are valued elements of the democratic system. Taplin and Holland (2023) suggest that this right to freedom of expression can be leveraged by individuals or groups and is often used to justify the amplification of Sovereign Citizen disinformation that is spread between individuals and groups (Campion, Ferrill & Milligan, 2021). Research that will assist policy makers, legal and conflict resolution practitioners, and security agencies in articulating the harms caused by Sovereign Citizen rhetoric and to inform the design of effective and strategic policy responses is therefore extremely important.

Sovereign Citizen rhetoric in Australia can be traced to well-documented Sovereign Citizen narratives in the United States (Taplin, Holland & Billing 2023). In the United States, Sovereign Citizen rhetoric emerged from problematic Christian Identity, Patriot, and anti-tax movements and gained momentum in the 1970s (Hodge 2019).

Taplin, Holland & Billings (2023) suggest that Sovereign Citizen rhetoric is diverse, but identifiable by key themes and tropes, including;

  1. that government, laws, and institutions of national and global governance are illegitimate;
  2. that government and courts are in fact controlled by a group of conspirators who are hostile to the interests and freedom of all other people;
  3. that these conspirators take action to trick people into relinquishing their freedom by coercing them to comply with illegitimate laws or regulations; and,
  4. that a person can escape this control by doing or saying certain things, including acting illegally.

Risks of the spread of Sovereign Citizen rhetoric

Sovereign Citizen rhetoric has the potential to be weaponised because it triggers an audience based on identity and then narrates an imminent threat to that identity. Sovereign Citizen rhetoric targets Western audiences’ narratives of hyper-individualised personal identity. Central to Sovereign Citizen rhetoric is the primacy of individual freedom as a basic right. Individual freedom is seen as a supreme right. For this reason, people influenced by Sovereign Citizen rhetoric may hold beliefs surrounding a ‘personalised sovereignty’. From the perspective of a Sovereign Citizen, the regulation of his or her behavior by laws of the State (for example, a requirement to pay taxes), constitutes a crime against him or her personally (Taplin and Holland, 2023).  In this way Sovereign Citizen rhetoric manipulates meaning-making narratives by conflating, problematising, and manipulating concepts of personal autonomy, sovereignty, and justice. In this newly narrated reality, the threat becomes any regulation or control, by laws or government, that represses “personal sovereignty”.

The risk to vulnerable audiences is that Sovereign Citizen narratives, which may be spread through social media and popular platforms of information sharing within target audiences, can create problematic ingroup and outgroup divides (Taplin, 2023). Sovereign Citizen rhetoric has the potential to influence individual behaviour by manipulating meaning-making and suggesting law abiding citizens have an uniformed view of the world and legal actions of the State are personal affronts to individual freedom.

What is the best way to engage with individuals who believe in conspiracy theories?

Further research is required for how best to engage with Sovereign Citizen rhetoric, with particular attention paid to the safety of all participants in the conversation and with an understanding of the enduring nature of conflicts to an individual’s core identity. Research has been conducted into the best ways to rebut science denialism (Rutjens & Veckalov, 2022; Schmid & Betsch, 2019). Testing conversational approaches and communication responses to other conspiracy theory contexts is an important future focus. There is increasing attention in the media of interactions between self-declared Sovereign Citizens and members of the Australian Police Force. Subsequent legal proceedings and interactions between Sovereign Citizens and the court system has highlighted numerous challenges in how Sovereign Citizens interact with the court and accept (or not) legal outcomes (see for example State of New South Wales v Kiskonen (Preliminary) [2021] NSWSC 915).

Grant Lester (2005), Consultant Psychiatrist at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, described the pathology of vexatious litigants and suggested guidelines for judicial officers to manage difficult complainants (summarised and further discussed in a paper deliver to the Queensland Magistrates’ State Conference in 2022 by Judge Glen Cash), which could be applied to Sovereign Citizens:

  1. ‘First do no harm.’ The aim should be containment of the issues. This would entail not trying to change a Sovereign Citizen’s mind about ‘the system’ (including about the injustice of the legal system), but minimizing harm to proceedings by redirecting focus to the matter at hand.
  2. Be prepared Sovereign Citizen litigants are typically volatile, feel victimised, and seek vindication. Be prepared by providing information about Sovereign Citizen narratives and typical modus operandi.
  3. Adherence to rules and procedures will assist in the aim of containment.
  4. Ensure formality. This might differ in practitioner’s preferences for running conflict resolution processes.
  5. Be fair. Litigants may appear hyper-competent, but they are in truth overwhelmed by the court process. Cash J’s point reminds us to maintain empathy and patience in explaining process and procedure. This becomes particularly important when confronted with uncomfortable worldmaking narratives that position the practitioner as either villainous or a victim. Maintaining focus on the matter at hand is imperative
  6. Maintain focus. Keep the discussion on track.
  7. Silence is golden. Silence can be the best and only way to allow a person to speak their piece in a process before moving onto a more relevant topic. This approach has benefits but also risks. At times allowing a person to speak in full also provides other attendees a better opportunity to assess the broader narrative and all its implications. But silence also may have costs and risks, where a Sovereign Citizen confuses other participants (particularly where they appear “hyper-competent”). Determining when and how to best to use silence can only be made in-situ, and judgement of appropriate interventions improves with practice. Responding professionally and adhering to established procedures assists in building trust in process, organizations, and staff.   
  8. Set boundaries and time limits. As practitioners we cannot always “control the limits” as suggested by Cash, but we can set parameters while facilitating processes and discussions. When discussion gets off-track we can confidently ask process participants to remain focused on the matter at hand.
  9. Keep a thick skin and do not personalise the encounter. This one may be difficult in some circumstances – in one case in Canada a Sovereign Citizen threatened to behead the Judge in accordance with her understanding of the law under the MAGNA-CARTA! Cash’s advice not to allow an encounter to become personalized is key. Personalizing accusations of villainy is a common ‘tactic’ of Sovereign Citizens, who may accuse practitioners of all manner of terrible things. Conflict resolution and legal practitioners deserve a safe workplace, and there is no argument for normalization or acceptance of abusive behaviour. That said, improving one’s understanding of the Sovereign Citizen worldmaking narrative allows practitioners to understand the context of this behaviour, and might inform a sophisticated response that avoids further personalisation.

These suggestions could be further tested into frameworks for officers of the State and individuals who will potentially engage with Sovereign Citizens. Engagement with Sovereign Citizen rhetoric calls for education on citizen responsibilities and understanding that you cannot ‘opt out’ of the legal system in which you exist. However, the problematic views of many self-identified Sovereign Citizens that has led some to engage in behaviour that undermines the democratic and legal foundations of our country are clearly a rising concern. This is a topical area ripe for further research.

Are you the next Scholar-in-Residence at the International Academy of Mediators?

Posted on by
Reply

The International Academy of Mediators (IAM) is soliciting applications from academics
interested in serving as the next IAM Scholar-in-Residence (SIR).
IAM is an organization of peer-selected preeminent commercial mediators from around the
globe. The mission of IAM is to foster the highest standards of integrity and competence in the mediation of commercial disputes (www.iamed.org).
The purpose of the SIR Program is to help bridge the gap between the theory and practice of mediation. Interaction between the scholar-in-residence and IAM members can help
practitioners learn more about prevailing theories and studies, while exposing academics to
the environments and challenges facing professionals who make mediation their day-to-day
business. The SIR program provides an opportunity to test current practice models while
subjecting emerging academic theories to the pragmatic rigor of every-day practice.
IAM is now soliciting applications for its sixth Scholar-in-Residence. The IAM’s prior scholars-in residence have been:

  • Professor Hal Abramson (2014 – 2016)
  • Professors Dwight Golann and Lela Love (2017 – 2020); and
  • Professors Doug Frenkel and Jim Stark (2021 – 2024)

Professor Hal Abramson in particular, helped IAM design and formalize this innovative
opportunity for academics to collaborate with many of the best known and experienced
mediators from different regions of the world. Distinguished scholars following him have
brought engaging and provocative ideas to the front for this cohort of prominent mediators.


Timing
The Scholar-in-Residence tenure is two years. The start of the upcoming term is flexible, ideally beginning between October and December, 2024.

Compensation
The SIR program does not offer any compensation although fees are waived for participating in IAM conferences which take place once a year.

Application and Deadline
Any interested academic should submit a letter-application to the IAM SIR Committee Chair,
Jennifer Egsgard at jegsgard@egsgardmedation.com before September 30, 2024. The IAM SIR Committee will review applications and announce the new IAM SIR before end of the year.

Letter/Application should include:

  1. Name, email address, and phone number;
  2. Brief narrative of why interested in becoming the IAM’s scholar-in-residence;
  3. Description of possible research/publication project that would be informed by access
    to the IAM membership (one to two paragraphs); and
  4. Academic resume should be attached, emphasizing experience and scholarship.

When selecting the SIR, the IAM SIR Committee will consider the following factors among
others:

  • History/length of academic experience and contributions;
  • Past research and publication relating to mediation and ADR processes;
  • Mediation experience, which is not required but is considered an asset.

Possible Scope of Scholar-in-Residence Activities – Further Detail
Illustrations of the sorts of activities in which the SIR might engage are outlined in this section. The opportunities can be expanded as the SIR program develops and evolves under the oversight of the SIR Committee.


a. Contribute to IAM Webinars and Conferences
The SIR can assist in designing workshops for IAM webinars and conferences. This might include programs based on the expertise that the person brings to the position, or hosting an academic speaker on a subject that might be of interest to the membership.
IAM Conferences are held once a year and have historically been cutting edge, with top tier
presenters and panelists. The next IAM Conferences are currently scheduled for May 27 – 30, 2025 in Queensland, Australia, and end of May 2026 near Boston, USA.

The IAM also hosts regular webinars for its global membership and the SIR is encouraged to
propose programs for these webinars.


b. Contribute to the IAM’s List Serv Discussion Group
The SIR is encouraged to participate in the IAM confidential List Serv by posing questions of
theory, ethics, and strategy and commenting on threads. The threads provide a lively exchange of ideas. However, no member content may be distributed or republished by the SIR without express permission.


c. Engage in Scholarship that Draws on the Expertise of the Membership
The SIR should prepare an article or other work that will be informed by discussions or
collaboration with members of IAM.
The SIR also is available to help members prepare articles and speeches by serving as a
sounding board and offering advice on the timeliness of topics and options for publication,
providing the possibility for significant mutual enrichment between the IAM and the SIR.

Public expectations and confidence in the legal system: A brief thought

Posted on by
3

On the 6th of June 2024, I attended a panellist event held at the Sydney Jewish Museum where the topic of concern was ‘Nazis in Australia: When History and the Law Collide’. Discussion surrounded the prosecutions brought against four suspected Nazi war criminals for crimes allegedly committed during World War II.

The panel consisted of Hon Greg James AM KC, Graham Blewitt AM, and historian Professor Konrad Kwiet. However, at the time of the prosecutions (during the late 80’s until the early 90’s) their involvement was as Chief Prosecutor, Head of the Special Investigations Unit, and expert historian called to the stand during proceedings.

Of the four cases launched against those suspected war criminals, none were successful.

During questioning, a guest in the crowd asked the panel about whether they saw their efforts as a failure–since no conviction was found. Messrs James and Blewitt emphasised that although, to some, this outcome might be regarded as a failure, the purpose of their efforts and involvement were not merely to obtain a conviction, but also to investigate those, and other, suspected war criminals living in Australia.

Mr Blewitt further explained that the Special Investigations Unit within the Attorney-General’s Department saw to investigate over 800 separate cases, with some suspects being renounced by virtue of those investigations.

It seemed as though few were dissatisfied with this response as I heard murmuring within the crowd. I imagine this kind of reaction arose from certain societal expectations of the criminal justice system not being met; and perhaps, it follows that the level of confidence in that system diminishes.

An established public confidence in a system or institution, whether it be the criminal justice system or otherwise, underpins its effective functioning–an idea that academics, such as Mack et al, continually raise. Notwithstanding its importance, a recent survey by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research reported that the public were not overly confident (55%) that the criminal justice system brought people to justice.

Perhaps it is as former Chief Justice Gleeson put it: “Much of what we call public confidence consists of taking things for granted”. And perhaps, this is especially true for public confidence in the criminal justice system, where it is, taking that panellist event as an example, the overwhelming complexity of the legal system is what has been ‘taken for granted’.

To understand and navigate the legal system is complex to say the least. Even with the study and training required to become a lawyer and the further experience gained from one’s practise, it remains a life-long journey for a lawyer to continually add and update their knowledge as well as consider the deeper components which underpin the effective functioning of that legal system.

If this may be the case for us lawyers, how might non-experts struggle to comprehend and navigate the legal system, not to mention, that deeper level of understanding?

It appears that society is more generally outcome focused. I suggest this because, as per the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research 2020 report, the majority (66%) expressed that criminal sentences were ‘too lenient’ and (56%) that the criminal justice system did not meet the needs of victims. That report acknowledges that levels of confidence in the criminal justice system have not improved over the decade, and by comparison with earlier snapshot reports published by the NSW Sentencing Council, this indeed appears to be the case.

In an effort for us lawyers to ensure we are doing the most we can to uphold public confidence in the legal system, moreover the criminal justice system, we must do what we can to positively transform societal expectations.

Taking us now back to the beginning when that guest asked their question, the response provided by Messrs James and Blewitt was, in my mind, a perfect one. Notwithstanding the apparent dissatisfaction by some guests in that crowd, it was a response equipped with information to evoke a positive transformation of one’s expectations of the criminal justice system. As lawyers, we should aim to do the same in our communication with others, that is, to respond in a way which evokes positive transformation by the listener. By doing so, we work towards bettering societal expectations of the legal system–one person at a time.

Top Ten Ways to Improve Your Mediation Skills

Posted on by
1

John Lande, JD, PhD
This post is adapted from the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts article published by the University of Missouri School of Law in the Legal Studies Research Paper Series.

Traditional mediation theories are incomplete at best and misleading at worst, providing mystifying descriptions of what mediators actually do. Those theories focus on only a few behaviours during mediation sessions and don’t recognise the many variations of mediators, parties, and cases. This leaves many mediators to ignore these models because they are either confusing or unhelpful.

John Lande uses Real Practice Systems (RPS) theory in his article to identify 10 things that mediators can do to include within their skillset and improve their own practice. This article is adapted from his previous article ‘Helping You Do the Best Mediation You Can‘ published by the University of Missouri School of Law.

Although Lande’s article is directed to practicing mediators, he refers to additional resources in this Indisputably blog which can be used by teachers and trainer in their work, including to prepare and further develop student’s skills in negotiation, mediation, and advocacy.

These 10 things are summarised below, but it is highly encouraged that you to read John Lande’s published article for a complete and comprehensive explanation.

1. Recognise That You Have a Complex Practice System

If you mediate regularly, you have a complex mediation practice system. Mediation is not “just” what you do during mediation sessions when all the participants have convened, you also have unconscious routine procedures and conscious strategies for dealing with recurring challenges that you use before, during, and after mediation sessions.

It is important that you recognise the basis for your system and that have you developed categories of cases, parties, and behaviour patterns that led you to develop your system.

2. Understand Real Practice System Theory

In this 20-minute video, John Lande explains Real Practice Theory (‘RPS’) and how can improve your mediation practice system. It is applicable in every type of case and at every stage of practice, from novice to mid-career to senior mediator.

3. See Illustrations of Practice Systems in Experienced Mediators

Read John Lande’s article ‘Ten Real Mediation Systems‘ which illustrates the account of ten experienced mediators who identify factors affecting their mediation practice systems and includes links to a detailed account of their systems.

4. Complete a Self-Assessment Questionnaire to Get an Overall Understanding of Your Practice System

This 18-question self-assessment worksheet is designed to help you recognise basic elements of your practice system, prompting you to reflect on your background, motivations, mediation practice, common patterns in your cases, and your procedures.

5. Understand and Use Real Practice System Menu of Mediation Checklists

Read John Lande’s article ‘Real Practice Systems Project Menu of Mediation Checklists‘ which is a detailed menu of checklists for mediators. It includes mediators’ actions before, during, and after mediation sessions as well as items about information to provide on websites, compliance with ethical requirements, and reflection and improvement of mediation techniques.

In another article, ‘Practitioners Tell Why Real Practice System Checklists Are So Useful‘, Lande uses the descriptions of fourteen current and former practitioners to explain how these checklists can help you to carefully design your unique practice system.

6. Develop Your Own General Mediation Checklist

By using the above Real Practice Systems (RPS) checklists, you can consciously develop your own general checklist based on the typical cases and parties in your practice, the procedures you find useful. This checklist is quite versatile, enabling you to choose items which can be modified to suit your needs. But the RPS checklists cannot be exhaustive, so you should add any other items that are relevant to your practice and remove any which are not.

A mediators’ checklists necessarily vary based on many factors including the subject matter, complexity, typical legal issues, participation of attorneys, and amount of time before mediation sessions, among others. As a result, some mediators’ general checklists are longer and more complex than others.

7. Customise Your General Mediation Checklist for Each Case

Before each mediation session, review your general mediation checklist and consider any modifications you might make based on what you know about that particular case you are about to mediate. This can ensure that you are better prepared and equipped with a checklist that will be most useful to you during that mediation.

8. Read Articles in the Real Practice System Annotated Bibliography

To develop a deeper understanding of practice systems generally as well as your own practice system, you should read Lande’s ‘Real Practice Systems Project Annotated Bibliography‘ which organises several publications concerning various topics, including:

  • Overview of Real Practice System theory
  • Critiques of traditional dispute resolution theories
  • Promotion of party decision-making
  • Litigation interest and risk assessment
  • Preparation for mediation sessions
  • Technology systems

9. Participate in an Ongoing Educational Practice Group

It is important to learn from each other as well as give and receive feedback to and from other mediators. This can be done by participating in practice groups.

Although practice groups vary in size, Lande suggests that between 5 and 8 people is optimal. A fixed membership with a commitment to participate for an extended period of time (such as at least 6 to 12 months) is beneficial to allow members to feel comfortable sharing sensitive experiences with each other.

Lande also provides numerous considerations before commencing or joining a practice group, including similarities or differences between members, the type of activities completed, and the use of reflective practice techniques.

10. Share Your Experiences

Sharing your experiences with others is a valuable way to learn. This might include giving talks, participating in trainings, teaching courses, or writing articles. These activities require reflection, which can produce new insights, and interactions with people can stimulate thinking and further reflection on those experiences.

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.

Are frameworks useful to help understand complex conflict contexts?

Posted on by
1

This post is republished with permission from the Conflict Management Academy.

Claire Holland and Judith Rafferty, conflict management specialists, academics, researchers and trainers with the Conflict Management Academy (CMA), say YES! According to Judith and Claire, frameworks are a useful way to break down and look at complicated conflict situations in a way that can bring greater awareness, understanding, and clarity to the situation. It’s not suggested that frameworks simplify the conflict, but that they are useful to make the conflict appear more manageable.

Practically, a framework can help to better understand a complex conflict by allowing the user to view the conflict through different lenses. Frameworks can also suggest multiple ways of thinking about the issues at hand, help the user to develop a more detailed and holistic picture of the conflict, and then consider multiple opportunities to work with the conflict. Claire and Judith suggest that using frameworks in conflict management contexts have multiple benefits, including:

  1. Assisting conflict management specialists, like mediators, conflict management coaches, and HR professionals, to work with clients to gather necessary information about the conflict and its context, and decide on next steps.
  2. Supporting clients to take a step back or ‘go to the balcony’ and perhaps not react out of habit and prior learned behaviour, but to suspend judgement on the situation until a more holistic analysis of the situation has been conducted.
  3. Thinking about future options that might be quite different from a conflict parties’ initial reaction to the situation once the conflict has been considered through different lenses.
  4. Focusing on long term strategies to manage the conflict by considering how the conflict may play out overtime. Looking at a conflict through an analytical lens and framework helps the user to determine if the issues in the conflict are suited to resolution or require alternative approaches to manage the conflict.

Conflict Analysis Framework

Drawing on years of teaching, research, and conflict management practice, Judith and Claire, have developed a framework to support conflict management specialists and conflict parties better understand ‘what is going on’ in a conflict situation. Drawing on multidisciplinary scholarship, including conflict studies, psychology, management, history, political science, etc. the Conflict Analysis Framework guides users through a step-by-step process to compartmentalise a complex conflict into more manageable segments for analysis.

Spencer, Barry, and Ojelabi in their text Dispute Resolution in Australia provide only a short commentary on conflict analysis. While they note that it’s not easy to analyse complex conflicts, they suggest that conflict specialists would ideally have knowledge of multiple analytical tools and models to help them collect information about the conflict, understand the conflict dynamics and to support the conflict parties to constructively manage or resolve the conflict. Condliffe, in his text Conflict Management: A practical guide, leads the reader through a process of ‘understanding conflict’ and presents several considerations in ‘responding to conflict’. Condliffe outlines several models of conflict but does not provide a clear overarching framework for analysis.

Several scholars and practitioners have introduced frameworks or tools to support conflict analysis. For example, Furlong, in his book The Conflict Resolution Toolbox, introduces 8 different models that help analyse and intervene in conflict, all considering different aspects of the conflict. This resource is particularly useful for interpersonal, less complex conflict situations. Bright’s Conflict Mapping Chart, lists specific elements for consideration in a conflict analysis process, aimed at analysing complex conflicts. Referring to Wehr’s Conflict Mapping Guide and Sandole’s Three Pillar Approach, Bright’s mapping chart describes five key steps to consider for analysis, informing a sixth step of conflict intervention. Judith and Claire have previously used this Chart in their teaching, as well as to develop engaging resources to be used for teaching conflict analysis.

Drawing on the work of colleagues and contemporary scholars, Claire and Judith have developed an 8-step framework for conflict analysis that will be introduced in their webinar Beyond Resolution: A planned approach to conflict engagement, available to view on demand on the CMA website.

Planned Approach to Conflict Engagement

Many conflicts have resolvable elements, but may also have ongoing aspects. For example, a divorcing couple may be able to negotiate and decide on selling the family home. However, decisions about their children’s future education, extracurricular activities, health, nutrition, etc., can’t really be negotiated as a one off, but will need to be managed for as long as both parents are involved in their children’s upbringing. So in the conflict analysis process that we described above, it is important to recognise the different aspects of a conflict, e.g. as resolvable or ongoing elements, and address them appropriately. Judith and Claire have developed a framework to support parties consider their options for “conflict engagement” as an alternative approach to dealing with conflict when elements of the conflict may be ongoing, and where resolution is not possible, or may be ill-advised.

The Planned Approach to Conflict Engagement, or PACE for short, draws on multidisciplinary scholarship, such as Bernard Mayer’s book Staying with Conflict: A strategic approach to ongoing conflict, Sam Hardy’s book Conflict Coaching Fundamentals: Working with conflict stories, as well as contemporary literature on neuroscience, psychology and emotions, including Judith’s recently published open access educational resources. PACE has also been informed by Judith’s and Claire’s own research and practice as conflict management specialists, including in Australia and in culturally diverse settings like the Central African Republic, Rwanda, the Philippines and refugee camps on the Thailand-Myanmar border. They have published a blog post and a journal article about their work as mediation specialists in some of these settings, discussing the adaptation of mediation models to different cultural settings.

Claire and Judith suggest that the development of a constructive and sustainable conflict engagement plan is ideally based on an exploration of several key areas, which they describe in detail in PACE. With the assistance of a suite of prompt questions and models for categorization for each of these key areas, the PACE framework assists conflict parties in deepening and expanding their understanding of the conflict itself as well as their options to engage constructively in the conflict over time. Some key recommendations for a sustainable approach to engagement in ongoing conflict include that parties:

  1. Have understood the ongoing nature of at least some aspects of their conflict, and
  2. Develop a plan to manage their emotions, energy, and access to resources and support long-term. This point is important so that parties don’t burn out and can continue to stay productive and engaged in the conflict over time.

In the webinar Beyond Resolution: A planned approach to conflict engagement, available to view on demand on the CMA website, Judith and Claire are introducing their PACE framework in addition to the Conflict Analysis Framework. They will also offer training on the Planned Approach to Conflict Engagement (PACE) Framework on the CMA platform.

Gathering food for thought: First Nations peoples’ approaches to peacebuilding and peacemaking in Australia

Posted on by
2

We recognise and respect the intimate custodial relationships First Nations peoples observe in their lands, their waterways and the oceans that caress their lands. We are mindful that their cultural and spiritual affiliations are healing ongoing colonial harms, and hope that this project creates healthy pathways for recording, recognising, and restoring their ancient ceremonies, and for supporting ancient and contemporary peacebuilding practices.

We respect the significant role of Elders, and are committed to reconciliation among all people.

Gathering Food for Thought – the Project

This landmark research project was funded by an MSB grant in 2022, with additional funding from the College of Human and Social Futures at the University of Newcastle. The Research Team’s lead investigator was Professor Tania Sourdin, with Dr Helen Bishop (a First Nations woman) as the lead researcher. Other team members were Dr Bin Li (University of Newcastle), Sally Prowse (University of Newcastle) and Alysoun Boyle (University of Newcastle and RMIT). We were assisted by a Project Advisory Group, a majority of whose members are First Nations experts and practitioners. 

Our final report was released to the MSB and the university in February this year, and is available online at the websites of both institutions: Mediator Standards Board and University of Newcastle.

Being restricted to available funding, the research was limited to a desktop review of collected materials relating to First Nations peoples’ approaches to managing conflict: peacebuilding and peacemaking. A key finding included in the report is that there is a notable lack of inclusion of First Nations researchers in studies of matters that affect their peoples. This has led to research outcomes that have been defined by mainstream preferences, rather than reflecting First Nations viewpoints and ideas. Similar limited First Nations peoples’ primary engagement was noted in commissions of enquiry as well as in the design, delivery, and evaluation of a range of community-based dispute resolution programs and services.

Research significance

According to Dr Helen Bishop, “The Gathering Food for Thought Report is profoundly significant. It unveils both ancient and contemporary knowledge and practices essential to First Nations peoples’ coexistence, governance, and social systems. I eagerly await the involvement and insights of my fellow First Nations researchers into future studies of First Nations peacebuilding and peacemaking approaches, needs, and resources. I want to thank the Research team, the MSB and the University of Newcastle for their commitment to this landmark work.”

To our knowledge, this is the first time such a collection of materials has been systematically reviewed and analysed. The collection is currently stored in a secure online facility, and the primary longer-term intent is that it be readily available to all First Nations’ communities and practitioners and this is likely to be facilitated by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS). The materials reviewed in the report include historical anthropological reports (some dating back to the late 1800s), reports from Royal Commissions, case studies, journal articles, books, and other publications. We have also explored the pivotal role of language in maintaining and safeguarding culture, and the links between wellbeing and cultural connection.

Research approach

We have taken a dispute system design approach to our research, and this arose from the clear need to set the project in an appropriate context: acknowledging First Nations peoples’ approaches to conflict, and their age-old systems, processes, techniques and skills, and exploring ways in which they might be recognised within existing Australian dispute resolution frameworks and standards. It is clear that there is incredible variety, depth and ways to talk in the First Nations experience of conflict management, and the final report represents only the first stage in a much larger research undertaking. 

Throughout the project, we are taking a First Nations peoples-centric approach, amplifying their perspectives and knowledge, working collaboratively in ways that recognise and respect each other’s capability and learning. Our priority is to ensure participation by First Nations peoples, and provide benefit to their peacebuilders and peacemakers.

Next steps

There is very limited professional recognition and effective professional support for First Nations peacebuilders and peacemakers reflecting a broader lack of sensitivity to and recognition of their culturally diverse and specific practices and skills. In our report, we have called for more inclusive approaches to research in this area, promoting the engagement of First Nations researchers in the design and delivery of all future studies.

It is expected that this unique project will result in an invaluable knowledge base to inform ongoing and future research in this area, as well as making a significant contribution to the scope and design of support networks, training programmes, and practice frameworks relating to First Nations peoples’ peacebuilding and peacemaking systems, processes, techniques, and skills, both in Australia, and elsewhere.

Our report includes twelve areas of research in which “Next Steps” are suggested, including:

The importance of:

  • Engaging First Nations peoples in the design, delivery, and analysis of research studies; and
  • Establishing culturally appropriate protections of the intellectual property relating to historical and contemporary First Nations materials.

The need for:

  • Research materials to be accessible to non-researchers, and be presented in plain English;
  • Appropriate recognition and responsiveness to cultural sensitivities in this area (the Research Team developed their own “Cultural Responsiveness Statement” which is included in the report);
  • Further exploration of the influence of Elders and other community leaders in the safeguarding of social cohesion and the management of conflict in a community context;
  • Further exploration of the extraordinary diversity of First Nations peoples’ approaches to peacebuilding and peacemaking, including the influence of complex social relationships such as kinship groups; and
  • Government-funded conflict management programs and services to more fully engage First Nations communities in the design, delivery and evaluation of such programs and services, ensuring that mainstream preferences do not dominate in these areas.

Sitting in Many Camps

In May this year, members of the Research Team and the Advisory Group met on Gadigal Country (Sydney) and planned the next phase of this project. They agreed that it is to be called “Sitting in Many Camps: Celebrating and Supporting First Nations Peacebuilding and Peacemaking”. The phrase, Sitting in Many Camps, was first used some years ago by Mr Charlie Watson, a Kangalu and Birri Gubba (Wiri) man who grew up in his Mother’s Kangalu Country in Central Queensland.

Breaking Negotiation Deadlock: Co-Creating the New Intercultural Competence Playbook

Posted on by
1

By Rory Gowers
15 March 2024

Author note: Intercultural is not multicultural, or cross cultural. ‘Intercultural’ is described 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.” — Paula Schriefer, Spring Institute

Source: Nina Simon, 15 October 2014

We have recently heard from two long-standing luminaries in the world of conflict resolution and negotiation.

On 22 February 2024 Dr Rosemary Howell in her post within the Kluwer Mediation Blog refers to recent research by Cobb, Castel and Sultani with its dark summary of our times with “Polarisation, violent conflict, fractures, and divisions across and within societies are on the rise globally …” labelling ‘Hyperpolarization’ as “the state of the world we currently inhabit”.

Dr Howell acknowledges the bleakness of the situation, however she points to the encouraging work by Carrie Menkel-Meadow which provides an optimistic insightful and constructive recipe – an article well worth a full read.

On 24 February 2024 William Ury, co-author of Getting to Yes, in a seemingly unrelated post, recalled his recent appearance on Ari Melber’s The Beat concerning the current political tribalism in the United States of America. Ury states “we need more conflict – not less”, and further suggests that we cannot end polarization, however we can transform it into ‘healthy conflict’ with constructive creative negotiation.

Of course, in Australia we see similar polarization of political debate, as demonstrated in the 2023 Referendum, and this continues to stymie meaningful bipartisan collaboration to this day. 

Such polarisation does not achieve constructive outcomes for a peaceful and progressive society but serves dominant factions in enlarging their power base and further marginalising minority voices.

Many of us will agree with the statements from both Dr Rosemary Howell and William Ury that the first constructive step is to reframe the context of the conflict by helping parties reflect on the cultural background dynamics shaping the narrative and expectations of each party (and their tribe). It is also useful to adopt the ‘balcony strategy’, as explained by Ury, as well as considering the other party’s perspectives to get the full context. 

I encourage all to employ the use of an acronym of the word ‘cultural’ to remind us of the full scope of a cultural background: Commonly Understated Lores, Traditions, Understandings, Rituals, Expectations, Assumptions, Legacy.

By reframing the context of conflict, participants become more empowered and are in a better position to see life from all sides which then prepares them to confer more civilly with others in a joint constructive discourse as all parties seek to bridge the current impasse with practical and realistic solutions that meet the legitimate needs of all.

But is this enough to break the polarization?

After a decade of mediation, I think not; that is, unless we are prepared to adapt the process and embrace the culturally embedded needs of each party rather than blindly use the standard dominant culture’s approach (i.e. western culture). It is a whole new playing field!

I make ‘A Call for a new Intercultural Competence Playbook in Mediating social transformation’ in a recently published peer-reviewed research paper. I posit a new level where the future of mediation is intercultural. This paper can be located on the University of Montreal’s Online Law Journal Lex Electronica Volume 28 n. 5 2023 Special Dossier, Paper 13, pp. 195-215.

We require a new toolkit, and the adventure of our time is to co-create it. Will you join me?

A call for a new mediator playbook

In my paper I claim that “every culture is in conflict; conflict is endemic in the process of culture metamorphosis.” My paper examines the paradox that conflict is intrinsic to every culture, yet there is little attention to the ‘culture’ norms in resolving that conflict. I refer to original thinkers such as Hofstede and Ting-Toomey and compare their contributions to the change in intercultural understanding since.

We are in an unprecedented global pandemic where cultural norms and expectations are under threat, in individualistic and collectivist cultures. We face existential threats from climate change and environmental catastrophes. We need a new mediator playbook for effective intercultural negotiation and issue resolution.

All professionals can acquire intercultural skills, mentorship, or supervision; join immersion events to extend intercultural awareness and communications skills; foster inclusive work environments; adapt coaching methods; cultivate intelligence about cultural differences; and engage with a positive intercultural predisposition, and approach. 

Everyone can actively facilitate social transformation by making peace with the other cultures in your land as a vital forerunner to effective intercultural mediation of conflicts. 

To allow peace a chance, we must unlock and activate intercultural competence in mediation!

I invite your active participation in reading my paper and responding to the recommendations I put forward. 

For this playbook to succeed our approach must be intercultural. Let’s start now. Welcome aboard!

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 Brisbane, 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 425292811
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/constructiveconflictsolutions

How can Victorian courts better address the needs of self-represented litigants using online court and dispute resolution processes?

Posted on by
Reply

By Sarah West

April 2024

This post is the third in a series of posts on this blog written by students studying  Non-Adversarial Justice  at the Faculty of Law at Monash University in 2023. Students were invited to write blog posts explaining various complex areas of law relating to dispute resolution to ordinary readers. The very best post on each topic is published here.

According to Anne Wallace and Kathy Laster, the COVID-19 pandemic acted as ‘a catalyst for digital innovation’ in the Victorian court system, forcing a rapid shift into the online space with virtual/remote hearings and online dispute resolution.  

Joel Gillman Class Glitch CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED

Alongside this shift, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has noted that Victoria continues to grapple with another major challenge; the increasing number of people appearing without a lawyer, otherwise known as self-represented litigants (SRLs). For example, the Supreme Court reported that, in the last financial year, there was a 30 percent increase in the number of queries from SRLs compared to the previous year.

This blog will explore how Victoria’s increasing foray into online dispute resolution and digital/technological innovation can better address the needs of many SRLs, whilst also considering the potential issues it may create.

Did you know online dispute resolution does not just mean court on Zoom?

It is important to note that online dispute resolution is not just limited to virtual hearings. According to Queensland barrister Katrina Kluss, it encompasses any dispute resolution that ‘is facilitated or assisted by information and communication technology.’ According to Kluss, online dispute resolution tools fall into three key categories: facilitative, advisory and determinative.

Facilitative technology

Technology facilitated dispute resolution encompasses all tools that facilitate hearings, such as programs like Skype or Zoom discussed above. However, it can also include technology that facilitates the process in other stages, like facilitating electronic lodging of documents. “E-filing” benefits SRLs by saving time and costs arising from physically delivering documents. Philippa Ryan and Maxine Evers note how it can also assist SRLs in preparing forms/documents by providing drop-down boxes to reduce user error and including links to where SRLs can find further information or sources.

Stenbocki maja Zoom CC BY-NC 2.0 DEED

Advisory technology

One area where there’s significant growth potential is in the AI advisory space, according to computer scientist John Zeleznikow. Legal representation gives litigants the advantage of being able to seek advice about the likely outcome of their case which helps with expectation management and in making an informed decision about if/how to proceed. As Zeleznikow explains advisory technology, like tools that provide reality testing and BATNA (or Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) advice, is ‘a vital cog in supporting [SRLs].’ Giving SRLs access to such technology would also benefit the courts by acting as an inducement to SRLs with limited prospects to drop or settle their case, which in turn would free up court time and resources for more contentious disputes.

Determinative technology

The final, and perhaps most interesting or controversial, of Kluss’ category of online dispute resolution is determinative technology; software that issues decisions based on data analysis. Such tools would obviously allow for quick and cheap (or even free) resolutions, which would be undoubtedly appealing for an SRL. For this reason, it has gained popularity in the e-commerce space.

A likely familiar example used by Colin Rule is the electronic marketplace, eBay. Due to the nature, sheer volume and relatively minor sums involved in eBay disputes, speed and cost efficiency is paramount. Accordingly, eBay realised that providing a facilitative resolution model wouldn’t be sustainable, so it opted for a fully automated dispute resolution program that is able to conduct problem diagnosis and technology-assisted negotiation, and finally make decisions if negotiations are unsuccessful. This program is used to resolve 60 million disputes annually.

In addition to being quick and cheap, Rules argues that AI determinations can provide a greater degree of consistency and thus certainty in dispute resolution by removing the fickleness of human judgement, which leave SRLs more satisfied given their outcome is more likely to be consistent with similar cases. However, whilst there’s undoubtedly value in embracing this kind of technology for certain disputes, as Kluss explains, where disputes are complex, emotionally charged and/or financially significant –

‘the absence of human insight, empathy, and guidance, provided to users of [online] dispute resolution platforms … is susceptible to creating, rather than abating, confusion among defendants thereby detracting from the intended benefits.’

Finally, it’s likely that some SRLs will be wary of, or reluctant to embrace, automated/algorithmic decision-making, especially following the “Robodebt” scandal; where a Royal Commission found the automated decision-making scheme involved was ‘a crude and cruel mechanism’ that resulted in the raising of ‘demonstrably wrong debts’ (final report Vol 1, xxix-xxvi).

Is virtual dispute resolution better for SRLs?

What are the benefits of the use of facilitative technology for online dispute resolution for SRLs in Victorian courts?

Virtual dispute resolution is less intimidating

Appearing in court, or even in alternative dispute resolution processes like mediation, can be incredibly intimidating for anyone, even lawyers, but especially for SRLs who usually lack legal expertise and/or experience with the system, argue Michael Legg and Anthony Song and Stuart Ross and Sophie Aitken. Accordingly, allowing SRLs to appear from their own space, rather than a court/conference room, helps reduce formality and adds an element of arm’s length to the dispute (including by preventing accidental run-ins between parties during breaks), which may make the SRL feel more comfortable when appearing. Notably, it’s quite common for victims of violence or abuse to be self-represented as, according to Zeleznikow, they’re ‘particularly likely to have few resources and little opportunity to obtain the services of a lawyer. Stuart Ross and Sophie Aiken argue that as a consequence, the emotional and physical distance that a remote hearing provides can be especially important.

It reduces travel and related costs

Virtual appearances eliminate the need for SRLs to travel (and thus incur travel-related costs), argue Philippa Ryan and Maxine Evers. This is especially impactful on those living rurally or internationally, those with mobility issues and for parents or caretakers who have to find alternative care arrangements.

The value in having this technology available is notably pronounced when it comes to the preparatory meetings/hearings required before a trial. These pre-hearing appearances are often administrative and commonly short, some even taking mere minutes, so not having to appear physically saves SRLs significant time and costs, say Ryan and Evers.

However, it can make the system less accessible for some

Although virtual dispute resolution improves accessibility for some, it can actually hinder access for others. The Victorian Multicultural Commission argues that, this particularly impact those who don’t have access to the necessary facilities/resources like a computer/phone, stable internet connection and a quiet place to appear, and/or those who lack technological skills. As the Victorian Government identifies in its Digital Inclusion Statement, the most ‘digitally disadvantaged’ Victorians include those living in low-income households, disabled persons, senior citizens, those with low educational attainment and First Nations people. Many of these groups are also significantly overrepresented within our justice system, especially our criminal justice system, so it’s especially imperative that measures and accommodations are available to those without means or skills to access the technology. This may be as simple as keeping available the option of hearings in person or via ‘the much more accessible technology, the telephone’ argues Bridgette Toy-Cronin. It could also mean providing additional supports and resources like online/remote technical support, interpreters and educational programs.

There’s also a lot to be said for the value of a face-to-face conversation when resolving disputes, especially when engaging in alternative dispute resolution. Speaking to someone through a screen can depersonalise the discussions and network or technological issues can affect the parties’ capacity to engage meaningfully and build rapport, says Shira Scheindlin. The Multicultural Commission also identified that mistrust of technology and privacy concerns mean some SRLs are reluctant to discuss confidential matters online, which can also hinder meaningful engagement.

Technology problems can hamper participation in ODR: ‘I’m not a cat’: lawyer gets stuck on Zoom kitten filter during court case: source Youtube

Problems also potentially arise in relation to virtual cross-examination of witnesses as examiners can’t properly read demeanour or body language over video. This would make the task especially difficult for SRLs who can’t fall back on witness examination experience.

Conclusion

Embracing online dispute resolution is one of the most significant steps courts can take to better meet the needs of SRLs, as it has the potential to make justice cheaper, easier and more accessible. However, like with any innovation, it’s imperative that change is not so quick or drastic that it leaves people behind. Noam Ebner and Elayne Greenberg argue that the primary way to safeguard against this is to ensure there’s appropriate consultation and input in the development and roll out of new technologies from all justice stakeholders, including layperson litigants. 

In short, we must embrace technology to make our legal system more accessible to SRLs, but we must be strategic to ensure we are not leaving the most vulnerable behind. 

About Sarah West

Sarah has just completed her Bachelor of Arts and Laws (Honours) double degree at Monash University. In her Arts degree she majored in Criminology.

Sarah has just begun as a graduate at MinterEllison Lawyers and is currently rotating through the Statutory Compensation team. Through her studies, Sarah developed a passion for understanding how we can make our legal system more accessible to individuals.

So You Want to Incorporate Intersectionality Into Your Legal Practice? A Primer

Posted on by
Reply

By Thomas Ponissi
22 March 2024

This post is the second in a series of posts on this blog written by students studying Non-Adversarial Justice at the Faculty of Law at Monash University in 2023. Students were invited to write blog posts explaining various complex areas of law relating to dispute resolution to ordinary readers. The very best post on each topic is published here.

Disclaimer: this piece contains content that some readers may find distressing.

Beyond ‘either/or’

The term ‘intersectionality’ has been co-opted in so many ways — in left-wing memes, in right-wing culture wars, in digital shopping carts — that you’d be forgiven for forgetting what it actually means. Ironic, considering that the concept was first coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a Black woman, and you could write a thesis on the endless appropriation, and misuse, of concepts and terminology that originated in Black culture.

So, what is intersectionality? It is the idea that a person’s lived experience is influenced by the various identities that they inhabit (for example, their socio-economic status, or ethnic background), as well as the way that these identities overlap and/or diverge in unique ways. The result may be privilege in certain contexts and/or “compounded disadvantage” in others. I use ‘and/or’ very deliberately because intersectionality challenges binary thinking; its application must be fluid and contextual, tailored to the unique facts of each situation.

Crenshaw, an American legal scholar, developed the idea in response to DeGraffenreid v. General Motors, an unsuccessful 1976 discrimination claim lodged by several Black women who had all been denied work at a local factory. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri found that there had been no racial discrimination, because there were Black men employed at the factory; the Court also found that there had been no sex discrimination, because there were white women employed at the factory. According to District Judge Wanglin, the claimants had to pick one part of their identity: their gender or their race. To lodge a claim on the basis of both attributes would supposedly constitute an unfair “super-remedy” — even though it was the intersection of those two attributes that characterised the discrimination on the facts.

Thankfully, we are growing in our appreciation of the complexities of identity and discrimination; some governments, and even courts, are beginning to listen. However, we still have a long way to go. Only last year, Australian Senator Lidia Thorpe alleged that she had experienced sexual harassment in the Commonwealth Parliament — and that “it wasn’t until a white woman stood up” with a similar allegation “that the media took notice”. Clearly, an intersectional approach — and a reckoning with implicit bias — remains indispensable. That’s where your legal practice comes in.

“We are growing in our appreciation of the complexities of identity and discrimination.”

Image source: Alice (six_impossible_things), Unsplash

Turning theory into practice

Researchers have found that intersectionality “has taken root” in disciplines like education and psychology. Why not in law, though? Perhaps this is due to the conservative, ‘black-letter’ approach to law — and to law reform — that some in the industry still follow.

Throughout my discussion, I will balance the rewards of an intersectional approach to legal practice with the risks. It is important to remember that no one practitioner or firm can resolve centuries of structural oppression; it is neither your responsibility nor within your capacity. However, there are still tangible steps that can be taken to begin to “restructure the distribution of opportunity and “practise law as a healing profession”.

            1.         Be aware

Legal practitioners should, as far as practicable, have “historical and contextual understanding” of the communities they work with. This is particularly important when practitioners do not share their clients’ lived experience. Criminal defence lawyer Russell Marks explores this tension at length in his book Black Lives, White Law. Marks, a white man based in South Australia, works mostly with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons, including in remote Northern Territory. Marks is mindful of his status as an outsider who interacts with the criminal legal system in a substantively different way.

For intersectionality to be meaningful in practice, lawyers must understand what it actually entails. This might be achieved through cultural competency training or other professional development. It is also beneficial to adopt a holistic, non-exhaustive approach to the identity markers relevant to an intersectionality analysis. Though the four attributes covered by federal anti-discrimination legislation — age, disability, race, and sex (or, gender) — are often front of mind, there is no ‘ceiling’ on what might be considered. In fact, thinking outside the box will enhance your practice’s incorporation of intersectionality.

What is your client’s level of educational attainment? Do they live near affordable public transport? How proficient are they in speaking English (or the official language of your jurisdiction)? Were either of their parents ever incarcerated? These are just some of the questions you might consider asking to help gain a deeper understanding of the circumstances that have brought a person to you.

            2.         Be class-conscious

Marxist scholars have critiqued intersectionality for placing “other forms of social differences […] centre stage” when analysing oppression, ignoring class not just as another ‘social difference’ that affects lived experience, but as the overarching factor that exacerbates other forms of marginalisation. Indeed, one review of demographic data collection in intersectional studies found that 77% of samples measured sex and/or gender, and 72% measured race and/or ethnicity, but only 33% measured socioeconomic status. Here, we can see the lack of consideration given to class, even when practitioners explicitly intend to be intersectional.

However, the problem isn’t intersectionality itself but its application; legal practitioners can mitigate this by remaining vigilant. Access to justice for poor persons is already obstructed by the prohibitive cost of legal advice and representation. A lack of class-consciousness can also have the effect of excluding prospective legal practitioners; many demands of professional development — for instance, unpaid internships — are near-impossible for poorer people. Affirmative action programs that facilitate participation, through initiatives such as mentoring or financial aid, are essential to achieving socio-economic intersectionality.

            3.         Be strategic

There are areas of law where intersectionality is fundamental. For instance, in the criminal legal system, a person’s indigeneity and/or ethnicity may, due to structural racism, make them more vulnerable to harsher policing and/or judicial sanction. Accordingly, an intersectional approach is necessary in order to identify any exceptional circumstances that might be relevant to bail or sentencing.

There will also, of course, be disputes where an intersectional approach is less useful; for example, in corporate contracting. There may even be socio-emotionally charged disputes where intersectionality is not the most appropriate framework, and the focus should be on, for example, parties’ relationships instead of identities. However, this doesn’t mean that intersectionality is unnecessary as a rule, but merely that it should always be deployed deliberately, with careful regard for the specific facts at hand.

            4.         Be structured and sensitive

Taking concrete organisational steps towards intersectionality ensures that it is “more than theory”. Intersectionality should be an active practice, embedded from “the front-end (point of entry) of the justice system”. Triage processes can facilitate this via the collection of extended baseline data about clients, in order to better understand the totality of their identities — and to better cater to their legal needs.

Incorporating intersectionality is “a process of continuous improvement”. We all will make mistakes along the way. However, safeguards can be introduced to mitigate the harm caused by these errors.

Collecting data on identity characteristics, or focusing on a person’s experience of discrimination or suffering, can indirectly “reinforce ideas of inherent differences […] rather than point towards actionable solutions”. Clients need to understand why this information is being collected (ie, to enhance their legal advice or representation); otherwise, they may feel that they have been further victimised by the process.

Practitioners should work collaboratively with clients, as well as listen to their client’s interests and concerns, rather than assuming that their clients feel burdened by their identities.

The intersectional processes that I have advocated may unintentionally ‘out’ people who do not wish to discuss certain parts of their life; for example, women of faith whose religions are considered by some as sexist, but which the women do not want to feel pressured into renouncing. This phenomenon is known as ambivalence, in which overlapping identity characteristics foster “mixed and contradictory feelings” in the individual.

These dynamics must be navigated sensitively. Legal practitioners might adopt a multidisciplinary approach and work with other professionals, like social workers. The integration of legal services with other professions, like health, is a growing feature of public policy. Such a development can be mirrored in private practice, too.

Intersectionality may be the way of the future, but there is no reason not to begin incorporating it now.

            5.         Be resilient

Maintaining an intersectional approach may provoke an adverse reaction in some clients, or even coworkers; certainly, not everyone is a fan of the concept.

However, it is a matter of persistence and tact — of developing a vocabulary to either explain intersectional concepts in a manner that is accessible to skeptics, or alternately embedding it within systems so seamlessly that it is not noticeable.

These are long-term initiatives, not ‘quick wins’, but this should not dissuade us from doing the hard work. We will be better lawyers because of it.

About Thomas Ponissi
Thomas Ponissi (he/they) is a Laws/Global Studies student, specialising in Human Rights. Thomas is currently on exchange and completing his final semester at Boston College, USA. He has worked as a paralegal and an administrator in community legal centres.