School students are protesting today about the failure of politicians to take serious action in response to climate change. They are calling for action. The Global Strike for Future grew from 16 year old Swedish student Greta Thunberg‘s decision to strike on Fridays outside the Swedish parliament. She has been joined regularly for Friday protests by students in Germany, Belgium, Britain and France. Today’s global protest is happening in 112 countries including Australia. “Pupils from hundreds of schools in over 55 cities and towns across Australia are using the action to call on all politicians to stop Adani’s coal mine, say no to all new fossil fuels and power Australia with 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030.”

A protest is obviously evidence of a dispute, in this case between politicians and young people, most of whom are not yet allowed to vote. It is hard for people without a right to vote to persuade democratically elected politicians. The power imbalance between the primary parties to this dispute is obvious. However, if there is, as is expected, a significant turn out in numbers, a strong message will be sent to politicians about what future voters think about their performance on climate change. The dispute has already sparked reaction from politicians in Australia, with the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Commonwealth Education Minister and NSW Education Minister all making public statements calling for students to stay in school and not participate in the strike. The Deputy Prime Minister said in parliamentary question time that “the children should be staying in school to learn about Australian history, to learn about Australia geography“. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has called for less activism and more learning in schools. Essentially, none of these responses address the substantive concerns of the protestors, instead concentrating on the right to protest where it conflicts with the policy of compulsory school attendance. Other politicians have supported the children’s right to protest, including the ACT Education Minister.

Another argument raised against the protest is that because the people protesting are children, they are essentially being “politicised” and used by adults to push a political agenda. Students have responded assertively against such claims, reinforcing that they are expressing their own concerns. This argument plays upon the power imbalance between the parties, because the people protesting are being told that their message is less persuasive because they lack capacity to form a truly independent opinion in the way that an adult can.

The dispute has spread well beyond the two groups of politicians and school students who wish to protest. Schools have been divided in their support or non-support of their students attending, media coverage reveals a range of views for and against, and parents and children have been negotiating their way around whether or not they are allowed to or supported to participate.

The opportunities for the application of conflict management and resolution processes in this context are infinite.

• Within families, the opportunity to engage in meaningful, respectful discussions about the issues of climate change action and protesting about it in school time has been taken in many families. There has potentially been enormous growth in the skills that both children and parents have chosen and developed in these dialogues.
• Similarly, students, teachers, parents, and school principals have all had the opportunity to discuss the issues, negotiate possibilities, and communicate boundaries within school communities. Thinking about ways to enable different points of view to be expressed, and to manage conflicting opinions, power imbalance, and mass protest must have been an enormous challenge within schools. There is always the choice to use power to say “no”, but the civil disobedience on a mass scale that might follow then also has to be dealt with. It will be interesting to see whether schools take the opportunity for a “teachable moment” to discuss protest, school attendance and climate change action by politicians and ordinary people, and effective ways to manage conflicting points of view.
• Politicians have an opportunity to decide how to engage with the message that the people they govern are sending them. They could decide to open a conversation, to think critically about how people under the age of 18 can meaningfully participate in political life, and to take a more collaborative approach to the conversation rather than the adversarial “for or against” approach that appears to have been adopted so far.

Happy International Women’s Day 2019. You may like to flashback to our 2017 International Women’s Day post about gender issues in dispute resolution. This year, I want to celebrate the community building contributions of women dispute resolution practitioners and researchers.

Our Australian Dispute Resolution Research Network is filled with wonderful women, who strive to maintain a mutually supportive, inclusive and friendly community. Women are very well represented among our membership. Many of the prominent scholars in the dispute resolution field are women – we read their work, they supervise(d) our research training, they inspire us. (NB I thought about making a list and decided it would be way too long and could never be inclusive of all the wonderful women DR researchers!). Most of the people who have supported me in my research so far are women. I am forever indebted to them for their welcome, genuine interest, time, care, kindly communicated rigour, and fabulous company. Community is best when everyone makes an effort, and in my own experience, women are particularly adept at building and maintaining community – giving and receiving so much in the process.

In some areas of dispute resolution women appear to face substantial barriers. There is a ‘persistent and severe under-representation of women in the highest levels of international mediation, particularly at the United Nations.‘ By “highest levels” I am guessing the author is referring to the most prestigious and best remunerated international mediation opportunities. The United Nations has recognised that there needs to be equal representation of women as compared to men in international peace building processes. Under-representation of women in international dispute resolution has been given scholarly attention. Attempts to support women’s participation in international level dispute resolution processes include the Women Mediators Across the Commonwealth, a ‘platform for the peer-to-peer exchange and learning of women mediators from across Commonwealth countries.‘ Networks have been created around the globe, to support the participation of women in mediation as a peace building activity. Benefits of networks of women include: improved access to women mediators, best practice development, research and analysis, publication, better consultation with women’s groups, technical expertise, training, confidence building, and inter-generational relationship strengthening.

The example above demonstrates that where there is a will to increase women’s participation in our field, networks can be used to build capacity, confidence, community and profile.

Thank you to all you women in the ADRRN.

[photographs of some of our women members from the December 2018 ADRRN Research Roundtable, University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland]

Call for Panel Proposals and Papers
ASCL Annual Meeting

17 Oct 2019 – 19 Oct 2019, University of Missouri School of Law’s Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution , Columbia, Missouri

The American Society of Comparative Law (ASCL) has just issued a call for proposals for (1) concurrent panels and (2) a works in progress conference to be held in association with the ASCL 2019 Annual Meeting, which will be held at the University of Missouri School of Law’s Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution between Thursday, October 17, and Saturday, October 19, 2019. The event is open to ASCL and non-ASCL members.

The theme of the Annual Meeting is “Comparative Law and International Dispute Resolution Processes” and will feature presentations on how comparative law affects various types of cross-border conflict, including but not limited to transnational litigation, arbitration, mediation, online dispute resolution (ODR), conflict resolution, access to justice and dispute system design. Concurrent panels and works in progress papers need not fall within this general theme, although of course they may. Multilingual panel proposals will be considered as part of ASCL’s mission to foster plurilingualism.

PAPER SUBMISSIONS/FURTHER INFORMATION: Information on the event, including the call for panel proposals and works in progress submissions, is available at http://law.missouri.edu/faculty/symposia/comparative-law-international-dispute-resolution-processes. Proposals will be accepted until May 20, 2019. Queries may be addressed to Mary Tran at 2019ASCL@law.ucla.edu

The American Society of Comparative Law, Inc. (ASCL) is the leading organization in the United States promoting the comparative study of law. Founded in 1951, it is a thriving organization of more than 100 institutional sponsor members, both in the United States and abroad, and a growing number of individual members. The Society publishes The American Journal of Comparative Law, the outstanding American publication of scholarship on comparative law. The Society also holds annual meetings at which comparative law scholars present research and critically examine important legal issues from a comparative perspective. In addition, the Society provides support to other scholarly conferences both in the United States and internationally that deal with comparative law.

The nationally-ranked Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution (CSDR) at the University of Missouri School of Law seeks to develop and promote appropriate methods for understanding, managing and resolving domestic and international conflict as well as the use of dispute resolution techniques to enhance informed decision-making. In furtherance of that mission, the CSDR fosters comprehensive approaches to lawyering and decision-making and promotes the appropriate use of alternative processes of dispute resolution through engagement in legal and interdisciplinary scholarship; law school teaching and curriculum initiatives; educational services to legal and dispute resolution professionals; law reform related to dispute resolution; and direct dispute resolution services.

Age and Mediation Part II

My last blog ended with the question of how mediation might have helped Edith Hill, a 96-year-old African-American woman. As told by documentary filmmaker Laura Checkoway and journalist Judith Graham, her story includes factors familiar to elder mediation proponents. These include longstanding family conflict, loving adult children, allegations of financial abuse that were raised but not resolved through a legal process, and debate over how to best identify and support cognitively impaired and highly dependent adults. Mediation has been theorized to empower older adults in these situations by providing greater opportunity for direct participation and for warring loved ones to focus on finding the best way to provide care.

In the documentary of Edith and her husband Eddie, a heartwarming story of the world’s oldest interracial newlywed couple is ended by heartbreaking separation. Edith and Eddie have no recourse in the face of a professional guardian’s authority to move Edith to another state. Eddie dies a couple weeks later.

Would mediation have helped? Given that no attempt was made, any argument is one of speculation. As a relatively new specialization, elder mediation is still developing its empirical foundation. The purpose of this blog post is to help move from theory to practice by briefly presenting results from study of elder mediation pilot projects in Ghana and the United States. I first explain why the elder advocacy agency in each research site pilot tested mediation. I then briefly present from my study and findings to end with a more empirically based guess as to whether mediation could have helped Edith Hall.

Research sites

In both countries, the primary research sites selected were elder advocacy agencies. Each had identified mediation as potentially empowering for older adults. In Ghana, the goal was to improve the cultural sensitivity of an elder rights program. The concern was that most legal cases violating the rights of older adults would involve family, and that mediation was more culturally appropriate than formal legal intervention. In the U.S., one goal was to build from adult guardianship mediation. Was it possible to keep cases out of court through mediation referral and thus obviate unnecessary guardianship appointments? The other was to continue testing the benefits of mediation in adult guardianship cases. The U.S. elder advocacy agency partnered with mediation professionals and court services in three states with outreach efforts to potential referral sources, such as clergy, hospice workers, and geriatric case managers.

Research design

A qualitative, ethnographic approach was used given the exploratory nature of both projects. In neither research site were enough cases generated to allow more standard program evaluation. My project was therefore adapted to ask more basic questions, such as how to explain the gap between professional anticipation of need and low caseload results. Over time I also questioned the underlying presumptions of an elder advocacy discourse in which chronological age was conflated with vulnerability, loss, and dependency (Crampton 2016).

https://pixabay.com/en/old-couple-sitting-grandparents-2313286/. ErikaWittlieb

Was this culturally resonant with the lived experience of those aged 60+? I approached these questions primarily through the participant observation methods of anthropological field research.

Research findings

In both countries, one explanation for low caseload was the presence of alternatives. In Ghana, people commonly seek third parties who convene a meeting to resolve disputes without resorting to a formal legal process (Crampton 2006). However, the third party is more typically a respected member of an organization (such as a company) or a community (such as the head of an extended family) whose expertise is known through seniority and demonstrated maturity. Formal training and mediation professionalization was new during data collection (2004-5). While the elder advocacy agency was interested in professionalization, they had already provided dispute resolution intervention for older adults seeking help through a community development officer. And, they had previously resolved conflicts among older adults using their services without professional mediation training. During the research period, I followed a dispute brought by an older adult to his local chief. Meanwhile, the European donor for the legal rights program did not expand project parameters to ADR services.

In the U.S., the presence of alternatives to mediation came from professionals and creative avoidance by older adults. Despite extensive outreach, professionals who worked with older adults agreed with purported benefits but felt no need to refer cases given their own expertise. Meanwhile, one of the mediation program partners found that older adults were particularly reluctant to agree to mediation. They wanted to keep family conflict private. This changed when cases went to court, and mediation became the more private alternative. In my field research, I found that people in the U.S. avoid the stigma and loss associated with growing older by refusing services specifically targeted to “elders” and “older adults.” In one case, for example, an older adult refused professional intervention and yet relied on neighbors, church members, and her therapist for support as she grew frail and dependent. She found overnight caregivers by placing an ad in a local newspaper. This reminded me of a phrase learned from one older adult, “Old age is just a number and mine is unlisted.” How are “elder” mediation services best offered to people aged 60+ who balk at identification as an “older” adult?

Lessons learned

Would mediation have helped Edith and Eddie? Answering this question might start with asking why mediation was never part of the story. At least one court and several lawyers were part of the guardianship case. Was there consideration of mediation referral? Were attempts made but ultimately refused? Answering these questions would help ground the answer from one of theory to case specifics. From my observations as a researcher, I think that mediation could have been a less traumatic way to resolve conflict over whether Edith would move back to Florida. However, this option requires consent from several parties, expertise in how to include Edith (and Eddie), and ensure that her best interests were met, and time invested to work through the emotions and practical complications of caregiving by three adult children living in different states. In other words, moving from theory to practice requires realistic assessment of how to get to a lot of “yes” answers before mediation sessions begin.

Introduction

What is the importance of age in alternative dispute resolution? One element is integration of older adulthood and mediation. Advocates have developed “elder mediation” to help empower older adults, to help resolve family conflicts impeding “eldercaring coordination,” and to facilitate difficult decisions over, “What to do with Dad” (or Mum). Integration of gerontology and mediation have been signaled as, ‘The Coming of Age” (Wood and Bowman-Kestner 1990) for alternative dispute resolution. This double entendre points to two things; age as a consideration in mediation, and the impact of a demographic “longevity revolution,” as more people are living not only into old age but also the “very old” ages of 85+

In the U.S., the connection between age and mediation began through civil rights advocacy and legal reform on behalf of older adults. The focus was adult guardianship. A national investigation by the Associated Press (AP) in the 1980s exposed rampant problems in what they called an “ailing system.”

How adult guardianship as solution can become the problem

Adult guardianship is a legal decision in which a judge, jury or tribunal transfers legal rights and responsibilities from adults to an appointed guardian. The intention is to provide a surrogate decision-maker for adults who cannot manage finances and/or ensure self-care. Although comprehensive data on guardianship in the U.S. is lacking, past studies have shown a disproportionate number of older adults under guardianship (AP 1987; Keith and Wacker 1994).

The AP expose found egregious problems in court petitions with paltry evidence, hearings lasting minutes without due process protections, and lack of oversight. A presumably benevolent intervention lacked sufficient scrutiny.

Since then, news stories continue to expose guardianship abuse within a poorly monitored system (Wood 2016) that allows exploitation. In a recent documentary, the intended heartwarming story of the world’s oldest newlywed interracial couple abruptly ends through guardianship intervention.

Once under guardianship, an adult becomes a ward of the court, and loses such basic rights as choice over where to live and whom to marry. The investigated necessity of guardianship, then, should be balanced with concern for rights protection and self-determination.

Mediation as a Solution?

Could mediation have facilitated a better outcome? Mediation as elder advocacy intervention was pilot tested in adult guardianship cases as part of legal reform (Wood 2016). One purpose was to refer cases that were motivated through family conflict more than need for guardianship. Goals included helping identify less restrictive alternatives, resolve conflicts that were displaced into “custody feuds” over adult parents, and to improve family functioning to better focus on meeting the needs of older adults (Crampton 2013; TCSG 2001). A less restrictive alternative could still be a legal remedy, such as power of attorney, which targets financial and/or health care decision-making. Another purpose was to address underlying conflict in cases after guardianship appointments. For example, a guardian inappropriately using this legal authority to prevent other family from contact would lose in court and be referred to mediation. In these cases, the goal is not to supplant the legal system as much as to find a better tool for solving problems that were not best addressed through law. An adult under guardianship due to cognitive impairment, for example, might still be included in mediation with modifications, special training, and support (Barry 2013). In Australia, the egregious problems of court-based trials found in U.S. adult guardianship cases have been addressed through use of specialized tribunals (Carroll and Smith 2010). The potential use of mediation for non-legal issues, such as family conflict, nevertheless remains (Carroll and Smith 2010).

In returning to the case of Edith and Eddie, it seems mediation could have played a role. In a follow up investigation inspired by the documentary, Judith Graham found that underlying guardianship decision-making about Edith were longstanding disputes and caregiver strain among Edith’s adult children. She describes an underlying problem of, “Three daughters in distress over the care of an aged mother and roiled by disputes played out in courtrooms among far-flung siblings.”

Would mediation have empowered Edith to better voice her wishes and receive the care she needed? My next blog addresses this question through results from my elder mediation study in the United States, and ongoing challenges in the development of age and mediation into an ADR specialty.

Photo credits: The first photo is from freestocks.org and the second is from pixabay.com

References cited for sources that might not have hyperlinks:

• Barry, L. (2013). ‘Elder mediation’, Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 24: 251. Accessed through SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2386459
• Bayles, Fred (1987). “Guardians of the Elderly: An Ailing System Part I.” Associated Press. Accessed from: https://www.apnews.com/1198f64bb05d9c1ec690035983c02f9f
• Carroll, R., & Smith, A. (2010). Mediation in guardianship proceedings for the elderly: An Australian Pprspective. Windsor YB Access Just., 28, 53.
• Crampton, A. (2013). Elder mediation in theory and practice: Study results from a national caregiver mediation demonstration project. Journal of gerontological social work, 56(5), 423-437.
• Keith, P. M., & Wacker, R. R. (1994). Older wards and their guardians. Greenwood Publishing Group.
• Kestner, P. B., & Wood, E. (1988). Mediation: The Coming of Age: A Mediator’s Guide in Serving the Elderly. American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Dispute Resolution and Commission on Legal Problems of the Elderly for the National Institute for Dispute Resolution.
• The Center for Social Gerontology (2001). “Evaluating mediation as a means of resolving adult guardianship cases.” Available through TCSG: http://www.tcsg.org
• Wood, E. (2016). Recharging adult guardianship reform: six current paths forward. Journal of Aging, Longevity, Law, and Policy, 1(1), 5.
• Wood, E., & Quinn, M. J. (2017). Guardianship Systems. In Elder Abuse (pp. 363-386). Springer, Cham.

Network members are invited to apply for membership of The Australian Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (ADRAC). As ADRAC is not funded, Council members must have capacity to pay their own costs and volunteer their time for Council activity. This is an opportunity to contribute to the dispute resolution community. More about ADRAC can be seen at their website.

ADRAC Membership Expression of Interest (pdf call for expressions of interest)

AUSTRALIAN DISPUTE RESOLUTION ADVISORY COUNCIL (ADRAC)

COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP– EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST

2019 – 2021

Expressions of Interest

ADRAC seeks Expressions of Interest for appointment to its council. In all, seven new members from across Australia, are being sought. Four new members will replace retiring members, and three are sought to expand the Council from 11 to 14 members.

ADRAC

ADRAC is a national, not-for-profit, public interest, independent ADR policy body. It examines ADR techniques, education and standards, and promotes the use of ADR in all areas of dispute. It makes submissions to Governments, law reform and other interested entities, it conducts and publishes studies on aspects of dispute resolution and it promotes the work of those in the dispute resolution field. ADRAC’s existing membership, its Charter and its work may be viewed at http://www.ADRAC.org.au.

ADRAC is generously supported in executive and legal functions by the Australian Government Solicitor and in addition, is currently seeking sponsors.

Members

Members of ADRAC generally have dispute resolution expertise or represent a specific area of dispute management interest. Members are self-funding at present, unpaid and act in the public interest. Appointments are generally for two years but are extendable or reducible as needed.

Requirements currently include two full-day, face-to-face meetings and up to eight, electronic meetings of less than one hour, per year, and committee work that includes active contribution to ADRAC’s activities. ADRAC values diversity and runs on commitment, enthusiasm and creativity, both at meetings and in the work it does.

Applications

If you wish to be considered for appointment to ADRAC, please make a written submission (outlining your relevant experience/expertise and including a current CV) to office@ADRAC.org.au . To be considered, your expression of interest should be received by Friday 8 March 2019.

Final assessment of applications will be made by a group including external advisers.

Inquiries: Please ring Jeremy Gormly SC (Chair of ADRAC) on 0400190953 or 02 92646899.

One of my favourite researcher pastimes is musing how to find better evidence about the experiences, preferences and needs of potential clients of dispute resolution services. How do we know what people want from their dispute resolution experience? There is a great wealth of research data captured by dispute resolution service providers, and those data don’t necessarily always come to the attention of researchers when they conduct literature searches in their habitual ways. Our network has the potential to bring research findings to the attention of people who want to access research about dispute resolution.

• License: Creative Commons 3 – CC BY-SA 3.0
• Attribution: Alpha Stock Images – http://alphastockimages.com/
• Original Author: Nick Youngson – http://www.nyphotographic.com/
• Original Image: http://www.thebluediamondgallery.com/wooden-tile/e/evidence.html

Below are some examples of research projects, data and findings that are publicly available through service providers, specifically relating to family dispute resolution and related services. I hope readers might find some of these useful in their work.

Relationships Australia National Research Network

Relationships Australia is a national organisation that provides a plethora of services in relation to family and other relationships. They use their broad reach to work collaboratively between their various services to conduct research, through their National Research Network. A current project is a longitudinal Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) Outcomes Study, which promises to provide considerable insight into the quality of outcomes achieved in FDR. A brief summary of the findings from a 2012 study into the psychological distress levels in Relationship Australia family support services clients is also published on the website. Each month, Relationships Australia runs an online survey on a particular topic, and the findings of the survey are published. These surveys seek public opinion about various matters, and this might provide useful “snapshot” evidence about likely perceptions of particular processes, for example, child inclusive family dispute resolution.

Interrelate

Interrelate is a not for profit provider of relationship services that specialises in supporting parents and children. It has a healthy culture of research and a dedicated research and service development team, evaluating programmes in-house and in collaboration with research partners. In 2014 Interrelate presented its experiences of establishing a service-based research culture in a conference paper titled Creating a Research-Aware Workforce: Lessons from the Trenches. Publications are available on the Interrelate website. Some of the publications of particular interest to dispute resolution researchers include the 2017 Certifying Mediation: A Study of Section 60I Certificates, in collaboration with the Centre for Social Research & Methods at ANU and co-funded by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department. The 2011 Report on the Study to Improve Understanding of Non-Agreement in Family Dispute Resolution is also an interesting research report, which was conducted by The Australian Institute of Family Studies. Also available are evaluation studies of Interrelate programmes, including:

• Parents Not Partners, a 6 week post-separation parenting programme to support parents caught in acrimonious separations to make good parenting decisions. There is also a description of the development of the Parents Not Partners program available on the website.
• Aboriginal Building Connections, an Aboriginal-specific, culturally appropriate, parenting education program focused on raising awareness of the risk of harm to children when there are high levels of unresolved and entrenched conflict between their separated parents.

Legal Aid Services

Back in 2008 KPMG conducted, on behalf of the Commonwealth Attorney-General, an evaluation of Family dispute resolution services in legal aid commissions. Legal Aid Victoria includes research activity as a core part of its business. The following research project reports are available on the Legal Aid Victoria webpage:

• Client profile data compiled and analysed from Annual Reports.
• Client satisfaction survey results.
• An Evaluation of Victoria Legal Aid’s Kids Talk Program 2007-2010, a child inclusive program.
• Other evaluations of Victoria Legal Aid’s programmes.

Legal Aid NSW published reviews, evaluations and discussion papers that it conducted in-house or commissioned between 2008 and 2015. These include Felicity Bell’s Discussion Paper on Facilitating the participation of children in Family Law processes, and client satisfaction survey results.

Anglicare

Anglicare Sydney have a Social Policy and Research Unit that conducts research and publishes reports on the Anglicare website. These include the 2018 Going it Alone: A Study of Lone Person Households, Social Isolation and Disadvantage in Sydney.

Finding the evidence

Quality research work occurs within service provider organisations. Research supports the field in the evolution of both practice and theory.

For researchers, the impracticality of capturing all of the research findings relevant to their work is an ever present challenge. The dispute resolution field spans all organisations, fields, disciplines and professions. This post focused upon family dispute resolution and related services, only one aspect of the dispute resolution landscape. Future posts might draw together service based and publicly available research related to other topic areas. Please contact me if you would like to volunteer to put together a similar post in your area of specialty.

This post has been contributed by Adjunct Professor Sue Field, in collaboration with network member Hanna Jaireth.

It is common knowledge that we have an ageing population in Australia. In 2017, 15.4% of the population were over the age of 65 years and this group is projected to increase more rapidly over the next decade, as further cohorts of baby boomers (those born between the years 1946 and 1964) turn 65 (3101.0 – Australian Demographic Statistics, Jun 2017).

It is also common knowledge that as we age we have an increased risk of developing some form of cognitive impairment. According to Dementia Australia one in ten people over the age of 65 years have dementia; and this increases to three in ten people over the age of 85 years (Dementia Australia).

Therefore, it is safe to assume that professionals working with an older client base may well be confronted with situations where the mental capacity of their client may be in question. This is equally true of those engaged in mediation, where one, if not many, of the parties involved may not necessarily have the requisite mental capacity to engage in the process.

It is timely therefore to indulge in a short recap of the fundamentals associated with mental capacity.

At the outset, in respect of mental  capacity, there are two basic premise. The first is that there is a presumption of capacity and the second is that capacity is a legal, not a medical, concept. But presumptions can be rebutted. In this instance it can be rebutted by the presence of a valid trigger (or red flag). For example the person concerned displays behaviour that is not the behaviour considered usual (or normal) for that particular person. Simple examples of triggers are constantly repeating the same sentence or a total inability to repeat, and comprehend, what has just been explained to them. However, any trigger should be further explored as there may be a rational explanation for the behaviour. For example is the person stressed in their current environment, are they on medication, or has their medication recently been changed. Do they have a urinary tract infection, or some other illness.

Perhaps in the example of not being able to repeat what has been explained to them, consideration should be given to the fact that  the person explaining a situation has not taken into account the level of education/cultural differences/or the stress occasioned by the environment!

The second premise, that is, that capacity is a legal, not a medical concept means that should the matter end up in a court or tribunal that legal body will make a determination of the person’s capacity, based on the evidence provided.

But what exactly do we mean by “mental capacity”? Not all jurisdictions provide a statutory definition. Therefore reliance is placed on common law, in particular the 1954 High Court case of Gibbons v Wright [1954] HCA 17 per Dixon CJ, Kitto and Taylor JJ, where their Honours stated that:

“The mental capacity required by law in respect of any instrument is relative to the particular transaction which is being effected by means of the instrument, and may be described as the capacity to understand the nature of the transaction when it is explained.”

Caution, as mentioned supra, should be exercised here to ensure that the explanation is given in a manner that the relevant person can understand!

A further caution is not to assume that because a person has a diagnosis of “dementia” they cannot make a decision. A person may well be diagnosed with dementia at a very early stage of the condition and manage their lives successfully for many years. However, such a diagnosis may be seen to be a trigger and therefore should be explored – and documentation in situations such as this is of vital importance.

It can be seen then, that capacity is not global (in other words it is not an all or nothing concept). It can be domain specific, that is, the person may have capacity for health decisions, but not financial, and vice versa.  But even within a specific domain capacity is, in fact, decision specific. A person may have capacity to make a will (testamentary capacity), but not capacity to enter into a complex contract or engage in mediation.

This brings us to the term “legal capacity”. This is generally accepted to mean that the person has ability to:

• make a binding legal agreement;
• sue another person; and
• make other decisions of a legal nature (Legal Aid Queensland)

It can be seen, therefore, that for a person to engage in mediation, they must possess legal capacity. Finkel and Linden note that a mediator should have sufficient information and understanding of mental capacity “that is commensurate with the risk of her/his judgement being inappropriate.”

To ensure this they suggest that the mediator should be satisfied that

• the party [is] receiving information?
• the party [is] integrating that information in a way that reflects a rational, replicable process? [and that]
• this person [can] communicate the results?

(Arthur L Finkel and Jon Linden, ‘Determining “Legal Capacity” in Mediation’ May 2003)

It is suggested therefore that should there be concerns about the capacity of a person to engage in mediation the mediator could perhaps ask themselves the following questions:-

• On what am I basing my view that capacity is in question?
• Should the mediation commence, be adjourned or even cease?
• What are the implications for this decision?
• What are my professional responsibilities in this regard?
• What are the guidelines that guide my decision? and
• What are the implications of “getting it wrong”?

We cannot deny that we have an ageing population and as we age we do have an increased risk of developing some form of cognitive impairment. Equally we must expect that older people may well form part of our practice. Are we, therefore, ready to accept the challenges occasioned by these changes?

About the author: Sue Field is an Adjunct Associate Professor at Western Sydney University where for the past fourteen years she has taught elder law to undergraduate law students. Sue is also an Adjunct Associate Professor at Charles Sturt University, a Lead Investigator with the Cognitive Decline Partnership Centre, a Research Fellow at the University of Western Australia, a Director of the Australian Centre for Elder Law Pty Ltd and a Distinguished Fellow at the Canadian Centre for Elder Law. Sue is co-editor of the Elder Law Review, the only refereed elder law journal in Australia. In conjunction with Professor Carolyn Sappideen and Karen Williams Sue has co-edited a recently released text on Elder Law and is working on a co-authored text on elder law for the layperson. Sue has published widely and presented at many international and national events.

Sue is a member of the NSW Law Society Committees on Elder Law, Capacity and Succession, and Rural Issues and was on the Advisory Committee for the Australian Law Reform Commission Inquiry into Elder Abuse.

Sue also learns the cello.

This post by Haley Weir originally appeared on the Kluwer Mediation Blog

This is a summary of a research paper presented at the ADRRN Roundtable convened at the University of the Sunshine Coast in December 2018; comments made by ADRRN colleagues have been taken into account in this summary.  The research paper reports on one component of a much larger research project in which a systematic appraisal is being conducted of a selection of articles describing empirical studies of mediation

[Vektor ID 563739124/Shutterstock.com]

When I am reading an article about an empirical study of mediation effectiveness, I want to know whether I should incorporate into my mediation practice the techniques, strategies, and behaviours that are described in the article as having been effective.  In other words, how transferable are they?

When appraising the transferability of the results of an empirical study in any field of research, two key factors are taken into account: the study’s identification of its broad sample population, and its selection of study subjects from that population.  Where neither the sample population nor the selected study subjects are appropriately representative, there is a significant reduction in the external validity of the study’s results.  In this context, it is important to establish what might be a representative mediation population.

It has been said that mediation can ‘… play a role in virtually every significant area of social conflict’ (K. Kressel, The Mediation of Conflict: Context, Cognition, and Practice, in: P. T. Coleman, M. Deutsch, and E. C. Marcus (Eds), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice (3^rdEdition, Jossey-Bass, USA, 2014), p 817).  This suggests that a representative mediation population is the broad diverse community, all of whom are actual and potential mediation participants.  When mediation researchers select people to participate in their studies, it can be assumed that they are choosing subjects who represent that broad diverse community. Yet analysis of the selected mediation literature suggests that this is not the case: mediation researchers rarely mention population representativeness, and appear to choose their study subjects from a very limited range of groups (or programs):

• Mediator and non-mediator participants in some court-connected mediation programs;
• Mediator and non-mediator participants in some structured community mediation programs;
• Mediator and non-mediator participants in some programsdesigned for family/custody disputes; and
• University students (where the studies are of simulated mediation).

As the list shows, subject diversity in mediation research is restricted by the research’s own limited focus on a selection of government funded services and programs, as well as services provided through public institutions.  This focus leaves other services, and participants, largely unexamined.

The lack of representative diversity in study subjects applies to the mediator as well as non-mediator participants, and it is only one of many issues claimed by mediation researchers to affect how they are able to do their work.

The issues that have been described can be categorised as follows:

• Obstacles (preventing certain empirical research from being undertaken): the lack of access to adequate funding; ethical restrictions that prevent rigorous examination of mediation practices and thus limit what is known about mediation,potentially disadvantaging future mediation clients;
• Impediments(making it difficult to conduct certain empirical research): the nature of the mediation process itself (including confidentiality restrictions); the increasing incidence of mediation research being conducted in law schools where there is limited social research experience and expertise; the lack of consistent research methodologies; definitional problems (e.g., the meaning of “mediation” itself, the variety of models of practice, and the various measures of mediation effectiveness); external influences on research purpose and design (such as interest groups, funders, and researcher affiliations); and reputational concerns of potential subject mediators (i.e., if they participate in a particular study, what might be reported about them?);
• Recurrent flawsin research design have been noted to include: heavy reliance on data collection from mediator and non-mediator self-reports; and the inherent tension between funder preferences for relatively cheap/quick studies, and protection of research rigour; and,
• Persistent gapswhere little is known about: private mediation; mediation outcomes other than settlement;individual mediator behaviours, or microskills; how mediator values and preferences influence what they say and do in mediation; systemic issues that might influence the mediation process, and what mediators say and do within it; and the lack of comparative studies (i.e., investigations of similar mediator approaches in different contexts, or of different mediator approaches in the same context).

Other potential problems that are not mentioned often in the mediation literature include:

• How the researcher’s own preferences and experience might influence:
  • Research design,
  • Choice of data collection methodologies,
  • Method of data analysis, and
  • Study subjects’ responses;
• The lack of gender, race, ethnic, and socio-economic differentiation in the selection of study subjects, in the collection of data from and about research subjects, and in the analysis of that same data. In addition, not enough is known about the demographic differences between mediators in any context, nor about how those differences might affect what mediators say and do, and affect the responses and behaviours of non-mediator participants.

It has been observed that, in all fields, there is pressure on academics to publish as frequently as possible, with their research ability being assessed by the numberof published items rather than by the qualityof reported studies.  In the mediation field, this issue is compounded by the relative lack of specialist mediation publications, and the lack of sufficient mediation knowledge in other publication areas where mediation researchers do publish (e.g., law journals, business journals, social science journals); the latter can result in valuable articles not being published at all, and/or their value not being recognised.  Also, it has been suggested that publishers give preference to articles that confirm mediation’s outcome effectiveness.

Any of the above issues can influence the context and setting of an empirical study of mediation, as well as the research design and its scope, the nature of the research data that is collected, the methods used to collect the data, and the focus of the data analysis.

In particular, many of the issues are likely to influence the researcher’s access to appropriately representative populations, and, ultimately, the transferability of the study findings, and their relevance to practicing mediators.  It is important for the future practice and development of mediation that some of these issues are openly acknowledged and addressed.

The ADRRN is a valuable, respectful, and friendly forum in which mediation researchers can discuss their work with their peers.  It is also a forum in which mediation researchers can consider the above issues.  For example:

• What are the options for improving mediation researchers’ understanding about social science research methodologies?
• How to identify realistic and creative research funding and support that enables:
  • Access to a broader and more representative population of subjects for empirical research;
  • Access to diverse mediation settings and diverse research subjects;
  • Empirical investigations that are more complex and innovative than evaluations of mediation outcomes; and
• How to encourage the dissemination of, and access to, mediation research, without being guided solely by results and findings?