Informed, Involved, Inclusive: The Proposed Curriculum

Posted on 24/02/2025 by Milan A Nitopi

Rory Gowers & Milan Nitopi
This article is Part 2 of 3 in our series ‘Informed, Involved, Inclusive’.

Rory and Milan (left to right) presenting at the 12th Conference World Mediation Forum – Foro Mundial de Mediación in Brazil in November 2024.

Disclaimer: This introductory story is a work of fiction and does not intend to resemble any person or their lived experiences. Names, persons, places, and incidents are products of the author’s imagination. Any resemblance to actual events, locales, or persons is purely coincidental.

In the past…
Ashita had a promising future in Aressa, Syria. As a rising star in the development of artificial intelligence, she was ecstatic when her supervisor pulled her aside on Friday afternoon to share exciting news—her talents had been noticed. Come Monday morning, she would step into a new role, a significant leap forward in her career. As she travelled home that evening, she imagined the innovations she would contribute and the problems she would solve. But by Sunday night, the world she knew was gone.

Then something happened…
The war arrived without warning. Bombs shattered in the night sky, and chaos erupted in the streets. Her family fled in the back of a cattle truck that night, carrying with them only what they could. As the days turned into weeks, and the weeks turned into months, her past was slowly stripped away as she crossed each border.

But eventually she arrived in her host country, and she was alone—her family was scattered, lost in the chaos of displacement. In her host country, Ashita faced a new kind of struggle. The temporary permit allowed her to stay, but it did not offer any sense of belonging. She could barely communicate her basic needs, let alone articulate her expertise in AI–employers saw a refugee, not a specialist. The locals eyed her with suspicion, their mistrust became a barrier she could not break down. Without any support or others willingness to understand, her talents and her livelihood began slipping away.

So now we’re doing this…
But there is another way. We offer a fresh and constructive path forward with specific application of the myRESPECTability model (Gowers, 2023) and through the Mastering Intercultural Mediation Initiatives (MIMI) training program. MIMI equips professionals in all fields with the skills to turn challenging intercultural communication into innovative and constructive dialogue with the involved stakeholders central to the issues in question. MIMI trained professionals will gain enhanced skills and competencies that enable them to facilitate sophisticated intercultural bridges to overcome long-standing cultural divides and reflect the current realities of our diverse, complex, and globalised world.

So we can have a future like this…
With skilled intercultural professionals, Ashita does not have to remain unseen. Professionals who are interculturally competent can help resolve situations–like Ashita’s–by adapting the standard mediation principles, processes and practices to ensure all parties feel able to express and address their interests, needs, and concerns in culturally relevant ways so that they may have an equal place at the table.

In this way, people who may be experiencing a sense of ‘out-culture’ can come into their foreground and make significant contributions for the benefit of the whole community as they now have an opportunity to share their insights and talents.

The Author/s have labeled this AI-generated content (AIGC). This indicates that this content was completely AI-generated or significantly edited with AI.

We share this so that we can create a future that bridges the gap between culture and encourages collaboration between people of all nations. We share this so that we can all work together to address global challenges and achieve solutions that promote peace, equity, and sustainability for all life on this planet. And, we share this so that we can equip the world with the knowledge and skills required for tomorrow’s challenges. But let us explain how we propose to do this…

In our first article we laid the foundations that underpin our proposed intercultural competency training model. In this article, we share our working developments that set out curriculum and rubric which outline the key assessments and learning objectives we intend to achieve.

As becoming interculturally competent is more than an intellectual and mindful journey, we decided it is crucial to centre our training model on participant transformation. This means ensuring that key learning objectives are met, including:

Participant engagement
Research informed learning
Self-reflection
Flexibility

MIMI Foundation 1: Interculturally Informed

As the first foundation is a structured learning process centered on establishing the baseline knowledge of intercultural competence, we decided that participants would benefit most by undergoing an intensive workshop whereby they can both learn theory as well as engage in practical exercises with their cohort.

We envision the workshop to be a total of 12 hours completed over a 3 day period (4 hours each day). Throughout the 3 days, participants will engage in collaborative style learning to learn intercultural theory as well as participate in group discussions and completion of case studies. Upon completion of the 3 days, participants will submit a portfolio detailing their reflections of the theory and activities they engaged in.

Group discussions will focus on key interculturality issues in mediation practice, root causes for communication and dialogue issues, as well as a discussion of case studies to address questions such as:

How did each party feel about the experience?
What was the impact on the parties?
What could the facilitator have done differently?
How did the different communication skills influence the outcome?
What does that tell us about the importance of intercultural principles in mediation?

We expect participants will satisfy the following rubric components to demonstrate their competence in being interculturally informed:

To engage in the workshop including all group discussions, case study analyses, and other activities. This will be evidenced by their attendance and their portfolio submission following the 3 days.
To learn and demonstrate an understanding of intercultural theory and its application to communication and dialogue within mediation practice. This will be evidenced by their portfolio submission following the 3 days.
To self-reflect on learnings, insights, and peer contributions. This will also be evidenced by their portfolio submission following the 3 days.

MIMI Foundation 2: Interculturally Involved

As the second foundation is centered on developing a deeper understanding of other-cultural needs, values, and expectations, we decided that participants would benefit most by undergoing a full other-culture immersion program whereby they can become practically involved to witness, first-hand, their stories, songs, and symbols.

We recommend that participants undergo 10 consecutive days of immersion (with no less than 3 consecutive days). However, it is not a ‘one size fits all’ situation. Some participants may require more or less time to become fully involved in the other-culture–and that is okay! We support flexibility and we encourage participants to be self-determined in their own learning. During and upon completion of their immersion experience, participants will be required to submit a portfolio documenting their daily and final reflections.

In documenting their daily reflections, participants will be prompted on a variety of intercultural issues, such as:

What is a specific cultural difference and similarity you experienced today?
What was a communication and dialogue challenge you perceived today?
How and why did you address and/or manage the intercultural challenge that you faced today?
Record one specific cultural story, song, or symbol that you experienced today.

In documenting their final reflection, participants will be prompted on key interculturality issues in mediation practice or root causes for communication and dialogue issues by drawing on their own knowledge, insights, and immersion experience, such as:

How have your learnings and experiences affected your approach to peoples of an other-culture in your day to day life and/or in your mediation practice?
What communication or dialogue skills will you bring into your life and/or mediation practice?
How are those communication or dialogue skills relevant to effective mediation practice?
What do your learnings and experiences tell you about the importance of intercultural principles in mediation?

We expect participants will satisfy the following rubric components to demonstrate their competence in being interculturally informed:

To engage in at least 3 days of immersion in the other-culture and demonstrate a willingness to participate despite feeling a sense of discomfort, unease, or unfamiliarity. This will be evidenced by their attendance and daily reflections.
To learn and develop an acceptance of the needs, interests, concerns, expectations of the other-culture in a way that is culturally relevant to their own intercultural interactions and mediation practice. This will be evidenced by their daily and final reflections.
To self-reflect on learnings, insights, and lived experience. This will also be evidenced by their daily and final reflections.

MIMI Foundation 3: Interculturally Included

As the third foundation is focused on putting learnings and reflections into practice, we decided that participants would benefit most by engaging in a final practical workshop to adapt their current core principles, practices, and processes to the interests, needs, concerns, and expectations of the other-culture they immersed themselves in.

We envision the workshop to be a total of 20 hours completed over a 5-day period (4 hours each day). Throughout the 5 days, participants will engage in activities such as group discussions, case studies, and role-play exercises. The key focus of this workshop is for participants to demonstrate they are able to accurately identify and address communication and dialogue issues within an intercultural context. Upon completion of the 5 days, participants will be required to submit an ‘Intercultural Practice Statement’ as well as a portfolio detailing the activities they engaged in.

Group discussions, case studies, and role-play exercises will focus on key interculturality issues in mediation practice, root causes for communication and dialogue issues, as well as a discussion of case studies to address questions such as:

How did each party feel about the experience?
What was the impact on the parties?
What could the facilitator have done differently?
How did the different communication skills influence the outcome?
What does that tell us about the importance of intercultural principles in mediation?

The ‘Intercultural Practice Statement’ is a refined methodology for intercultural interaction and participants will be required to present this with their cohort. This provides an opportunity for them, as well as their cohort, to share insights and experience so that they can learn from each other. Participants will be asked to address a final question such as:

What are you going to do differently (i.e., how are you planning to include your learnings and experience into your life) now that you are informed and involved with the other-culture?

We expect participants will satisfy the following rubric components to demonstrate their competence in being interculturally informed:

To engage in the workshop including all group discussions, case study analyses, role-plays, and other activities. This will be evidenced by their attendance and their portfolio submission following the 5 days.
To apply their learnings and insights accurately to identify and address communication and dialogue issues within an intercultural context and in a way that is culturally relevant to their own intercultural interactions and mediation practice. This will be demonstrated by their portfolio submission following the 5 days.
To present their intercultural practice statement to their cohort. This will be evidenced by their attendance and portfolio submission following the 5 days.
To self-reflect on learnings, insights, lived experience, and peer contributions. This will also be evidenced by their intercultural practice statement and portfolio submission following the 5 days.

Intercultural Competency Specialisation (optional add-on)
As an optional add-on, practitioner-based participants (mediators, family dispute resolution practitioners, lawyers, etc.) can elect to undergo a further 1.5 hour role-play assessment to apply their learnings in a practical scenario.

Our vision for the future is to incorporate this training model within leading institutions (such as mediator Recognised Accreditation Providers, Law Societies, Bar Associations, etc.) to develop an intercultural competency specialisation that practitioners can obtain and enhance their own competencies and professional practices.

Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

Each foundation addresses a different, but very necessary, aspect in intercultural competence development. But, because we believe that competency requires ongoing and continual development, the program will provide life-time access to resources and be supported by mentors, alumni, and peers in the online myRespectAbility community.

Professional Members will also receive exclusive discounts on registration in other myRespectAbility or Affiliate programs and workshops.

Participants who demonstrate extraordinary performance throughout the program may be invited to add a chapter to the Intercultural Competence Playbook–a journal that we will publish, print, and mail annually–and is an opportunity for all to learn from others’ insights and experiences.

Author Biography

Rory Gowers is a Master of Dispute Resolution (MDR), a Master of Education (MEd), an intercultural mediator, and a business strategist, residing in Greater Sydney, Australia. Rory has extensive international experience as a visionary business problem solver, and certified results coach. Rory’s mission is to facilitate a more respectful world by inspiring people and groups to transform business ecosystems with practical sustainable solutions with a vision to facilitate a place for all and peace for all in our time. Contact Rory via
Webpage: www.myRESPECTability.com
Email: rory.gowers@gmail.com
Mobile: +61 425 292 811
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/constructiveconflictsolutions

Milan Nitopi is an accredited lawyer and mediator with a Master of Laws in Family Dispute Resolution (LLM FDR). Milan has a passion concerning people, law, and resolution and he strives to equip people with skills for better communication and dialogue to address all kinds of conflict.
Contact Milan via
Email: manitopi@outlook.com
Mobile: +61 432 547 538
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/manitopi/

ADR and the Importance of Data

Posted on 19/12/2014 by Mr James Duffy

A recent post by Dr Becky Batagol had me thinking about the importance of good data collection in the field of ADR. ADR proponents make many claims about the benefits of ADR. We also know that most dispute resolution processes occur behind closed doors, which challenges our ability to make sweeping statements about “what goes on” in ADR processes. Good data, collected from third party facilitators, disputing parties and non participant observers, helps us to make strong claims about the efficacy of ADR forums.

Such data may help us to more clearly consider questions that we believe we already know the answer to. Do ADR processes really preserve relationships when compared to litigation? Are the values of self-determination and autonomy actively promoted in ADR? Do parties focus more on their interests, rather than their positions in ADR? Are remedies achieved in ADR more flexible and varied, compared to court adjudication?

ADR researchers also need to consider methodological approaches that allow us to say things like:

ADR is cheaper than litigation.
ADR is quicker than litigation.
Settlement rates in ADR are high (compared to what?)
Party satisfaction with ADR processes is high.

When I think about these claims, I think about the (initial) words of Thomas Jefferson and the American Declaration of Independence… “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable”. I think good data allows us to cast sunlight on many of ADR’s claims. It is important that we do shine light on these claims, so that users and providers of ADR services understand what ADR can and cannot sensibly lay claim to. Becky made reference in her earlier post to data that would be useful to have:

settlement rates
factors that may influence settlement rates, such as referral stage
what happens when disputes are not settled at ADR
participant satisfaction with ADR and perceptions of fairness, the time and costs expended by participants and service providers.

For members of the ADR research network and readers of this blog – what other data do you think we should be trying to collect??

James

Wishin’ and Hopin’: ADR Policy in Victoria

Posted on 16/12/2014 by Associate Professor Becky Batagol

The past couple of years have seen dispute resolution increasingly politicised in Australia, as we have explained elsewhere. The Victorian election, held on 29 November this year and which resulted in a change of government, is no exception.

The new Australian Labor Party (ALP) government has made an explicit commitment to increasing use of ADR in Victoria. The government’s pre-election platform states (at p 67-8):

Where disputes occur, Government should provide Victorians with options to resolve them at the earliest stage to avoid the cost, stress and delay that is often a feature of traditional court proceedings.

Specific policies promised in relation to ADR include increased promotion of mediation and ramping up the dispute resolution options at VCAT, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, so that it is restored as “a simple, low cost jurisdiction that assists parties seeking speedy resolution of their matters in a less formal and intimidating environment.”

The government has also committed in its platform to providing increased access to justice for vulnerable Victorians (p.67). It has promised an inquiry into access to justice in Victoria including into availability and funding of Community Legal Centres (CLCs). Specific measures pledged to improve access to justice include increased funding for Victoria Legal Aid, addressing “the clogging of the court system”, fixing the problems with funding cuts at VCAT and encouraging more lawyers to work at Community Legal Centres through providing incentives such as scholarships and HECS rebates.

Related promises in the ALP platform include mainstreaming into the broader court system some of the successes of the problem-oriented courts set up in Victoria over the past decade (p.64) so that offenders are better connected to the services they need to address their offending.

While the previous government was in power Victoria from 2010-14, ADR policy moved slowly at best. The Attorney-General for that government, Robert Clark, had publicly expressed his commitment to ADR, stating to the LEADR Kongress in September last year: “The State government is a strong supporter of ADR and the role it can play in bringing about just outcomes in a timely and cost-effective manner.” However the record of the coalition government supporting ADR did not match these words when, in 2011, it repealed legislation containing broad-scale pre-action procedures mandating participation in ADR for all civil disputes before the courts. In passing these reforms, the Attorney-General stated in Hansard on 10 Feb 2011 (at p 307):

It is common sense and good practice for parties to attempt to resolve their dispute without resorting to litigation if there is a reasonable prospect of success in such an attempt. However, the government’s view, and the view of many practitioners, is that to seek to compel parties to do so through these heavy-handed provisions will simply add to the complexity, expense and delay of bringing legal proceedings, because of the need to comply with these mandatory requirements, whether or not they are likely to be useful in any particular case.

It is regrettable that the legislation was repealed without any evidence base of the effectiveness of the reforms or independent testing of the Attorney’s claims.

It remains to be seen whether the deeds of this new Victorian government match its words. The fact that ADR and access to justice were explicitly part of the policy platform prior to the election is promising. The new Attorney-General, Martin Pakula, has big shoes to fill, his Labor predecessor being Australia’s most reformist AG, Rob Hulls (Lionel Murphy having fewer years in the job).

While we wait to know more from the government in Victoria, here’s my personal wish-list for the Attorney-General to tackle in relation to dispute resolution/ ADR policy reform in Victoria

A public review of the quality and effectiveness of ADR processes in Victoria. ADR is offered in every Victorian court and by many other state providers. But we know little about the quality of services offered (including settlement rates, satisfaction, inter-professional collaboration around the process and the fairness of outcomes). The Productivity Commission recently called for all State and Territory governments to conduct an independent public review of the effectiveness and efficiency of dispute resolution mechanisms within their jurisdiction every 5 years, starting by 30 June 2016 (p.298). Such a review would be a good start for a government intent on making an impact where there is already significant state outlay on ADR services and efficient justice investment is an imperative.
Mandating public reporting on standard ADR data by all Victorian ADR service providers (including courts and tribunals, Community Legal Centres, Victoria Legal Aid and other dispute resolution services such as the Dispute Settlement Centre of Victoria, or DSCV). Higher quality and consistent data collection would enable us to understand whether existing ADR services meet their aims and whether gaps in service provision exist. Higher quality data means that money can be efficiently allocated where there is highest need. The public availability of such data is crucial to ensure transparency in provision of dispute resolution services when ADR lacks the many of the fairness protections available in the public court system. The absence of adequate dispute resolution data was noted by the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) in its 2008 report on Victoria’s civil justice system in relation to the effectiveness of court-ordered mediation in Victoria (at pp 278-83). In 2009, when the Victorian Parliament’s Law Reform Committee recommended that

At a minimum, the Committee believes that there is a need for consistent data collection across ADR service providers about:

-settlement rates

-factors that may influence settlement rates, such as referral stage

-what happens when disputes are not settled at ADR

-participant satisfaction with ADR and perceptions of fairness the time and costs expended by participants and service providers. (pp. 58–59)
Widespread use of family group conferences for child protection matters usually commenced in the Children’s Court of Victoria. In 2010, just prior to the State election in that year, the Victorian Law Reform Commission set out a range of options for reform of the processes followed in child protection cases in the Children’s Court of Victoria. One of the options canvassed involved a graduated range of supported, structured
and child-centred agreement-making processes as the principal means of determining child protection application outcomes instead of existing court processes. The Commission noted that most agreements in child protection matters are already the result of informal bargaining between the parties’ lawyers (at para 7.4) and that supported and child-centered processes such as family group conferences would better enable agreements that are in the best interests of the children involved and which stick in the longer term. These options for reform were never implemented following the 2010 election and may yet help to ensure that scarce resources already invested in Victoria’s child protection system are directed towards assisting vulnerable children have care arrangements that meet their best interests.
Better connecting and integrating state-funded family violence and police services with federally-funded Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) services so as to better protect those experiencing family violence. In 2010 the Australian and NSW Law Reform Commissions’ joint inquiry into family violence concluded that there was potential for FDR to expeditiously and effectively resolve parenting disputes in cases involving family violence but that there had to be better coordination with State and Territory child protection and family violence systems (at paras 21.12-21.13 and 21.50). The Luke Batty case has clearly demonstrated the need for more effective coordination of state-based family violence and police services and services within the federal family law system. The Victorian government has committed to holding a royal commission into family violence. By committing to work specifically with FDR providers including Family Relationship Centres and Victoria Legal Aid’s Roundtable Dispute Resolution, the Victorian government can help to provide avenues for seamless, safe and supported decision-making following family breakdown for women and children experiencing family violence.

So, that’s my list. What is on your personal wish-list for ADR policy reform in your State or locality?

Becky Batagol would like to disclose that she worked for the Victorian Law Reform Commission on its inquiry into Protection Applications in the Children’s Court of Victoria in 2010.

Professional Identity Development as a Mediator

Posted on 01/04/2014 by anneconway

Kathy Douglas and others refer to the benefits of a “community of practice” for the reflective teaching and development of alternative dispute resolution. My own work is focussed on how mediators develop their professional identity. In the course of this research, I came across the book Intercultural Communication: a Discourse Approach (Ron Scollon, Suzanne Wong Scollon and Rodney H Jones, Wiley-Blackwell, 2012). These authors provide an explanation of the concepts of community (Gemeinschaft) – a group to which one belongs from birth versus society (Gesellschaft) where one’s membership is voluntary, goal directed and based on shared mutual interests (see pages 65-66).

This provides an interesting contrast with the early mediation and dispute resolution literature. That literature reveals some academics consider mediators share a ‘community of practice’ rather than membership in a profession. I found this book useful as I have been working on developing the design of my interview process. Part of that process has been to reflect on ways to enhance through the interview, the connection between data collection in interview and the analysis of that data. This reflection led me to consider whether I should adopt a professional intercultural communication perspective/approach for my interview design.

My research participants are Solicitors who have become Mediators. I am a Solicitor, which in research terms means I am considered a researcher who shares that world with my participants, i.e., the profession (professional culture) of Solicitors. However, I am not a Mediator. Therefore I do not in research terms, share my participants’ other and new world, i.e., their new professional culture of ‘Mediators who are also Solicitors’. Ensuring appropriate data collection for data analysis I feel includes ensuring I move forward with a perspective that will assist in gaining a deeper understanding of how my participants view and feel about each world/professional culture they now occupy.

If you are interested in sharing your views, my contact email is: aconway57@gmail.com.