Here’s a summary of the comments which have come in on email:
Susan: Select words that have meaning to the participants, not just to the mediators
Listening without Interruption
Exchange of Views
Identifying Issues and Topics
Developing Options
Reaching Decisions
Joan: I am a bit concerned about the name of ‘Talking it out’ when at least half of the time should be / is about listening. I think it goes too comfortably into norms of society, and falls into a trap that has been identified by George Lakoff : using language that people relate to but not paying attention to the mental models that come with it.
I also wonder about the word ‘perspective’ and if that may not become the ‘new’ UNINTERRUPTED TIME in terms of rocky lingo.
The other blocks are RIGHT ON. Because this early block is soooo key to beginning the process and buy-in that it’s worth some more thought.
Brenda: Good thoughts, Joan. It seems as if the identifiers we use to delineate the steps in the process are more for the mediators than the parties. They name the task to be done during that part of the process. We caution trainees to eliminate those identifiers because they are mediator jargon. What Joan is proposing might reorient the mediators into looking at their tasks in a different way. If I’m focusing on “perspectives”, might that make me a more focused listener giving less attention to protecting the parties UT?
Caroline: Change “Setting the Agenda” to something like “Listing the Topics”
Differentiate Building the Agreement into 3 stages (however you want to label them) comprising
- generating options
- testing options for fit with interests
- testing options for workability
Use “Exploring the Situation” instead of “Understanding the Situation”?
My problem with “Understanding” is it seems to me to be ambiguous in ways that might unconsciously reinforce some new mediators’ misconceptions about the mediator’s role in this stage. For one thing, “understanding” something can mean realizing what the facts are or what the truth is about something. The label “Understanding the Situation” might reinforce the common misconception among new mediators that they have to “understand what really happened.”
For another thing, “understanding” can mean “agreeing” (as in “we’ve reached an understanding,” or “harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding”). So the label could reinforce another common new-mediator misconception: that they are supposed to try to get the disputants to see things from each other’s perspectives (nice work if you can get it, but not necessary for resolution). It might potentially lead more new mediators to make more of those risky interventions we sometimes hear along the lines of, “But can you understand Bartholomew’s concern here, Georgette?”
Also, since “Understanding the Situation” may sound more like a goal than an activity, it might not do the best possible job of orienting new mediators to the tasks they should be doing during this stage. The proposed labels for the other stages describe activities more than goals. What’s more, the goal of this stage seems to me not so much a generalized understanding as a teasing out from the tangle certain specific kinds of information — the necessary topics and interests — and focuing the disputants on the future.
I like “Exploring the Situation” because it unambiguously describes the activity of the stage, and emphasizes the possibility of surprises and discoveries, which seem crucial to the translation process at the heart of this stage. And it even addresses Susan’s question whether we can provide mnemonic continuity for people long familiar with the old labels: since it starts with “Ex,” “Exploring” might remind people more easily that it’s the old “Exchange.”
Brenda: I agree that “understanding” is ambiguous and rather broad. Are we trying to back our way around the conflict spiral to get at the core issues? Are we helping the parties to “unravel”, gain “clarity”, see the Light? With over 180,000 words in the English language, surely we can find the most effective word. I like the idea of breaking down Building the Agreement into three sections.
I also am glad to hear that Setting the Agenda is being revised. I have tried many ways to teach that and am never successful. It seems as if the parties reach a point where at least one person has lifted one leg out of the past and throws out or offers a resolution. I want to hear the response rather than jump in and see if they are ready to set an agenda. Typically, the offer will foster more dialogue and often more offers or counter offers. Why interrupt the flow? I use the checklist to make sure that all issues are covered. etc.
