mediation styles: subjective description of mediators

Mediation Styles: SubjectiveDescription of Mediators

JOHN WOOD

Some mediation scholars argue that mediator effectiveness is a directfunction of matching the mediator to a specific mediation case, interms of aligning the neutral’s skill and experience to the dynamics ofthe case in question. This study uses Q methodology and reveals fourstyles of mediators: the counselor, the negotiator, the facilitator, and thedemocrat.

Bercovitch (Bercovitch, Anagnson, and Willie, 1991) argues that theeffectiveness of mediators is a direct function of matching the mediator

to a specific mediation case, in terms of aligning the mediator’s skills andexperience to the dynamics of the case in question. The present study usesan approach in which mediator style is explored through the “eyes of themediator,” qualitatively and quantitatively. This study uniquely exploressubjective description of mediators with the use of Q methodology as amanagement tool (in this case, to describe public-sector agricultural medi-ators) for program management in assigning mediators to cases.

The study of mediation styles has been slow in coming because medi-ation skills were often regarded as too elusive to measure and conceptual-ize. Kressel finds that mediator style “refers to a cohesive set of strategiesthat characterize the conduct of a case” (2000, p. 535). Gulliver (1979)argues that mediator styles can be measured and viewed as a continuumfrom a passive role to that of a leadership role or active problem solver

CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY, vol. 21, no. 4, Summer 2004 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 437and the Association for Conflict Resolution

NOTE: The author would like to thank Weldon Schieffer, Oklahoma Agriculture MediationProgram (OAMP) manager, and the OAMP staff—Terrie, Beth, and James—for all theirsupport, patience, and valuable ideas while undertaking this research. The author would alsolike to thank Diane Montgomery, associate professor of education, Oklahoma State University,for her careful advice.

(see also Merry, 1982; Kolb, 1983). Effectiveness of these two styles wasthe focus of study, finding that the directive or leadership style is moreeffective, specifically in labor disputes (Kochan and Jick, 1978) and intherapy (Bednar and Kaul, 1978; Gurman and Kristkern, 1981). Silbeyand Merry (1986) find, not unlike the aforementioned authors, that bar-gaining (leadership or directive) mediation roles are more effective thantherapeutic (passive) mediation roles, especially in more functional andless intimate relationships. Kolb (1983) argues that there is a slight vari-ant to the traditional style types. She finds two styles or roles: one is the“dealmaker,” who has a directive or active mediator role; and the secondis the “orchestrator,” who has not merely a passive role but manages thepattern of interaction between disputants, yet leaving the conditions andterms of settlement up to the disputants. Some scholars have found othervariant roles. Brett, Drieghe, and Shapiro (1986) describe the deal-makerrole again but also discover the role of “shuttle diplomacy,” in which themediator separates the disputants and develops a settlement in the processof moving back and forth between the two disputants. A more recentarticle by Honeyman (1990) discovers five mediation styles: the “stoic,”the “family doctor,” the “strategist,” the “bulldozer,” and the “medicineshow.”

Kressel and others (1994) note that a mediator’s style is something he orshe does “without fully recognizing the underlying coherence of ‘logic’behind their style” (p. 72). However, mediators could articulate why theyadopted such a style when their mediation style was pointed out to them.Kressel (2000) reports that despite a mediator’s unconscious stylistic lean-ings, mediators are more often than not consistent in their style from caseto case, even under diverse case dynamics and issues.

Leonard Riskin (1994) created a mediator assessment tool to classifymediation orientations. Riskin’s four mediator orientations, obtained fromthe mediator styles grid, is a tool in prominent use by mediators. However,his methodology is administered through an attitude scale. How-ever, Brown (1980) notes that “by defining ahead of time what a responseis to mean, the observer is imposing his will on reality, exacting hostages ofinnocent responses scheduled for future occurrence” (p. 3). Q methodol-ogy (discussed in more detail in the methodology section) initially usesopen interviews to inform the Q-sort process, in this way subsequentlyallowing the subject to bring to the table meanings that might be obscuredwith a measurement scale already constructed and meanings alreadyemployed.

438 WOOD

Methodology

William Stephenson (1953, 1977) invented and advanced Q methodologyas orderly examination of human subjectivity. Q methodology is basicallya set of procedures, informed by open interviews and a literature review, inwhich a single person, upon a condition of instruction, places a sample ofobjects in significant rank order.

Q Methodology Q Concourse

On the basis of twenty open-ended interviews and a literature review, morethan two hundred statements relevant to mediation style in both environ-mental and agricultural areas were identified and make up the concourse ofthis study. Forty-seven statements were selected with screening criteria. Tenmediators performed the Q-sort exercise, which informs the quantitativeprocess of factor analysis, from the twenty mediators who were originallyinterviewed. Another eight individuals conducted the Q-sort exercise butwere not involved in the open interviews.

Sample Size

The small sample size is not as important in Q methodology as it is in sur-vey research (Brown, 1980). What is more important is the sample’s dif-fusion from within the concourse, which is the information obtainedfrom the open interviews (Thompson, 1966); as Brown points out(1980), this question is best answered through a thorough set of samplingprocedures or criteria. Brown notes that since the “selection of subjects inQ methodology is not based on sampling theory, but instead on experi-mental principles, factor strength is a statistical artifact of little to nointerest” (p. 43). Furthermore, the unit of analysis is the number of per-spectives, not the number of people in the sample. The perspectivesrevealed in this study are not merely based on quantitative data via factoranalysis to reveal underlying patterns in which factors indicate “clusters ofpersons who have ranked the statements in essentially the same fashion.Explanation of factors is advanced in terms of commonly shared attitudesor perspectives” (p. 6). Therefore the diversity of the sample is not impor-tant statistically; the validity is procured by proper and thorough screen-ing criteria (see the subsection on screening criteria).

In such research as this, in which open interviews are employed, thedata obtained are admittedly not generalizable to a larger population

Mediation Styles 439

because they are not based on a random sample; however, the methodologyis indeed transferable to future studies (see Lincoln and Guba, 1985). It isalso important to note that the open interviews were conductedwith twenty individuals, only ten of whom were also in the p-set or in theQ exercises. This means that the author interviewed twenty-eight indi-viduals once and ten individuals twice. Brown notes that it is best tohave four to five subjects, or individuals, to load significantly on eachfactor. For more on Q methodology’s generalizability, see Brown, 1980.This study found that three of the four perspectives had five subjectsload significantly, save for the counselor perspective, which had only threesignificant loaders.

Sample Generalizability

The sample selected for this study was constrained to only those mediatorslisted as certified under the Oklahoma Agricultural Mediation Program(OAMP) in Stillwater, Oklahoma. This study is not generalizable to alarger population of mediators, nor does it proclaim exploration of allpossible mediation frames, styles, or perspectives possible.

Q-Sort Procedure

The researcher begins the Q-sorting exercise by asking the participant toread each statement and then placing each into one of three piles:(1) those they agree with, feel most positively toward, or believe bestreflects their point of view in the rightmost pile; (2) those they most dis-agree with, feel most negatively toward, or believe least reflects their pointof view in the leftmost pile; and (3) those that they feel neutral about, feelambivalent toward, or do not understand in the middle pile. Theresearcher then encourages the participant to further sort the end pilesinto two additional piles to indicate a finer distinction between agreementand disagreement. This procedure results in placement of statements intofive piles, on a continuum from greatest agreement to greatest disagree-ment, which aids subsequent placement of items on the form board.After the sort is complete, the participant is asked to check the sort onemore time to determine whether he or she wishes to change the horizon-tal location of any of the items. Finally, the participant is asked to explainthe sort by way of narrating his or her overall perspective within the con-dition of instruction. The average Q sort takes between thirty and forty-five minutes.

440 WOOD

Findings

This study identifies four perspectives from the factor analysis of mediation-style Q sorts. Although Golann (1969) notes that mediators can varytheir styles within a single mediation, it seems that this study finds thatsome perspectives acknowledge this tendency with differing degrees of rele-vancy (see Table 1 at the end of the article). All eighteen Q sorts are signifi-cantly loaded on at least one factor at p � 0.001. Of the eighteen Q sorts,eleven loaded on only one factor and seven are confounded (significantlyloaded on more than one factor). Four factors (clusters of persons who haveranked the statements laid before them in a similar fashion), otherwiseknown as perspectives (see Brown, 1980), were found and described. Eachperspective is labeled and fully interpreted and explained here.

Factor A: Negotiator Perspective

Five Q sorts loaded significantly on negotiator perspective; four signifi-cantly loaded on only this factor. One other is confounded on two factors(A and D). Of the five individuals whose Q sorts are in factor A, three areassociated with professional mediation practices outside the OAMP; oneindividual is a lawyer, and one is a psychologist.

The participants sharing this perspective express opinions regardingtheir individual mediation styles involving issues such as fairness, self-determination of parties in dispute, exchanging ideas, exploration of sharedvalues between disputants, and a reaction against preparation prior to medi-ation (see Table 1, factor A). This perspective explores mutual gains (seeFisher, Ury, and Patton, 1991) to pursue settlement and uses different tacti-cal orientations and strategies to move toward settlement (see Bush andFolger, 1994; Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1991) in which the mediator focusesthe parties on creating options. This negotiator perspective uses severaltechniques to resolve conflict. For example, although settlement is themediator’s goal, it is still within the parties’ power to create a resolution.Mediators in this perspective are also aware that prior preparation mightbias them. Furthermore, mediators having this perspective see that inter-ruptions tend to cause flow problems within the process itself. Even thoughthis perspective’s Q sort, which is composed of the most experienced medi-ators in this study, seems to reflect an issue-oriented stance toward media-tion (reflected in the stance of such authors as Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1991;and Fisher and Brown, 1988), the mediators in this perspective did not givemuch credence to the statement that “mediators must always be neutral,” as


do factors B and D.These mediators tend to argue that new mediators placethe concept of neutrality on a pedestal, but experience has led them tobelieve that the process will work and create a neutral atmosphere as long asthe mediator takes on an active role in maintaining the process.

Factor B: The Facilitator Perspective

All five Q sorts on this factor load significantly. The participants shar-ing this perspective are staunch advocates of mediator neutrality, stress thefact that mediators are always neutral, strive for better relationships amongthe disputants, emphasize the communicative powers of mediation, andbelieve that agreement writing should be by the disputants and not themediator. This perspective has two factors that load purely at a 58 percentlevel or higher. One of the individuals who loads on this factor is a media-tor with administrative duties within the OAMP, one works for the depart-ment of defense, one is an attorney, one is a farmer and retired banker, andanother is a counselor.

This perspective, not unlike factor D (democratic perspective), seesneutrality as synonymous with the mediation process itself (see Table 1,factor B). This perspective also uses a tactical orientation to establish whatworks in the given context to get to settlement. The facilitator perspectivealso seems to perceive mediation as a matter of relationships and the abilityto meet human needs. Thus mediators in this perspective use strategies toidentify these needs through focused active communication in orderto understand each other (see Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993; Fisher andBrown, 1988). Also, this perspective reacts strongly toward the mediator’swriting terms, because it is perceived that the mediator’s total control of themediation session undermines neutrality.

Factor C: The Counselor Perspective

Three participants’ Q sorts load significantly on this factor, two of whichare confounded (on factors A and C). One participant is a former profes-sional mediator, another is currently a professional mediator, and the thirdis a practicing attorney. These respondents are concerned with empower-ment and recognition, and exploration of feelings; therefore this perspec-tive finds that it is appropriate to get to know those in dispute, and tospend as much time as needed to deal with issues.

This perspective takes a more therapeutic approach (see Silbey andMerry, 1986), because it sees emotions as the underlying cause of conflict

442 WOOD

and the main barrier to resolution, albeit with a more active mediator role(see Table 1, factor C). To illustrate, the perspective was the strongest inagreement with the statement “I think people should be able to get pasttheir emotions—it is a healing process.” This perspective is also the biggestsupporter of a transformative mediation style (see Bush and Folger, 1994).Not unlike factor A, this perspective actively pursues information for thepurpose of finding creative solutions to solve problems, which is the prem-ise for bringing parties to the table. Uniquely, this perspective uses caucuses,because this tactic can bring the mediator one-on-one with the disputantand privately seek information when it is perceived that feelings may be“getting in the way.” Like factor D, this perspective values neutrality; how-ever, neutrality is not perfect because it can stifle creative solutions, whichtruly reflect a disputant’s underlying feelings. Furthermore, this perspectivereacts to restraints of time, because it often takes participants time to healor get past emotions so they can reach a settlement; however, this does notmean that the mediator should not use mediation techniques to focus theparties and obtain ideas for resolution at some point.

Factor D: The Democratic Perspective

Five participants’ Q sorts load significantly on this factor; three are con-founded. Two confounded factors are located on both factors C and D,while the third is confounded on A and D. One mediator is associated withadministrative duties at the OAMP, one is a professional mediator, one is alawyer, and two are counselors.

These respondents are more passive than factor B respondents but areas passionate about neutrality and the process of mediation, as evidencedby the fact that they overwhelmingly chose the statement “It’s more impor-tant to be neutral than fair because my sense of fairness might be differentthan those in dispute” (seeTable 1, factor D).This factor also stresses that thedisputants in mediation should have all the time they need to discuss issuesand react to their perceptions in reaching a bottom line from the onset. Themediators who hold this perspective argue that if the process is well man-aged, interaction and outcome will take care of themselves. This perspectiveis also apt to promote the process of conflict resolution with a somewhatlaid-back approach. However, this perspective uses techniques to get to a res-olution through talking and promoting an exchange of ideas. Mediators onthis factor also try to conform to the disputants’ style and temperament inorder to gain a clearer understanding of what is going on during the process,but the process should not be rushed just for an outcome. Unlike the


444 WOOD

Table 1. Q-Sort Loadings for Four Factors Emerging from Analysis.

Factor A: Negotiator Perspective A B C D

34 It is important to explore shared values and 1.5 .5 .5 .2experiences to build settlement.

35 My mediation style is not fixed; it sometimes 1.7 1.2 .9 .8fluctuates among various approaches within amediation session.

38 I try to fit my style to that of the disputants. 1.2 .1 .4 1.3

33 I try to ask questions to elicit discussion 1.7 .9 1.4 .3and explanation.

32 I often rephrase to sum up what is said to me. 1.4 1.6 .4 .7

20 I extract issues and needs from their 1.4 .3 1.2 1.0brainstorming of the situation.

27 My goal in settlement is get to transformation 1.1 �.3 0 �.9of the parties concerned.

2 My view is laissez faire, which means I let the 1.3 .3 �.9 .7parties decide why they are here and whatto do about it.

12 I prepare by reading up on other comparable �1.3 .1 �.9 0disputes or other relevant material beforehand.

36 I don’t interrupt a party even if I see a place in �1.5 �.2 �.6 �.7the discussion that needs more exploration.

44 In mediation the outcome is paramount, the �1.8 �1.8 �.5 �1.6process is secondary.

41 Mediators must always be neutral. �.1 2.3 .2 2.3

13 I spend time discussing issues with other �1.4 �1.4 �1.2 �.4mediators before the session.

30 Most of the time, the discussion between �2.0 �1.1 �.7 �1.5disputants should be tightly controlled toget anything done.

21 The mediator must decide what is fair �1.4 �1.8 �1.6 �1.6and equitable.

22 Disputants must decide for themselves what 1.1 1.1 1.5 2.0is fair to them.

19 Feelings don’t matter as much as resolving the �1.1 �1.9 0 �2.0problem at hand.

29 If I notice that there is a power imbalance, �1.0 �.9 �1.5 �1.3I just stop the process.

Factor B: The Facilitator Perspective A B C D


43 Mediators are not ever neutral; they �.4 �1.7 �1.0 �1.8can only be fair.


Table 1. (Continued).

Factor B: The Facilitator Perspective A B C D

44 In mediation the outcome is paramount; �1.8 �1.8 �.5 �1.6the process is secondary.

8 I’m mainly concerned that the parties should .4 1.9 0 .1leave with a better relationship than whenthey came in.

35 My mediation style is not fixed; it sometimes 1.7 1.2 .9 .8fluctuates among various approaches withina mediation session.

42 Mediation is just a matter of communication. �1.1 1.2 �1.4 �.8

32 I often rephrase to sum up what is said to me. 1.4 1.6 .4 .7

33 I try to ask questions to elicit discussion 1.7 .9 1.4 .3and explanation.

47 Agreement writing should be written by �.2 �1.5 �.8 .1the mediator first and then approved by the parties involved.


30 Most of the time, the discussion between �2.0 �1.1 �.7 �1.5disputants should be tightly controlled to get anything done.


22 Disputants must decide for themselves 1.1 1.1 1.5 2.0what is fair to them.

19 Feelings don’t matter as much as resolving �1.1 �1.9 0 �2.0the problem at hand.


Factor C: The Counselor Perspective A B C D

7 I think people should be able to get past .5 �.5 1.6 0their emotions–it is a healing process.

5 I’m primarily looking for empowerment and .2 �.9 1.5 .1recognition, not just settlement.

16 One of the best ways I try to alleviate stress �.9 �1.0 1.1 .4is through humor.

9 It is appropriate to get to know the parties in �1.1 �.9 �1.8 �.7conflict during the mediation process.

6 I’m mainly concerned that the parties are heard. .9 .6 1.2 1.0

33 I try to ask questions to elicit discussion and 1.7 .9 1.4 .3explanation.

(Continued)

446 WOOD

Table 1. Q-Sort Loadings for Four Factors Emerging from Analysis. (Continued)

Factor C: The Counselor Perspective A B C D

37 I get people talking and then focus the parties .1 .5 1.3 1.4on some issues to get to points of agreement.

20 I extract issues and needs from their 1.4 .3 1.2 1.0brainstorming of the situation.

15 I use caucuses regularly. �.9 �1.0 1.1 �.2

11 It’s more important to be neutral than fair .4 .4 1.0 1.7because my sense of fairness might bedifferent from those in dispute.


25 Disputes should be dealt with as fast and as �.3 .2 �1.3 �.2efficiently as possible.

23 I think it’s best for both parties to get a dispute �.4 �.1 �1.6 �.5over with as soon as possible.

4 Settlement should be obtained as soon as �.9 �1.3 �1.6 �.7possible for the good of the parties concerned.

24 Parties should have all the time they need .5 .4 �.2 1.1to settle a dispute.


21 The mediator must decide what is fair and �1.4 �1.8 �1.6 �1.6equitable.

22 Disputants must decide for themselves what 1.1 1.1 1.5 2.0is fair to them.

Factor D: The Democratic Perspective A B C D


11 It’s more important to be neutral than fairbecause my sense of fairness might be .4 .4 1.0 1.7different from those in dispute.

43 Mediators are not ever neutral; they can �.4 �1.7 �1.0 �1.8only be fair.

44 In mediation the outcome is paramount; the �1.8 �1.8 �.5 �1.6process is secondary.

2 My view is laissez faire, which means I let the 1.3 .3 �.9 .7parties decide why they are here and whatto do about it.

37 I get people talking and then focus the parties .1 .5 1.3 1.4on some issues to get to points of agreement.

39 Conflict is usually caused by differences of interest .9 .2 �.1 .8and settlement is obtained through exchange.


Table 1. (Continued).

Factor D: The Democratic Perspective A B C D

38 I try to fit my style to that of the disputants. 1.2 .1 .4 1.3

24 Parties should have all the time they need .5 .4 �.2 1.1to settle a dispute.

3 I look for the bottom line, or solutions �1.0 .2 �.9 �1.3from the onset.

7 I think people should be able to get past their .5 �.5 1.6 0emotions—it is a healing process.

30 Most of the time, the discussion between �2.0 �1.1 �.7 �1.5disputants should be tightly controlled to getanything done.


22 Disputants must decide for themselves 1.1 1.1 1.5 2.0what is fair to them.

19 Feelings don’t matter as much as resolving �1.1 �1.9 0 �2.0the problem at hand.


Note: Each factor perspective’s loading is presented across each statement for comparisonpurposes. Positive numbers above 1 are significant factor loadings in which the respondenthad an affirmative response (or “like me”) to the statement and placed the statement on theright portion of the matrix (see mention of structured sort form boards in the methodologysection of the article). Negative numbers less than �1 are significant factor loadings inwhich the respondent had a negative response (or “unlike me”) to the statement and placedthe statement on the left of the matrix. Some statements are also placed under each factorthat have scores below .6, to reveal statements that rate as neutral and had little to no rele-vance to them. Nearly half the statements were placed in the middle of the matrix by eachof the four perspectives, which means that these statements had little relevance to them.

counselor perspective, mediators with this perspective style see that emo-tions hardly seem to play into the process of conflict resolution, if at all.

Discussion

This study suggests that within the population of mediators studied, thereare four basic mediator styles, or frames: negotiator, facilitator, counselor,and democrat. Each mediator frame differs in its perspective on the media-tor role, view on neutrality, mediation goals, and the respective strategies toobtain specific outcomes.

The negotiator perspective comprises the most experienced practition-ers, with the perspective that the primary goals of mediation are achievedthrough mutual gains. A different perspective is the facilitator; the individ-uals in this perspective assume an active mediator role with an emphasis onneutrality. Although the democratic perspective emphasizes a more passivemediator role, the mediators associated with this perspective have a similaremphasis on neutrality, as do the negotiators. Furthermore, the counselortakes a more therapeutic approach, also with an active mediator role. Thenegotiator perspective is the one most apt to agree that its mediation styleis not fixed, as it tends to fluctuate among various approaches within amediation session. Mediators associated with the facilitator perspectivewould to a lesser degree resemble those holding this study’s negotiator per-spective in its fluctuation among mediation approaches. These findings,in part, support Gulliver’s assumption (1979) that mediator styles range ona continuum from a passive role to an active problem-solver role. Theseresults also support Silbey and Merry’s description (1986) of two mediatorstyles: first, “bargaining,” much like this study’s facilitator perspective;and second, their study’s “therapeutic” role, which is similar to this study’scounselor perspective. Similarly, Kolb (1983) also finds two mediatorstyles. This study’s facilitator perspective is much like Kolb’s “dealmaker,”and the democratic perspective is much like his mediator style of the“orchestrator.” Furthermore, these findings seem to be similar to Riskin’sfour basic mediator orientations (1994), based not on generalizable studiesbut rather a new methodological addition to the description of mediationstyles. It seems that Riskin’s evaluative broad and facilitative broad orienta-tions are much like this study’s negotiator and counselor orientations,respectively, in that these sets seem to be more open to broad issues thanother orientations. In both research cases, mediators move beyond narrowlegal disputes as they probe for areas that concern the individual, througheither brainstorming or questioning for underlying interests. As one re-spondent on the negotiator perspective suggests, “I try to find out whythey are there; it’s not always obvious until you probe a little.” Anothersimilarity is that Riskin’s and this study’s mediation perspectives also differin their notions of neutrality. Riskin’s facilitative orientations leave thedecision making solely to the parties to work through. This study’s facilita-tor and democratic approaches have a similar philosophy in that they findneutrality to be paramount. Riskin’s evaluative orientations “provide moredirection as to the appropriate grounds for settlement” (1994, p. 111), notunlike this study’s negotiator and counselor perspectives in which the

448 WOOD

notion of neutrality is not placed on a pedestal. Although both studies havesimilar outcomes, there are differences between this study’s findings andRiskin’s. One is this study’s counselor perspective, in which those media-tors associated with this perspective see neutrality as less important thanthe possibility of empowerment and recognition, as well as stressing medi-ation’s power as a healing process. The counselor perspective, then, is likeRiskin’s broad orientations in that mediators on this perspective are opento discussing underlying interests; however, Riskin’s orientations neglectthe specific possibility of empowerment and recognition characteristicsof mediation, which go beyond merely opening up discussion to a broadassortment of issues to either solve problems or satisfy needs. This is anexample of how a methodology using scales that assumes the researcher’sprior assumptions can miss meaning and not capture a perspective, as is thecase with this study’s counselor perspective, which would have been missedwith Riskin’s scales.

References

Bednar, R., and Kaul, T. “Experiential Group Research: Current Perspectives.”In S. Garfield and A. Bergin (eds.), Handbook of Psychotherapy and BehaviorChange: An Empirical Analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley, 1978.

Bercovitch, J., Anagnson, J. T., and Willie, D. L. “Some Conceptual Issues andEmpirical Trends in the Study of Successful Mediation in InternationalRelations.” Journal of Peace Research, 1991, 28 (1), 7–17.

Brett, J. M., Drieghe, R., and Shapiro, D. L. “Mediator Style and MediationEffectiveness.” Negotiation Journal, 1986, 2, 277–285.

Brown, S. R. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in PoliticalScience. Westford, Mass.: Murray, 1980.

Bush, B., and Folger, J. The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict ThroughEmpowerment and Recognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

Fisher, R., and Brown, S. Getting Together: Building a Relationship That Gets to Yes.Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1988.

Fisher, R., Ury, W., and Patton, B. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement WithoutGiving In (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin Books, 1991.

Golann, S. E. “Emerging Areas of Ethical Concern.” American Psychologist, 1969,24, 454–459.

Gulliver, P. H. Disputes and Negotiation: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York:Academic Press, 1979.

Gurman, A., and Kristkern, D. Handbook of Family Therapy. New York:Brunner/Mazel, 1981.

Honeyman, C. “On Evaluating Mediators.” Negotiation Journal, 1990, 6,23–36.


Kochan, T. A., and Jick, T. A. “The Public Sector Mediation Process: A Theoryand Empirical Examination.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1978, 22,209–240.

Kolb, D. M. The Mediators. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1983.Kressel, K. “Mediation.” In M. Deutsch and P. T. Coleman (eds.), The Handbook

of Conflict Resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.Kressel, K., Frontera, E. A., Forlenza, S., Butler, F., and Fish, L. “The Settlement-

Orientation Vs. the Problem-Solving Style in Custody Mediation.” Journal ofSocial Issues, 1994, 50 (1), 67–84.

Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage,1985.

Merry, S. E. “The Social Organizations of Mediation in Nonindustrial Societies.”In R. Abel (ed.), The Politics of Informal Justice. New York: Academic Press,1982.

Pruitt, D. G., and Carnevale, P. J. Negotiation in Social Conflict. Pacific Grove,Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1993.

Riskin, L. L. “Mediator Orientations, Strategies, and Techniques.” Alternatives tothe High Cost of Litigation, 1994, 12 (9), 111–114.

Schieffer, W. Assessing Public-Sector Mediators. Unpublished paper, 1995.Silbey, S. S., and Merry, S. E. “Mediation Settlement Strategies.” Law and Policy,

1986, 8 (1), 7–31.Stephenson, W. “The Study of Behavior: Q Technique.” Psychological Bulletin,

1953, 49, 483–498.Stephenson, W. “Factors as Operant Subjectivity.” Operant Subjectivity, 1977, 1,

3–16.Thompson, G. “The Evaluation of Public Opinion.” In B. Berelson and

M. Janowitz (eds.), Reader in Public Opinion and Communication (2nd ed.).New York: Frees Press, 1966.

John Wood is a doctoral candidate in environmental studies at OklahomaState University.

450 WOOD

mediation styles: subjective description of mediators

Documents