This article raises some of the questions necessary to address criticisms about quality and ethics of mediation practices: (Part I) Is there a "mandate" to provide informal justice through mediation? (Part II) Why challenge the generic mediation mythology? (Part III) Does naming differences as 'styles' result in greater clarity? (Part IV) Is mediation fulfilling its "mandate" to serve the court? (Part V) What are the obstacles to changing the dominant discourse on mediation? (Part VI) In answering these questions, an alternative framework is proposed to shift the current discourse about generic mediation based on artistry or style, to a discourse that identifies differences in mediation models based on the norms referenced and the theories of conflict named. (Part VII) In conclusion, mediation professionals are challenged to define models of mediation that accurately differentiate a variety of mediation practices, based on the norms referenced and the theories of conflict named.
Style vs. Model: Why Quibble? ,
9 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/drlj/vol9/iss1/1