Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners’ Subjective Experience and Attitude on Compulsory Family Mediation in Australia

Jurgita Milišauskaitė, J. Sondaitė
{"title":"Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners’ Subjective Experience and Attitude on Compulsory Family Mediation in Australia","authors":"Jurgita Milišauskaitė, J. Sondaitė","doi":"10.37804/1691-6077-2022-13-90-112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The goal of this research is to examine the advantages and limitations of compulsory family mediation (CFM) as well as to understand subjective experience and attitude towards CFM from the perspective of family dispute resolution practitioners in Australia. The qualitative research method was chosen for this research. Information was collected using the semi‐structured interview method. The data analysis method was based on inductive thematic analysis. In completion of the data analysis, 4 main themes were identified: CFM is better option for conflict resolution, limitations caused by factors outside of the process, mediators create safe space to process disputes & emotions, the benefits of CMF on mediators. Findings of this study suggest that the practice of CFM is worth being embraced and that there are benefits to be had from an increased use of compulsory family mediation, both for families and legal system in Australia. The practitioners are optimistic of compulsory family mediation, which they believe will enhance society’s quality of life. CFM also has benefited mediators’ personal lives by strengthening their personal values and beliefs, and how they perform their jobs as family mediators.","PeriodicalId":226699,"journal":{"name":"Acta Prosperitatis","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Prosperitatis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37804/1691-6077-2022-13-90-112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The goal of this research is to examine the advantages and limitations of compulsory family mediation (CFM) as well as to understand subjective experience and attitude towards CFM from the perspective of family dispute resolution practitioners in Australia. The qualitative research method was chosen for this research. Information was collected using the semi‐structured interview method. The data analysis method was based on inductive thematic analysis. In completion of the data analysis, 4 main themes were identified: CFM is better option for conflict resolution, limitations caused by factors outside of the process, mediators create safe space to process disputes & emotions, the benefits of CMF on mediators. Findings of this study suggest that the practice of CFM is worth being embraced and that there are benefits to be had from an increased use of compulsory family mediation, both for families and legal system in Australia. The practitioners are optimistic of compulsory family mediation, which they believe will enhance society’s quality of life. CFM also has benefited mediators’ personal lives by strengthening their personal values and beliefs, and how they perform their jobs as family mediators.
澳大利亚家事纠纷解决从业者对强制性家事调解的主观经验与态度
摘要本研究的目的是考察强制性家事调解的优势和局限性,并从澳大利亚家庭纠纷解决从业者的角度了解强制性家事调解的主观经验和态度。本研究选择定性研究方法。信息收集采用半结构化访谈法。数据分析方法基于归纳主题分析。在完成数据分析后,确定了4个主要主题:CFM是解决冲突的更好选择,过程外因素造成的限制,调解员为处理纠纷和情绪创造安全空间,CMF对调解员的好处。本研究的结果表明,CFM的实践值得接受,并且增加强制性家庭调解的使用对澳大利亚的家庭和法律制度都有好处。修炼者对强制家事调解持乐观态度,他们相信这将提高社会的生活质量。CFM还通过加强调解员的个人价值观和信仰,以及他们如何履行家庭调解员的工作,使调解员的个人生活受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信