早期党团会议能否改善社区调解模式?在联席会议之前消除压力

IF 1 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Jill S. Tanz, Martha K. McClintock, Rae Kyritsi
{"title":"早期党团会议能否改善社区调解模式?在联席会议之前消除压力","authors":"Jill S. Tanz,&nbsp;Martha K. McClintock,&nbsp;Rae Kyritsi","doi":"10.1002/crq.21373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This investigation tests whether adding an early caucus (EC) before joint session is beneficial or detrimental to the mediation process. Parties and mediators were asked open-ended questions about the use of EC to evaluate its benefits and costs. Party and mediator responses were overwhelmingly positive. In addition, there was no evidence of potential costs of EC, increasing mediator bias or impinging on time for joint session. Most responses showed that EC helped foster a sense of control, set a calm tone, and build rapport, counteracting the typical stressors in a joint session that can hamper settlement. EC also improved the process for the mediator, providing crucial information on what to expect in joint session, time to plan for emotional joint sessions, and an early opportunity to build rapport prior to the joint session. When surveyed 5 years later, mediators had sustained their positive views about EC. To supplement these findings in a wider range of cases, the parties' evaluations of the entire mediation session were also studied, comparing previous cases without an EC, to cases with EC and other types of Prior Meetings (IPVA Screens and both EC and IPVA Screens). Prior Meetings did not degrade perception of the mediation. In fact, Prior Meetings increased parties' perceptions that mediators understood and respected them and tended to increase perceptions that the mediator clearly explained what would happen and gave everyone a chance to talk about what was important. The EC experience can be generalized to other types of meetings with the mediator prior to joint session. This empirical study has implications for the current discussions about use of pre-mediation sessions and concerns about declining use of joint session.</p>","PeriodicalId":39736,"journal":{"name":"Conflict Resolution Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can early caucus improve a community mediation model? Counteracting stressors prior to joint session\",\"authors\":\"Jill S. Tanz,&nbsp;Martha K. McClintock,&nbsp;Rae Kyritsi\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/crq.21373\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This investigation tests whether adding an early caucus (EC) before joint session is beneficial or detrimental to the mediation process. Parties and mediators were asked open-ended questions about the use of EC to evaluate its benefits and costs. Party and mediator responses were overwhelmingly positive. In addition, there was no evidence of potential costs of EC, increasing mediator bias or impinging on time for joint session. Most responses showed that EC helped foster a sense of control, set a calm tone, and build rapport, counteracting the typical stressors in a joint session that can hamper settlement. EC also improved the process for the mediator, providing crucial information on what to expect in joint session, time to plan for emotional joint sessions, and an early opportunity to build rapport prior to the joint session. When surveyed 5 years later, mediators had sustained their positive views about EC. To supplement these findings in a wider range of cases, the parties' evaluations of the entire mediation session were also studied, comparing previous cases without an EC, to cases with EC and other types of Prior Meetings (IPVA Screens and both EC and IPVA Screens). Prior Meetings did not degrade perception of the mediation. In fact, Prior Meetings increased parties' perceptions that mediators understood and respected them and tended to increase perceptions that the mediator clearly explained what would happen and gave everyone a chance to talk about what was important. The EC experience can be generalized to other types of meetings with the mediator prior to joint session. This empirical study has implications for the current discussions about use of pre-mediation sessions and concerns about declining use of joint session.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Conflict Resolution Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Conflict Resolution Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/crq.21373\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conflict Resolution Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/crq.21373","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本调查测试在联席会议之前增加早期核心小组(EC)是否对调解进程有益或有害。向缔约方和调解人提出了关于使用欧共体以评估其收益和成本的开放式问题。当事人和调解人的反应非常积极。此外,没有证据表明EC的潜在成本,增加调解员偏见或影响联合会议的时间。大多数回答表明,EC有助于培养一种控制感,设定平静的基调,建立融洽的关系,抵消了联合会议中可能阻碍解决问题的典型压力因素。欧共体还改进了调解员的流程,提供了关于联席会议预期内容的关键信息,为情绪化的联席会议做计划的时间,以及在联席会议之前尽早建立融洽关系的机会。在5年后的调查中,调解员对电子商务仍持积极态度。为了在更广泛的案件中补充这些发现,还研究了各方对整个调解会议的评价,将以前没有集体调解的案件与有集体调解和其他类型的事前会议(IPVA筛选以及集体调解和IPVA筛选)的案件进行了比较。以前的会议并没有降低对调解的看法。事实上,事先会议增加了当事人对调解员理解和尊重他们的看法,并倾向于增加调解员清楚地解释将会发生什么并给每个人一个谈论重要内容的机会的看法。欧共体的经验可以推广到在联席会议之前与调解员举行的其他类型的会议。本实证研究对当前关于调解前会议使用的讨论和对联合会议使用下降的担忧具有启示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Can early caucus improve a community mediation model? Counteracting stressors prior to joint session

This investigation tests whether adding an early caucus (EC) before joint session is beneficial or detrimental to the mediation process. Parties and mediators were asked open-ended questions about the use of EC to evaluate its benefits and costs. Party and mediator responses were overwhelmingly positive. In addition, there was no evidence of potential costs of EC, increasing mediator bias or impinging on time for joint session. Most responses showed that EC helped foster a sense of control, set a calm tone, and build rapport, counteracting the typical stressors in a joint session that can hamper settlement. EC also improved the process for the mediator, providing crucial information on what to expect in joint session, time to plan for emotional joint sessions, and an early opportunity to build rapport prior to the joint session. When surveyed 5 years later, mediators had sustained their positive views about EC. To supplement these findings in a wider range of cases, the parties' evaluations of the entire mediation session were also studied, comparing previous cases without an EC, to cases with EC and other types of Prior Meetings (IPVA Screens and both EC and IPVA Screens). Prior Meetings did not degrade perception of the mediation. In fact, Prior Meetings increased parties' perceptions that mediators understood and respected them and tended to increase perceptions that the mediator clearly explained what would happen and gave everyone a chance to talk about what was important. The EC experience can be generalized to other types of meetings with the mediator prior to joint session. This empirical study has implications for the current discussions about use of pre-mediation sessions and concerns about declining use of joint session.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Conflict Resolution Quarterly
Conflict Resolution Quarterly Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Conflict Resolution Quarterly publishes quality scholarship on relationships between theory, research, and practice in the conflict management and dispute resolution field to promote more effective professional applications. A defining focus of the journal is the relationships among theory, research, and practice. Articles address the implications of theory for practice and research directions, how research can better inform practice, and how research can contribute to theory development with important implications for practice. Articles also focus on all aspects of the conflict resolution process and context with primary focus on the behavior, role, and impact of third parties in effectively handling conflict.
×
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