Previous research on negotiation and bargaining suggests that problem-solving strategies lead to more beneficial outcomes than contentious strategies. This paper asks whether participants in mediation hearings use problem-solving or contentious strategies to generate ideas for solutions to issues under dispute. Nine videotaped and transcribed mediation hearings are analyzed using an ethnomethodological conversation analytic approach. I found that mediators and disputants play different roles with regard to the generation of ideas for solutions to the conflict. Mediators are free to suggest solutions without committing themselves or others to that solution (a problem-solving strategy). Disputants, on the other hand, are seen to be committed to the suggestions they make (a contentious strategy). However, disputants could mitigate the potential contentiousness of their positions with various techniques. I explore the implications of these findings for the ability of disputants to creatively contribute to solution-generation in the context of mediation.
Atkinson, J.M. (1992) `Displaying Neutrality: Formal Aspects of Informal Court Proceedings', in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 199-211. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Atkinson, J.M. and Heritage, J., eds (1984) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Bahr, S.J. (1981) `An Evaluation of Court Mediation', Journal of Family Issues2(1): 39-60.
4.
Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D.H., eds (1991) Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
5.
Bottomley, A. (1985) `What is Happening to Family Law? A Feminist Critique of Conciliation', in J. Brophy and C. Smart (eds) Women in Law, pp. 162-187. London: Routledge.
6.
Button, G. (1992) `Answers as Interactional Products: Two Sequential Practices Used in Job Interviews', in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 212-234. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Cahn, Dudley D. (1992) Conflict in Intimate Relationships. New York: Guilford.
8.
Carnevale, P.J. and Pruitt, D.G. (1992) `Negotiation and Mediation', Annual Review of Psychology43: 531-582.
9.
Carrol, J.S. and Payne, J. (1991) `An Information Processing Approach to Two-Party Negotiations', in M.H. Bazerman, R.J. Lewicki and B.H. Sheppard (eds) Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
10.
Cerino, A.M. and Rainone, S.M. (1983) `The New Wave: Speedy Arbitration Hearings—But are They Fair?', Villanova Law Review29(6): 1495-1503.
11.
Clayman, S. (1988) `Displaying Neutrality in Television News Interviews', Social Problems35(4): 474-492.
12.
Clayman, S. (1992) `Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: The Case of News-Interview Discourse', in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 163-198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Cobb, S. and Rifkin, J. (1991) `Neutrality as a Discursive Practice: The Construction and Transformation of Narratives in Community Mediation', Law, Politics, and Society11: 69-91.
14.
Cook, J.S. and Emerson, R.M. (1978) `Power, Equity, Commitment in Exchange Networks', American Sociological Review43: 721-739.
15.
Cook, K.S. , Emerson, R.M., Gillmore, M.R. and Yamagishi, T. (1983) `The Distribution of Power in Exchange Networks: Theory and Experimental Results', American Journal of Sociology89(2): 275-305.
16.
Davidson, J. (1984) `Subsequent Versions of Invitations, Offers, Requests, and Proposals Dealing with Potential or Actual Rejection', in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 102-128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Dingwall, R. (1986) `Some Observations on Divorce Mediation in Britain and the United States', Mediation Quarterly5: 5-23.
18.
Drew, P. (1984) `Speakers' Reportings in Invitation Sequences', in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 129-151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Felstiner, W.L.F. and Williams, L.A. (1978) `Mediation as an Alternative to Criminal Prosecution', Law and Human Behavior2(3): 223-244.
20.
Filley, A.C. (1975) Interpersonal Conflict Resolution. Glenville, IL: Scott, Foresman.
21.
Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (1991) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New York: Penguin.
22.
Folberg, J. (1983) `A Mediation Overview: History and Dimensions of Practice', Mediation Quarterly1: 3-13.
23.
Garcia, A. (1989) `Mediation Talk: The Interactional Organization of Mediation Hearings', Unpublished PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.
24.
Garcia, A. (1991) `Dispute Resolution Without Disputing: How the Interactional Organization of Mediation Hearings Minimizes Argument', American Sociological Review56: 818-835.
25.
Garcia, A. (1994) `Presenting a United Front: Team Work, Alignment, and Collaboration in Community Mediation Hearings', paper presented at the International Sociological Association's XIII World Congress of Sociology in Bielefeld, Germany.
26.
Garcia, A. (1995) `The Problematics of Representation in Community Mediation Hearings: Implications for Mediation Practice', Journal of Sociology and Social WelfareXXII (4): 23-46.
27.
Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Prentice-Hall.
28.
Girdner, L.K. (1985) `Adjudication and Mediation: A Comparison of Custody Decision-Making Processes involving Third Parties', Journal of Divorce8: 33-47.
29.
Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
30.
Goodwin, M. (1988) `Cooperation and Competition Across Girls' Play Activities', in A. Todd and S. Fisher (eds) Gender and Discourse: The Power of Talk, pp. 55-94. (Advances in Discourse Processes, Vol. 30) Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
31.
Greatbatch, D. and Dingwall, R. (1989) `Selective Facilitation: Some Preliminary Observations on a Strategy Used by Divorce Mediators', Law & Society Review23(4): 613-641.
32.
Greatbatch, D. and Dingwall, R. (1997) `Argumentative Talk in Divorce Mediation Sessions', American Sociological Review62: 151-170.
33.
Halkowski, T. (1990) ` “Role” as an Interactional Device', Social Problems37(4): 564-577.
34.
Heritage, J. (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
35.
Heritage, J. and Greatbatch, D. (1991) `On the Institutional Character of Institutional Talk: The Case of News Interviews', in D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman (eds) Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
36.
Jefferson, G. (1972) `Side Sequences', in D. Sudnow (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction, pp. 294-338. New York: Free Press.
37.
Kelly, J.B. and Gigy, L. (1989) `Divorce Mediation: Characteristics of Clients and Outcomes', in K. Kressell and D.G. Pruitt (eds) Mediation Research, pp. 263-283. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38.
Kolb, D. (1981) `Roles Mediators Play: State and Federal Practice', Industrial Relations20(1): 1-17.
39.
Kolb, D. (1983) The Mediators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
Lakoff, R. (1975) Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper & Row.
41.
Maynard, D. (1984) Inside Plea Bargaining: The Language of Negotiation. New York: Plenum.
42.
Merry, S. and Silbey, S. (1986) `Mediator Settlement Strategies', Law and Policy8: 7-32.
43.
Merry, S. (1989) `Myth and Practice in the Mediation Process', in M. Wright and B. Galaway (eds) Mediation and Criminal Justice: Victims, Offenders, and Community. London: Sage.
44.
Molm, L. (1987) `Linking Power Structure and Power Use', in Karen Cook (ed.) Social Exchange Theory, pp. 101-129. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
45.
Moore, C.W. (1986) The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
46.
Pinkley, R. (1990) `Dimensions of Conflict Frame', Journal of Applied Psychology75: 117-126.
47.
Pomerantz, A. (1984) `Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes', in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 57-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
Pruitt, D.G. (1991) `Strategy in Negotiation', in V. Kremenyuk (ed.) International Negotiation: Analysis, Approaches, Issues. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
49.
Pruitt, D.G. , Carnevale, P.J., Ben-Yoav, O., Nochajski, T.H. and Van Slyck, M. (1983) `Incentives for Cooperation in Integrative Bargaining', in R. Tietz (ed.) Aspiration Levels in Bargaining and Economic Decision Making, pp. 22-34. Berlin: Springer.
50.
Roberts, M. (1988) Mediation in Family Disputes. Aldershot, Hants: Wildwood House.
51.
Rubin, J.Z. , Kim, S.H., and Peretz, N.M. (1990) `Expectancy Effects and Negotiation', Journal of Social Issues46: 125-139.
52.
Sacks, H. (1984) `Notes on Methodology', in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 21-27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
Sacks, H. (1987) `On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation', in G. Button and J. Lee (eds) Talk and Social Organization, pp. 54-69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
54.
Sacks, H. , Schegloff, E.A. and Jefferson, G. (1974) `A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation', Language50: 696-735.
55.
Saposnek, D.T. (1983) Mediating Child Custody Disputes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
56.
Schegloff, E.A. (1968) `Sequencing in Conversational Openings', American Anthropologist70: 346-380.
57.
Schegloff, E.A. (1982) `Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of “Uh huh” and Other Things that Come between Sentences', in D. Tannen (ed.) Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, pp. 71-93. (Georgetown Univesity Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics.) Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
58.
Schegloff, E.A. (1988) `On an Actual Virtual Servo-Mechanism for Guessing Bad News: A Single-Case Conjecture', Social Problems35: 442-457.
59.
Schegloff, E.A. (1992) `On Talk and its Institutional Occasions', in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 101-136. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60.
Schegloff, E.A. and Sacks, H. (1974) `Opening up Closings', in R. Turner (ed.) Ethnomethodology, pp. 233-264. London: Penguin.
61.
Schegloff, E.A. , Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977) `The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair for Conversation', Language53: 361-382.
62.
Silverman, D. (1993) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage.
63.
Skvoretz, J. and Willer, D. (1991) `Power in Exchange Networks: Setting and Structural Variations', Social Psychology Quarterly54(3): 224-238.
64.
Thoennes, N.A. and Pearson, J. (1985) `Predicting Outcomes in Divorce Mediation: The Influence of People and Process', Journal of Social Issues41(2): 115-126.
65.
Tyler, T.R. (1987) `The Psychology of Disputant Concerns in Mediation', Negotiation Journal3: 367-374.
66.
Warhaftig, P. (1983) `Nonprofessional Conflict Resolution', Villanova Law Review29: 1463-1476.
67.
Wieder, L. (1974) Language and Social Reality. The Hague: Mouton.
68.
Worley, S.M. and Schwebel, A.L. (1985) `The Effect of Cooperation on Egocentrism in Divorce Mediation: A Simulation Study', in Craig A. Everett (ed.) Divorce Mediation: Perspectives on the Field, pp. 151-165. New York: Haworth Press.
69.
Zubek, J.M. , Pruitt, D.G., Pierce, R.S. and Iocolano, A. (1989) `Mediator and Disputant Characteristics and Behavior as they Affect the Outcome of Community Mediation', paper presented at the Second Annual Meeting International Association of Conflict Management, Athens, GA.
