Читать книгу Mediating Interpersonal and Small Group Conflict - Cheryl A. Picard - Страница 7

Chapter 1:

Conflict Theory

Conflict is an inevitable, pervasive, and important aspect of social life. It is a relational concept that involves the interaction of people or groups in society. Conflict is generated by differences in ideas, values, and beliefs. Although a familiar part of our existence, conflict has contradictory forms, processes, and outcomes. On the one hand, it can serve to enhance relations, increase productivity, and create new understandings. It helps to clarify and reinforce societal standards and provide an opportunity, for growth and moral development. On the other hand, conflict can create dysfunction and disorder in society, destroy relationships, and cause pain. The central assumption of conflict theory is that it has personal and social value – that it is “functional” for society (Coser, 1956). The study of conflict has been undertaken by a range of disciplines; its resolution has become the fascination of a diverse group of psychologists, sociologists, economists, and game theorists. The result is a field of study and practice that is both rich and stimulating.

The central assumption of conflict theory is that it has personal and social value.

History

Classical thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle viewed conflict as a threat to the success of the state, a view which led to the belief that conflict needed to be kept to a minimum, if not totally eliminated.¹ Seventeenth-century philosophers Hobbes and Locke posited the social contract theory that order was essential for a proper society. In opposition to the belief that conflict was undesirable and harmful, contemporary theorists argue that conflict is as essential to the proper functioning of society as are stability and order. For example, Simmel noted that social phenomena appeared in a new light when seen from an angle that included conflict as a positive element; Coser suggested that conflict within a group could help establish or reestablish cohesion; Dahrendorf stated that “not the presence, but the absence of conflict is surprising and abnormal, and we have good reason to be suspicious if we find a society or social organization that displays no evidence of conflict”; and Marx believed conflict was an important aspect of group formation. Coser’s book, The Functions of Social Conflict, published in 1956, is often cited as the cornerstone of current theories of social conflict. Coser positions conflict as a constructive form of socialization and posits that a certain degree of conflict is an ally in the formation and satisfactory continuation of group life.

Defining Conflict

There is no one definition of conflict. Deutsch defines conflict as “existing whenever incompatible activities occur” (1973:10). Coser gives a fuller explanation; “conflict is a struggle over values or claims to status, power, and scarce resources, in which the aims of the conflicting parties are not only to gain the desired values but also to neutralize, injure or eliminate their rivals” (1968:232). Himes suggests that the way to approach the question of social conflict is to focus on the struggle between the actors. He defines conflict as “the purposeful struggles between collective actors who use social power to defeat or remove opponents and to gain status, power, resources and scarce values” (1980:14). Finally, Hocker and Wilmot define conflict as “an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals” (1995:21).

Individuals and groups engage in conflict for the purpose of gaining something that is perceived to be in short supply, or over needs that appear incompatible. Moore (1986) identifies five causal elements of conflict. These causes are relationship issues, value conflicts, conflicts about interests, discrepancies over factual information, and clashes over structural inequality. Perceived incompatible goals and the perception of scarce resources are central to many conflict struggles. Resources can be physical, economic, or social commodities. Tangible resources, such as money, land, jobs, and position, are easily identified. It is intangible resources – love, esteem, recognition, and respect – that are much harder to identify. Power, status, and resources are the leading causes of conflict.

A central element in interpersonal conflict is communication.

A central element in the resolution of interpersonal conflict, and an underlying principle of this book, involves the role of communication. Communication is the verbal and non-verbal exchange of thoughts and emotions to exchange meaning. How one communicates in a conflict situation has profound implications for the residual impact of the conflict. Communication can exacerbate the situation or lead to productive management. For instance, rigid, insistent communication can defeat the constructive aspects of conflict while open, shared communication can build trust and lead to mutual understanding and productive resolution.

The study of conflict is eclectic and multi-disciplinary and gives the appearance of being fragmented. Deutsch (1994), one of the leading psychologists in the study of conflict, suggests that beneath this appearance there are a number of common themes that cut across disciplines and types of conflict. He summarizes these commonalities in a number propositions. First, most conflicts are mixed-motive conflicts in which the parties involved in the conflict have both cooperative and competitive interests. Second, most conflict can be constructive as well as destructive. Conflict is the root of personal and social change and it is the medium through which problems can be aired and solutions found. The question is not how to eliminate or prevent conflict but rather how to develop the knowledge that will give rise to lively controversy instead of deadly quarrel. Third, within most conflicts, the cooperative and competitive interests of the parties give rise to two distinctive processes of conflict resolution – integrative (cooperative) bargaining and distributive (competitive) bargaining. Associated with the different processes are distinctive strategies and tactics for dealing with conflict, differing communication processes, and different attitudes. And fourth, whether the outcome of a conflict will be constructive or destructive depends on the relative strengths of the conflicting parties’ cooperative and competitive interests.

Conflict occurs within a context of interdependence. For conflict to arise, the actions of one party must affect another; if they do not, differences would exist, but conflict would not (Katz and Lawyer, 1993). Conflict is also a matter of perception. If neither of the parties involved in an interaction perceives the situation to be problematic, then once again there is no conflict. For conflict to surface, one or more of the parties involved must perceive the status quo as problematic and want to change the situation in which they are interdependently involved.

For conflict to surface, one or more of the parties involved must perceive the status quo as problematic and want to change the situation in which they are interdependently involved.

Responding to Conflict

For conflict to be constructive, the parties involved must hold a number of essential beliefs. First, they must believe that people can change. In ongoing relationships, people usually adjust, accommodate, and compromise without losing their sense of self worth or giving up their needs. Inflexibility, however, destroys constructive conflict. Second, the parties must believe that allowing a conflict to go unresolved is not acceptable. Third, the parties involved must believe that their view of the conflict may be distorted or incomplete and that understanding the other party’s view of the situation is important. In this way, conflict becomes a learning experience that involves asking, sharing, moving, and changing. Fourth, those involved must have the will to find a solution that meets the interests of both parties. This requires focusing on the relational aspects of the conflict rather than on self-interest and having empathy for the other party. And finally, constructive conflict management is based on the belief that people will try to improve a negative situation if given a fair chance.

Conflict can be influenced by an array of antecedent conditions (Bunker et al, 1995). One condition is the physical context which includes such things as location, communication opportunities, and time limits. A second condition involves the social context which includes the number of disputants, openness to third-party intervenors or observers, expectations, relationships, and personality considerations. A third condition is the issue context which includes the number of issues in dispute and the sequencing of the issues.

A number of other factors can influence whether the process of conflict resolution will be constructive or destructive. Some of the factors discussed by Boardman and Horowitz (1994) include the nature of the relationship, the history and power differences between the parties, the perceived significance of consequences, how rigidly the issues are presented, the personal traits and characteristics of the parties, their gender and ethnicity, situational constraints, the inherent conflict management skills of the parties, the various conflict management strategies used, and the extent of diversity in values and attitudes between the parties.

Conflict Styles

Conflict styles are patterned responses that people use in conflict. They are similar to a personality style, although they can be changed. Conflict styles can be viewed as having two dimensions – assertiveness and cooperativeness. The assertiveness dimension reflects the extent to which we seek to satisfy our own needs while the cooperativeness dimension reflects the degree to which we attempt to satisfy others’ needs. Using these two dimensions, Thomas and Kilmann (1974) delineated five styles of conflict management, each representing a set of skills which would be useful in certain kinds of situations. Conventional wisdom, for example, recognizes that “two heads are better than one” (collaborate); it also says, “kill your enemies with kindness” (accommodate); “might makes right” (compete); “split the difference” (compromise); and “leave well enough alone” (avoid).

According to Thomas and Kilmann, individuals who compete are high on assertive and low on cooperative dimensions. Competitive individuals are able to stand up for their rights and defend positions they believe in. They often try to “win”. This style is useful when quick and decisive action is vital or when an unpopular course of action needs implementing, for example, in cost cutting or disciplinary situations. Accommodating individuals are usually unassertive and cooperative. People who accommodate often neglect their own needs in favour of others’ and have a tendency to yield their views. Accommodation is a useful style when parties in a conflict realize they are wrong, when the issue is unimportant, or when continued competition would damage either the cause or the relationship. Avoiding individuals are unassertive and uncooperative, and they typically either side step, postpone, or withdraw from conflict. An avoidance style is useful when the potential damage of continuing outweighs the benefits, when more important issues are pressing, or when it is important to reduce tensions in order to move forward. Compromising individuals are intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. Their objective is to find an expedient solution which often involves splitting the difference. Compromising is a useful style when goals are only moderately important, when the expedition of a resolution is important, or when collaboration fails. Individuals who collaborate are both assertive and cooperative and attempt to work with the other person to find solutions that fully satisfy the concerns of all parties. Collaborating requires exploring the issues to find a creative solution. It is useful when merging insights from different perspectives is important, when concerns must not be compromised, or when commitment must be gained by incorporating other people’s views into a consensual decision. Both conflict management and mediation are collaborative processes.

Individuals who collaborate are both assertive and cooperative, and attempt to work with the other person to find solutions that fully satisfy the concerns of all parties.

People’s conflict styles often predict their behaviour and communication orientation when in a conflict situation. Individuals are capable of using all five conflict-handling styles. They tend, however, to rely on some modes more heavily than on others. Choosing a style for resolving a particular conflict depends on attitudes and philosophy about how conflict should be approached, on personal goals and relationships, and on the skills available to the people involved (Hocker and Wilmot, 1995:96).

The Conflict Resolution Continuum

People have various means with which to resolve their conflicts. Some approaches include avoidance, informal discussions, mediation, arbitration, judicial or legislative response, along with non-violent and violent action. Each of these options vary with respect to the formality, privacy, authority, people involved, and the amount of coercion exercised. Goldberg, Green, and Sander (1985) differentiate between primary dispute resolution processes and hybrid processes. Primary processes include adjudication, arbitration, mediation, and negotiation, while hybrid processes involve neutral fact-finding, mini-trial, med-arb, ombuds services, and private judging.

Conflict resolution methods can be placed on a continuum with respect to a number of characteristics which distinguish them from adjudicative processes. In the following diagram, those processes on the left give parties the most control, have the most flexibility and privacy, and are the least expensive. As the dispute resolution processes approach the right end of the continuum, the relevance of legal norms becomes greater while flexibility, privacy, and control become less.

In negotiation, parties seek to resolve a disagreement or plan a transaction through discussion and reasoned argument. The discussions may be conducted between the parties themselves or through representatives. In mediation, a neutral third party helps parties to resolve a dispute but does not have the power to impose a solution. Conciliation is similar to mediation, but the neutral acts as a “go-between” for the parties who never meet. Conciliation can also be defined as the process of bringing parties to a point where they can work out their dispute without the aid of a third party. In arbitration, the parties agree to submit their dispute to a neutral party whom they have selected to make a decision regarding the outcome of the dispute. An arbitrator’s decision can be non-binding or binding. Arbitration is used extensively in labour relations because it is less formal, faster, and less expensive than the judicial process. Adjudication is a formal process conducted by a judge or jury in a court of law. Decisions are reached on points of law, rather than on moral right or wrong.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) represents a move away from adjudicative methods of dispute resolution. Scimecca defines it as “those non-coercive processes which are alternatives to the formal legal or court system” (1993:212). The beginnings of ADR are usually traced back to the 1960’s in the United States and are rooted in a desire for harmony, efficiency, and access to justice. Advocates of ADR believed it would promote compromise over win-lose outcomes, replace confrontation with harmony and consensus, minimize state control, and empower communities to achieve harmonious resolutions to social conflicts. They sought to minimize the use of professionals in favour of substantive and procedural norms that were common-sensical and non-bureaucratic. In contrast to adjudicative processes, informal processes were to be private, voluntary, consensual, and focused on reconciling relationships.

Advocates of ADR believed it would promote compromise over win-lose outcomes, replace confrontation with harmony and consensus, minimize state control, and empower communities to achieve harmonious resolutions to social conflicts.

There are two interpretations regarding the growth of ADR in the United States. Some say it stemmed from “grassroots” initiatives led by church, social service, and citizen advisory groups motivated to respect the needs of all participants in social conflict. To them, crime was not merely a breaking of laws, it also damaged human relationships. Thus it was felt that attention should be given to repairing social relations, dissolving conflicts, and encouraging compliance rather than using coercion. Meaningful change and promotion of new ways to deal with conflict in the community are believed to be some of the motives of early reformers.

The second interpretation of ADR’s development is as a response to an unsatisfactory legal system which had become congested, costly, and serving the interests of the affluent and powerful. Inconsistencies in sentencing, opposition to the conservative view of “just deserts”, efforts to minimize stigmatization, alienation of victims from offenders, overuse of the system – all contributed to a “crisis of legality”. Deprofessionalization, delegalization, and decentralization became the focus of activity of the ADR movement, according to this interpretation of its development.

In Canada, the informal justice movement gained momentum from concerns generated from inconsistencies in sentencing; the alienation of victims from their offenders; and, in the case of young offenders, the influence of labeling theory which sought to minimize stigmatization. The Canadian legal reform agenda of the 1970’s resulted in a number of activities being undertaken, the most notable being the repeal of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, and the work of both the Law Reform and Sentencing Commissions. In the 1975 Law Reform Commission of Canada report, “Studies on Diversion”, the use of ADR was supported based on the conclusion that adjudication was not always appropriate given that the underlying problems of crime were not addressed. The Report went on to say that most of the crimes against persons involved people who knew each other and that the adversarial process contributed to creating a “winner and a loser”, which detracted from ongoing relationships. Supporters of informal justice espoused notions of individual and collective empowerment through community mediation and diversion programs. The need for alternative dispute resolution was also supported by criticisms, such as those cited by the Honourable T.G. Zuber in his 1987 Report on the Inquiry into the Ontario Provincial Court System. Justice Zuber found that minor criminal matters were expensive to defend, leading some accused to plead guilty, which in turn led him to suggest that only the very wealthy or the poor on legal aid could afford to go to court. At the time of the Zuber inquiry, delays in criminal courts in some cities were in excess of a year and civil court cases were taking at least that long to reach the pre-trial stage. Courts were seen to be seriously divisive and unable to resolve the underlying causes of crime.

Early ADR initiatives were also an expansion of a philosophical approach to conflict resolution commonly referred to as “social justice”. The social justice movement sought to reduce conflict in the community, maintain better relationships among its members, and bring problem-solving back to the community. Concepts such as alienation and reparation – rather than retribution – led reformers to consider ways of bringing victims and offenders together as a means of giving justice back to the community through the restoration of the victims’ situation to what it was rather than through punishment of the offender (Wright, 1988). Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programs (VORP) aimed at doing away with court proceedings and eliminating a criminal conviction, while at the same time making things right between the victim and offender. In 1974, the first VORP in Canada was established in Ontario.

While it is true that some of the ADR movement stemmed from “grassroots” initiatives directed at respecting the needs of participants in social conflict, much of it was characterized by a move away from the adversarial model employed by the legal profession. Legal reformers conveyed their language of dissatisfaction with formal structures and criticized the legal process for being fundamentally alienating. In Canada and the United States, crime was seen not merely as a breaking of laws, but also as damaging human relationships. Alternative dispute resolution programs in both countries had many similar features:

emphasis on agreed outcomes rather than on strict normative correctness;

preference for decision through mediation rather than adjudication;

recognition of the competence of the parties to protect their own interests and to conduct their own defense in a deprofessionalized setting and through a process conducted in ordinary language; and

absence of institutionalized coercion.

Two types of actors supported the development of ADR. On the one hand, community activists espoused the potential for individual and collective empowerment. The Central Mennonite Committee, the Quakers, the Jewish Conciliation Board, and the YMCA each played important roles in the establishment of informal justice programs. On the other hand, legal reformers, faced with problems of legitimization and a dysfunctioning system, saw ADR as an answer to some of their administrative problems. Legal reform also suited the decentralization interests of the government. In the United States, the legal sector was very influential in the development of ADR. That influence continues today. For instance, in 1978, the American Bar Association formed the Standing Committee on Dispute Resolution; by 1990 there were at least 157 local or state committees. In 1983, the Harvard Law School established a Program on Negotiation and by 1990, ADR courses were offered in 150 of the 175 accredited American law schools (NIDR, 1992). By 1995, there were more than 5000 dispute resolution practitioners known to exist in Canada (Department of Justice, 1995). No doubt that number is much larger today.

Benefits of ADR

ADR was praised for its administrative efficacy. It could offer equal access, act quickly, and allow all citizens to participate in decision making. It was claimed to be faster, less expensive, more accessible and approachable, less coercive and less oppressive, and better suited to tailoring outcomes to the needs of those involved than traditional justice. Informal justice was directed at maintaining relationships, not determining legal right and wrong. It was thought to result in greater satisfaction with resolutions, higher levels of compliance than with adjudicated decisions, and improved capacity for resolving future disputes without external intervention. By using volunteer lay personnel and low-paid paraprofessionals, less formal practices were seen as a means of alleviating the fiscal crisis of the state and problems of overcrowding in courts and prisons.

Today, ADR is increasingly being sought as an administrative solution for an overworked court system.² This interest is bolstered by the demand for cost reduction by government officials who struggle with declining economies and escalating deficits. In Canada, the Ontario Supreme Court decision in Askov³ put pressure on the province to look for dispute resolution options to reduce court backlogs. In 1994, the Ontario Civil Justice Review was commissioned to develop “an overall strategy for the civil justice system in an effort to provide a more speedier, more streamlined and more efficient structure” (1996:viii). A key component of the 78 recommendations contained in the Commission’s First Report is that courts would adopt the concept of dispute resolution and integrate alternative dispute resolution techniques. After a successful pilot program in Toronto (Mcfarlane, 1995), it was concluded that referral to ADR was cheaper, faster, and more satisfactory. Based on the success of the pilot project, each civil case in Ontario is now mandated to attend mediation before the court will entertain to hear the case.⁴

Criticisms of ADR

Critics of ADR suggest that it expands state control (Abel, 1982), that it is a product of the changing nature of state power and form of law (Spitzer, 1982), and that it re-legitimizes the formal legal system (Harrington and Merry, 1988). ADR is accused of providing “second class justice”, a complaint based on the fact that a disproportionate number of clients referred to ADR programs are from poor, black, and female groups (Jaffe, 1983; Tomasic and Freely, 1982). ADR is also criticized for creating more institutions of political control than empowering alternatives (Hofrichter, 1987). In addition, there are complaints of legal rights violations, exploitation, coercion, and expansion of state control into private lives (Kressel, et al, 1989). Thus, it is said, only formal procedures, based on rules of evidence, can require compliance with decisions, and only legalism can protect the less powerful (Roel and Cook, 1989). Further, informal practices were faulted for not living up to their claims of reducing the burden and size of the legal apparatus and were accused of widening the net of social control. Harrington’s (1985) work, which pointed out that few of those referred to mediation would ever have had a court hearing, supported this conclusion. Although it was agreed that ADR was more humane, responsive, and participatory, opponents argued that it marginalized certain crimes and did not have any long-range impact on the distribution of power or on the high cost of the legal system.

Other lines of attack saw informalism as augmenting oppression by reinforcing patriarchal and middle-class values. Women’s rights activists express concern that through mediation women may lose their leverage in bargaining and receive less in the way of settlement than would be offered through formal court processes (Rachofsky, 1985; Hart, 1990). They also argue that a more sophisticated understanding of power is required for mediation to serve the interests of women (Shaffer, 1988), and that mandatory mediation is especially harmful to women (Grillo, 1991). Informal dispute resolution processes were believed to suppress social conflict through the rhetoric of harmony ideology (Nader, 1991). ADR was accused of being susceptible to domination by stronger parties, and programs were criticized for diverting resources and attention from needed court reforms. ADR was deemed inadequate, and despite its flaws, the court system was said to remain the best provider of justice.

While the ideals of ADR may not have been fully borne out, it is fair to say that in a relatively short period of time, alternatives to the traditional trial have become a significant factor in modern day dispute resolution. As ADR continues to grow in popularity, advocates will no doubt continue to seek to improve its procedures and techniques.

Of all of the ADR processes, mediation has received the most attention and is said to have emerged as the single most powerful tool in the alternative dispute resolution movement (Bush and Folger, 1994).

Restorative Justice

Restorative Justice is the popular name given to recent approaches to justice that aim to involve all those directly affected by a crime in such a way that the outcome seeks healing and reconciliation rather than retribution. Examples of these approaches include community sentencing circles, family group conferencing, and victim-offender mediation programs. Sentencing circles allow court officials, victims, offenders, community elders, and other community members to discuss together the impact of the crime and explore ways of dealing with the aftermath. Restitution and reintegration are high priorities. Family group conferences involve a trained facilitator to help victims and offenders and their families along with professionals, such as social workers and police officers, talk about the crime and appropriate reparation. They often evoke a sense of shame to show disapproval for the act (not the person) and a welcoming of the offender back into the community. Victim-offender programs are perhaps the best known and most widespread restorative justice initiatives. They allow victims to confront their offender about the harm done and offenders to take responsibility and make reparation for their actions in the presence of a skilled mediator. Three principles are said to form the basis of restorative justice: 1) crime is a violation of a relationship among victims, offenders, and the community; 2) restoration involves the victim, the offender, and community members; and 3) a consensus approach to justice.⁵

Conflict and Culture6

Recent research in the field of conflict studies has focused on the links between conflict and culture. Culture, in this instance, refers to race and ethnicity; although when broadly defined, it can include gender, age, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, educational levels, and physical ability. Culture helps to create a system of meaning that must be understood in order to contextualize conflict, identify the parties involved in a conflict, determine how to approach and enter a conflict, and recognize how the conflict is best resolved. While culture alone does not determine individual behaviour in conflict, it does shape the ways in which conflict is viewed, discussed, and resolved (Avruch & Black 1993).

Culture provides a “lens” through which conflicts are perceived and interventions or reactions are developed. Issues that arise when cultural analyses are applied to conflict are varied. What constitutes a conflict is the starting point for a cultural understanding of conflict. While denial or avoidance of conflict seems to be common across all cultures, it is extreme in those cultures that privilege harmonious over conflictual conceptions of the world. Parties to a conflict can include those directly affected by events, as well as those indirectly affected. Cultures where individuals see themselves as members of groups, such as families, clans, or communities, tend to consider all members of their group when they assess the impact of conflict and its favoured outcome. Approaches to conflict and preferred intervention styles also vary depending upon the culture. Some cultures prefer direct and open confrontation, while others rely on third parties to delicately broach the subject of contention, without joint sessions, in order that both parties can save face. If intervention is preferred, who intervenes becomes a question. Should the intervenor be someone close to and knowledgeable about both parties, or a “neutral and impartial” stranger? In some cases, intervention may not be perceived as the best strategy since the conflict may improve over time without any attention. Finally, culture will influence whether a resolution is understood as fair and equitable. In addition, the formality of resolution will be shaped by its cultural context.

G. Hofstede (1980) has identified a spectrum of cultural differences for understanding workplace patterns of behaviour. This spectrum, modified here, is based on dimensions of differences that are specific to cultures, such as whether individualist-collectivist identities are evident; high-low tolerance for ambiguity, whether change is tolerated; high-low power distance, where hierarchies and traditions are either rigid or flexible; and masculine-feminine values, whether nurturing or assertive behaviours are common. These constructs are reflective of patterns for processing information and evaluating events within a cultural context.

When working in intercultural conflict resolution, several challenges face the intervenor. The first is establishing connections with the parties in dispute in order to enter the conflict. An intervenor must establish the trust and confidence of the parties. This can result in lengthy meetings to talk about the situation, where the conflict itself does not come up for discussion until many hours have passed and the party or parties have developed confidence in the intervenor. In the second instance, once trust is established, the intervenor needs to show some authority in her or his intervention. The parties in conflict need to believe that the intervenor can help influence the other party and assist in settlement. Thirdly, the intervenor must recognize the possible involvement of others not directly involved in the dispute and invite or encourage them to participate in its resolution. The fourth consideration for the intervenor might be the parties’ disinterest in face-to-face confrontation. The intervenor may be required to assist through a conciliation model, as opposed to a joint session of mediation. John Paul Lederach (1982) proposes that a more elicitive model of conflict intervention be developed in conjunction with the disputing parties. Instead of prescribing a particular model of conflict resolution for the parties, the intervenor might need to construct a new model, with the parties’ input, in order to assist in resolution. Finally, the intervenor should expect flexibility with respect to the formality of the agreement. Under no circumstances should a conflict intervenor expect a formal, written agreement. This may not be desired by the parties.

While intervening in conflict where cultural differences are evident, an interactive analysis of the conflict and an exploration of resolution methods must be undertaken with the parties to the conflict. Intervenors should expect differences and adopt flexible procedures.

¹ This historical information was found in J. Porter and R, Taplin, Conflict and Conflict Resolution. New York: University of America Press, 1987.

² See, for example, the work of the Civil Justice Review First Report. Ontario Court of Justice, 1995 and the Supplemental and Final Report. 1996; Hon. T.G. Zuber, Report of the Ontario Courts Inquiry. Ministry of the Attorney General, 1987; Report of the Canadian Bar Association Task Force on Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Canadian Perspective, 1989.

³ See R. V. Askov [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199.

⁴ In June of 1997, the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General proposed a new rule (Rule 78) to provide for the mandatory mediation of most civil actions and applications.

⁵ Taken from the Law Commision of Canada report “From Restorative Justice to Transformative Justice,” 1999.

⁶ With permission from R. Ramkay, Coordinator, Mediation Centre at Carleton University.