Abstract
Neutrality is arguably no longer an uncontested founding principle for the practice of mediation since both academic studies and practice reflections have found it to be absent in practice. The aim of the research reported here was to explore meaningful constructions of the concept of neutrality through an examination of the actual experience of mediators. The central question was: how do mediators make sense of neutrality in practice? The most important finding is the emphasis placed by participants on the principle of party self-determination in their attempts to deal with the dilemmas of neutrality. This finding is important because it points to the development of an alternative conception of neutrality, one that abandons neutrality in an absolute sense, but reframes its meaning in relation to that of party selfdetermination. An alternative discourse for understanding mediator neutrality based on this finding and incorporating a postmodern construction of power is advanced in this paper.
Highlights
Neutrality has been identified as a foundational concept in mediation.[1]
The central question was: how do mediators make sense of neutrality in practice? The most important finding is the emphasis placed by participants on the principle of party self-determination in their attempts to deal with the dilemmas of neutrality
This finding is important because it points to the development of an alternative conception of neutrality, one that abandons neutrality in an absolute sense, but reframes its meaning in relation to that of party selfdetermination
Summary
Neutrality has been identified as a foundational concept in mediation.[1] Its importance is reflected in both definitions of mediation and accounts of practice. Accepted definitions identify mediation as a structured process of dispute resolution facilitated by a neutral S DOUGLAS (2008). In the light of this apparent inconsistency between the rhetoric and actuality of practice, there has been a range of responses in the literature about what to do with, or about, neutrality. Responses range from calls to abandon neutrality as an integral component of mediation practice;[6] calls to reframe its significance as no longer a core tenet of practice or to reframe it as a question of ethics;[7] and calls to replace it with alternative legitimating principles.[8] Most recently references to neutrality have been largely omitted from documents detailing the new National Mediation Accreditation System.[9] Yet, as results of this study will show, the mediators who participated in this project evidenced a clear adoption of neutrality as a principle guiding their practice
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
