Exploring Helpful Tensions between Divorce Mediators and Clients: A Relational Dialectical Analysis

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21167
• Published date: 01 August 2016
• Date: 01 August 2016

C R Q, vol. 34, no. 1, Fall 2016 7

© 2016 Association for Confl ict Resolution and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/crq.21167

ARTICLES

Exploring Helpful Tensions between Divorce

Mediators and Clients: A Relational Dialectical

Analysis

Rachid Baitar

Jan De Mol

Peter Rober

Addressing calls for more mediation process research, this qualitative

study explored which contradictory tensions are in play in a helpful

working relationship between mediators and their clients. Data were

collected in semistructured interviews with divorce mediators ( n = 12).

Relational dialectical analysis detailed how divorce mediators varied

practice styles along the central opposing pulls of client self-determina-

tion and professional control, neutrality and engagement, and effi ciency

and exploration.  e fi ndings counterbalance traditional hallmarks of

mediation and highlight a range of dynamic truths in which mediators

operate. Methodological limitations and implications for research and

practice are discussed.

A t the intersection of law and mental health practice, divorce mediation

emerged during the 1960s and 1970s as a promising interdisciplin-

ary improvement for dispute resolution (Emery 2012 ; Konrad 2001 ;

Singer 2009 ).  is promise was substantiated in several research reviews

(Beck and Sales 2001 ; Emery, Sbarra, and Grover 2005 ; Kelly 1996 , 2004 ;

Saposnek 2004 ) as well as in a quantitative meta-analysis (Shaw 2010 ).

More specifi cally, mediation was found to outperform traditional adversar-

ial litigation on several outcome measures related to children ’ s psychologi-

cal needs, spousal relationships, and satisfaction with emotions, process,

and outcome (Emery et al. 2005 ; Shaw 2010 ).

 ese outcome-based reviews also highlighted the paucity of and pressing

need for empirical research on what actually takes place in the mediation

8 BAITAR, DE MOL, ROBER

C R Q • DOI: 10.1002/crq

process. Indeed, just knowing that mediation is better than litigation does not

tell us how mediation or mediators contributed to such benefi cial outcomes.

 e lack of process research likely stems from process research, and, in par-

ticular, qualitative process research being more complex, time-consuming,

and expensive to be carried out (Creswell 2009 ; Kelly 2004 ). In addition,

practical and ethical considerations such as rigid procedural formalities, con-

fi dentiality, and privacy concerns often restricted a better understanding of

what actually goes on during mediation (Beck and Sales 2001 ). Some initial

process studies did move away from the traditional comparative outcome-

based research designs and suggested that the working relationship between

mediators and their clients is complex and interactive in nature (Gale et al.

2002 ; Picard 2004 ).  e latter progression toward a more complex and mul-

tifaceted understanding of the mediation process is refl ected in how research-

ers classify the role of the mediator during mediation.

From an Either-Or toward an And-And Understanding

In their review of mediation research, Wall and Dunne ( 2012 ) noted that

mediators have around one hundred techniques and strategies they can

make use of during mediation. However, these numerous techniques some-

times overlap and may hinder or confuse mediators in clearly describing

their approach during mediation (Coleman et al. 2015 ).  e initial media-

tion literature attempted to classify the mediator ’ s role by using contrasting

bipolar indicators.  at is, mediators, for example, were either therapeutic

or bargaining oriented (Silbey and Merry 1986 ), took on either an inter-

ventionist or a neutralist role (Cohen and Dattner 1995 ), followed either

a transformative or problem-solving ideology (Bush and Folger 1994 ),

and were either communication or settlement oriented (Kolb and Asso-

ciates, 1994 ). Yet most infl uential for training and practice was Leonard

Riskin ’ s dichotomous positioning into facilitative versus evaluative media-

tors (Riskin 1994 , 1996 ; Shestowsky 2004 , 2008 ). Simply put, a facilita-

tive mediator departs from the assumption that the confl icting parties can

generate their own solutions through an exploration, identifi cation, and

integration of underlying interests. Ideally, the facilitative mediator fos-

ters client self-determination while remaining neutral and focused on the

process rather than content (Baitar et al. 2012 ; Charkoudian et al. 2009 ;

Hensler 2000 ; Riskin 1994 , 1996 ). By contrast, the evaluative mediator

assumes that confl icting parties require a directive third party who reviews,

makes suggestions, and provides advice on preferred solutions and their

legal consequences (Della Noce 2009 ; Lowry 2004 ).