TAKING OURSELVES SERIOUSLY ENOUGH TO BE CAUTIOUS

• Date: 01 January 1992
• Published date: 01 January 1992
• Author: Carol S. Bruch
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-1617.1992.tb01275.x

TAKING OURSELVES SERIOUSLY

ENOUGH TO BE CAUTIOUS

A

Response

to

Hugh McIsaac

Carol

S.

Bruch

A11 of

us

who devote our lives

to

the welfare of families-practitioners,

researchers and academicians alike

-

want to believe that we are making

things better. That comes with the territory.

But how are we to know

if

what we are doing is helpful, or is as helpful

as it might be, especially when we are trying something new? In medicine,

for example, many things once thought

to

be cures have on closer examina-

tion proved to be ineffective or even harmful. Such concerns prompted my

article on child custody law (Bruch, 1988), and today’s discourse focuses on

one aspect

of

that broader enquiry. Specifically, what information do we need

if

we are to evaluate the ways in which outcomes following mediation are

better, worse,

or

no different from those produced by traditional dispute

resolution techniques?’

Even before

my

visit to Hugh McIsaac’s mediation service at the

Los

Angeles Superior

Court

in

1983, I had heard good things about

the

work he

and his staff were doing. That’s why I went, and

I

was not disappointed

in

what

I

saw and learned. But just as one cannot judge the quality of medical

care across America on the basis of what

is

being done at the Harvard Medical

School, one cannot judge the great variety of things happening under the label

of mediation across the United States by what

is

happening

in

Los

Angeles.

While programmes with little money and few well-trained, talented person-

nel are not likely to be as successful as programmes that are well funded and

competently staffed, even well-funded, well-staffed programmes may have

little

or

no impact.

The most comprehensive studies to date

of

the American experiment

in

custody mediation’ are those of Pearson and her co-authors (eg, Pearson and

Thoennes 1984, Pearson, Thoennes and Hodges 1984, Pearson and Thoeness

Author’s

Note:

For his thoughtful comments

on

the manuscript, the author expresses her

appreciation to her colleague, Professor Floyd

R

Feeney.

Editor’s Note:

This articlefirst appeared

in

International

Journal

of

Law

and the Family,

5,

82-85.

Copyright 1990 Carol

S.

Bruch and 1991

Oxford

University Press. Reprinted by permission.

FAMILY

AND

CONCILIATION

COURTS REVIEW,

Vol.

30No.

1,

January

1992

137-141

0

1990

Carol

S.

Bruch

and

1991

Oxford

University

Press

137