| |
| Procedural Steps or Phases |
| |
| Appreciative Inquiry as a group intervention strategy has come to the forefront within the last two decades. Alternative Dispute Resolution, specifically mediation, has been evolving for many decades. The steps and phases in the AI cycle may be a bit more distinct and agreed upon than any steps, stages or phases in mediation. The originator of AI, David Cooperrider, introduced the philosophy in his doctoral dissertation research and he is still very much at the forefront of AI. While many practitioners have been spawned by his inspirational vision, and there are certainly variations in how AI is perceived and practiced, there does seem to be agreement on the basic cycle and phases of the AI process. |
| |
| Mediation, on the other hand, has as many variations as there are practitioners. If there is one thing that conflict researchers agree upon, it is that there are many different ways to mediate and many approaches to resolving conflict (Cloke & Goldsmith, 2000; Folberg, et. al, 2004; Moore, 1996; Taylor, 2002.) However there are methods that mediators typically use that usually fall into categories or phases. For example, there are techniques a mediator might use to help parties describe their concerns, develop an agenda of issues to be discussed, identify interests, name a variety of options to consider, evaluate the options, make decisions regarding specific issues, and so on. (Antes 1999, Moore, 1996). We hope the language we use to describe those steps and techniques do not distort or simplify a complex process, but at the same time we offer simple terms that may be useful for making a comparison between two similar social process interventions: Appreciative Inquiry and Mediation. |
| |
| Topic identification |
| |
| An Appreciative Inquiry begins with the selection of an affirmative topic followed by the discovery phase. In mediation, the process happens in a slightly different order: the discovery (storytelling) phase uncovers the issues. The topics or issues emerge from the stories that each party tells. In practice the AI facilitator goes through a pre-process of discovery with the topic selection team. This can be done over a two day period and involve multiple stakeholders, or can be crafted with a smaller team in a shorter timeframe (Cooperrider, et al. 2003). Both processes focus the topics or issues in a positive way, reframing any negative statements into affirmative ones. Just as the AI facilitator knows it is critical to select a positive topic for the inquiry, successful mediators also realize that the way an issue is framed often determines whether or not agreement is reached (Moore in Folger 1994). |
| |
| Storytelling/Narrative |
| |
| "It is widely accepted that mediation is a storytelling process" (Sara Cobb in Folger, 1994, p. 48). The purpose of storytelling in mediation is to set a context for finding common ground between the participants so that mutual agreement can be found. The storytelling and narrative function found in AI is an integral part of the discovery phase where participants are encouraged to socially construct their experiences around a given topic or question. Both processes rely on social construction as a basic principle or tenant of the practice. Gergen (2004) defines social construction as the creation of meaning through our collaborative activities (p.7). |
| |
| Commonality |
| |
| We can agree that both AI and mediation seek to find shared meaning through a vision of a future built on affinity and outcomes that satisfy or please all participants. Both processes seek to build community, to restore wholeness, to increase the strength of common bonds. In AI, common themes are sifted from the many shared stories and highpoint experiences. Watkins & Mohr (2001) suggest that themes not only capture the common beliefs of a system they also provide a link between the discovery and dream phases. The facilitator/mediator helps the participants locate a common denominator by crafting or finding the semantics and metaphors in those shared stories. In mediation, common interests are sifted from the stories told by each participant. The humanistic model of mediation promotes social harmony, emphasizing dialog that encourages relationship building (Umbreit 1995). |
| |
| Shared Vision |
| |
| The purpose of visioning is to help parties identify common goals and move forward toward problem resolution. The AI Dream phase creates a collective verbal picture of the future, often in terms of a generative metaphor (Cooperrider, et al. 2003). A shared vision tends to help the parties feel like positive change is possible. A generative metaphor can be frame-expanding; it can facilitate new knowledge, strengthen a group's sense of efficacy, and provide a group with new ability to manage the dynamics of building relationships and bonding around common vision (Barrett and Cooperrider, 2002.) |
| |
| Construction |
| |
| An AI process moves from Discovery to Dream to Design. In the Design phase, facilitators guide the participants to look for actions that can be taken to change the Processes, Structures and Relationships that need to expand to accommodate the new vision that has been created in the Dream phase. In one rendition of the Design phase, participants are asked to think about the parts of the dream they want to bring to life. Each participant is given an opportunity to make an offer or articulate a request for action or change (Watkins & Mohr, 2001.) |
| |
| Another technique for organizing the construction of action plans is through a generative process of expansion, again often through the crafting a metaphor to hold the vision of a renewed future state. Barret & Cooperrider (2002) describe the potential of generative metaphor in regard to seemingly intractable situations this way: |
| |
| "Generative metaphor is an invitation to see the world anew and can be used as an intervention into intergroup and interpersonal conflict . Metaphor is generative to the extent to which it serves to break the hammerlock of the status quo. The generative potential of metaphor depends not only on its content, but also on the processes of inquiry and interaction that are engendered. By regaining a sense of unity and participation, in the joint creation of reality… groups will be able to grow beyond their historical difficulties through an almost unconscious learning transaction between contexts." P. 143 |
| |
| The counterpart in mediation is the stage where options for mutual benefit are generated. With identification of an acceptable field of settlement possibilities, mediators can begin to assess how well each party feels his or her interests are being addressed (Moore, 1996.) In the transformative model of mediation, this is often part of a new recognition or vision of empowerment and relationship that has been restored (Bush and Folger, 1994.) Both AI and mediation use a generative process for creating this potential future, and both require that participants share the vision for the future. AI facilitators often use questions about wishes for a future state; mediators who are creative can also use such questions to focus parties on a shared vision. Facilitators in both processes are instrumental in maintaining a continuous open feedback loop (Taylor, 2002.) |
| |
| Implementation |
| |
| The final stage hoped for in a mediation would be an agreement among the parties; often a signed agreement that is binding. It may or may not be a legal document, but it does convey the terms that the parties have agreed to implement to settle their dispute. Many mediations can be considered successful without a written agreement, depending on the wishes and needs of the parties. For example if a relationship is restored between interdependent parties, a signed agreement stating such, would seem trite. |
| |
AI's comparable step is the phase called Destiny in the 4-D model. The Destiny phase completes the AI cycle, asking "what will be?" (Cooperrider, et. al, 2003.) An AI Destiny sustains the unique design that was crafted for each individual AI intervention. Just as a settlement or mediation agreement is unique and satisfying to the parties involved in the process, the Destiny of an AI intervention is uniquely fitting for the participants involved.
| |
| Facilitator’s Role |
| |
| In this article we have described the intersections of two social dialog processes, Mediation and Appreciative Inquiry. Both interventions rely on a fluid process that is created and fashioned by the participants as it evolves. The facilitator of the process is key to successful outcomes for both types of intervention. We will examine the role of the facilitator/mediator and identify some of the skill sets involved. |
| |
| Both AI and mediation are narrative processes; therefore, moving the dialog forward is an important part of the facilitator's role. The facilitator of the process needs to be skilled in interpersonal communication, group dynamics and process intervention for both an AI and a conflict intervention. Both mediator and AI facilitator attend to the moment-by-moment opportunities for empowerment and recognition that are presented during the dialogue and interactions. Both practitioners use any of a variety of techniques that serve to bring to the forefront the momentary opportunity that exists (Antes, 1999.) |
| |
| Humor is one such opportunity that can provide a wonderful break in an otherwise tense impasse. Don Saposnek, family mediator and editor of the Association for Conflict Resolution's Family Section newsletter tells a story about a strategic Freudian Slip he made while trying to put together a parenting agreement in a family mediation. The couple began discussing transfer times between households and soon began attacking one another about other matters. For example, the mother began accusing the father of poor limit-setting and of letting the children throw cookies and toys all over the car and making a mess. |
| |
| In his attempt to stop the arguing and get back to the schedule issues, Don meant to say to the father, "So when are you going to pick up the kids?" Instead what came out was, "So when are you going to kick up the pigs?" All discussion stopped dead in its tracks, while everyone stared at one another. Soon, all began to crack up, which brought about a welcome tension release (Association for Conflict Resolution 2005.) |
| |
| Metaphor is another technique that skilled practitioners may use in tense situations. Barrett and Cooperrider (2002) discuss the concept of generative metaphor intervention when dealing with the dynamics of a competitive environment suggesting that metaphor can enhance genuine dialogue toward building innovative and creative ideas for the future of the organization. In order to move forward under such dynamics, an environment must be created that supports the possibility of cognitive reappraisal and new schema development by members. |
| |
| In his keynote address to the 2006 Annual Conference of Texas Association of Mediators, Professor Homer La Rue defined a professional in the field of mediation as "someone who has experience in the art of assisting those in conflict to define their dispute and to define the resolution of their dispute, and one who renders such assistance with skill and demonstrated ability."
One last thought on the intersection of mediation and appreciative inquiry which speaks volumes about the unpredictability of outcomes in social interventions such as these comes from the new sciences of quantum physics and chaos theory. In short, this phenomenon states that "in quantum reality, all things move in harmony as some part of a larger, invisible whole." (Watkins & Mohr, 2001, p. 6). We have come full circle, back to the harmony and equilibrium notion we started with and a comforting thought that we are all linked together at some level. |
| |
| References Cited |
| |
| Family Section, Association for Conflict Resolution, Family Mediation News Editor's Notes 3 (Don Saposnek eds., 2005) |
| |
| Antes, J., Hudson. 1999. Is a Stage Model of Mediation. Mediation Quarterly, 16, no. 3. |
| |
| Barrett, Frank and Cooperrider, David. 2002. Generative metaphor intervention. In Appreciative inquiry and organizational transformation, ed. Diana Whitney Ronald Fry, Jane Seiling, 121-45. Westport, CT: Quorum Books |
| |
| Blitman, B & Maes, J. 2004. Visioning and coaching techniques in mediation. Dispute Resolution Journal, 59, no. 2. |
| |
| Bush, Robert, and Lisa Bingham. 2005. The knowledge gaps study. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 23, no. 1, Fall: 99-122 |
| |
| Bush, Robert & Folger, Joseph. 1994. The promise of mediation. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Chia, H., Chong. 2001. Enacting and reproducing social interaction through mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 19, no. 1. |
| |
| Cooperrider, David, Diana Whitney, and Jacqueline Stavros. 2003. Appreciative Inquiry Handbook. Bedford Heights, Ohio: Lakeshore. |
| |
| Folger, Joseph & Jones, Tricia. 1994. New Directions in Mediation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. |
| |
| Fry, Ronald, Frank Barrett, Jane Seiling, and Diana Whitney. 2002. Appreciative Inquiry and Organizational Transformation. Westport CT: Quorum Books. |
| |
| Gergen, Kenneth & Gergen, Mary. 2004. Social Construction. Chagrin Falls, Ohio: Taos Institute. |
| |
| Larson, Mary Jo and Xiaoping Tian. 2005. Strengthening women's contributions to sustainable peace: The benefits of flexibility Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 23, no. 1, Fall: 53-70 |
| |
| LaRue, Homer. 2006. Our Profession, Our Ethics. Keynote Address presented at the Texas Association of Mediators Conference. Austin, Texas: The Texas Mediator. |
| |
| Nader, Laura. 1991. Harmony Models and the Construction of Law. In Conflict Resolution: Cross Cultural Perspectives, edited by K Avruch, P Black, and J. Scimecca. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. |
| |
| Pratt, Charleyse. 2002. Creating unity from competing integrities. In Appreciative inquiry and organizational transformation, ed. Diana Whitney Ronald Fry, Jane Seiling, 99-120. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. |
| |
| Scarborough, J. 1998. The Origins of Cultural Differences and their Impact on Management. Wesport, CT: Quorum Books. |
| |
| Umbreit, Mark. 1995. Mediating Interpersonal Conflict. West Concord, MN: CPI Publishing. |
| |
| Watkins, Jane & Mohr, Bernard. 2001. Appreciative inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. |
| |
| Welsh, N. & Lewis, D. 1998. Adaptations to the Civil Mediation Model: Suggestions from Research into the. Mediation Quarterly, 15, no. 4, Summer. |
| |
| Whitney, Diana, and Amanda Trosten-Bloom. 2003. The power of appreciative inquiry. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. |
| |
| About The Authors |
| |
| Maria Tatter-Schacht, M.A., studied at the Universidad Ramon Llull in Barcelona, Spain and received the Master in Mediation and Conflict Resolution in 2004. Her Bachelor degree is in Sociology from Universidad Autónoma in Barcelona. She received a grant to participate in the Taos Institute Conference on Social Construction in October, 2005. |
| |
| Anita Vestal, Ph.D., completed a doctorate in Conflict Resolution at Nova Southeastern University and also holds an MBA from Texas Tech and B.S. in Child and Family Development from Virginia Tech. She teaches and writes on appreciative inquiry and social construction theory. While attending the Taos Institute Conference on Social Construction, Anita and Mari?a began development of this article. | |
