Readings :

Pearson, J. & Thoennes N. 'Divorce Mediation: Refletions on a Decade of Reseaerch' in 'Mediation Research' eds Kressel, K., Pruitt, D. & Associates, Jossey-Bass 1989, 9, at pp 18-29

Bailey, M. 'Unpacking the 'Rational Alternative' : a Critical Review of Family Mediation Movement Claims' 8 Canadian Journal of Family Law (1989) 61 at pp 62-69 (an overall critique)

Grillo, T. 'The Mediation Alternative: Process Dangers for Women' 100 Yale Law Journal (1991) 1545 at pp1600-1605 (discussing the impact of mandatory mediation on women)

There is an important body of literature and opinion which argues that mediation is inherently unsuitable as a dispute resolution mechanism where the parties are significantly unequal, especially in family matters where there has been a personal relationship. This concern is heightened where there has been a history of violence or oppressive behaviour between the parties. Many mediators and mediation services routinely screen out cases in which there has been a history of violence or oppression.

Other writers (for example Trina Grillo (1991)) argue that the socialisation of women to assume responsibility for harmony and conflict resolution disadvantages them in a consensus-based dispute resolution system, especially where mediation is required rather than a personal choice.

You are invited to read this and other excerpts in the Course Manual which raise these questions and concerns about the appropriateness of mediation. You may wish to compare these arguments and concerns with the research findings reviewed in the Pearson & Thoennes (1989) excerpt. Which view or views matches best with your own experiences/ opinion?

To take up the question of whether or not mediation is appropriate in the range of issues which arise in conflicts between family members, please join the discussion in Discussion Room Three, 'When is Mediation Appropriate in Family Matters?'