Suchergebnisse

In the last edition of the FRC, there are a number of articles which highlight ever‐present themes in the many dispute resolution industries. These themes are: The cyclical nature of family law and DR reform to and fro "faster, cheaper, less formal and more accessible"; Access barriers for the poor and middle class; Access barriers due to geography, distance, and cultural differences; Blossoming of a range of "abbreviated" (short and inexpensive) DR services; The essential, yet neglected, task of systematic diagnosis of possible causes of conflict, and of a possible range of helpful interventions: DR practitioners should aim to "at least do no harm"; If a DR practitioner exhibits care, and core communication skills, how much do different processes matter? The Hawthorne effect—all pilot projects tend to succeed?; There is a constant flow of stories, systematic and statistical knowledge in DR industries. Who is listening and translating this flow of information between the various DR silos and to the public?

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
The repetitive and predictable cycles of family law reform.
Access to DR services restricted by finances, geography and cultural differences.
The old saying "at least do no harm" should find a prominent place in all family DR services and training.
The Hawthorne effect—all pilot and new projects seem to "succeed" for awhile. What follows?
In the many family DR silos, there are "truths" embodied in stories, systems and statistics. Who can translate helpfully from one silo to another?

AbstractThis article contains two parts. First, there is a framework aimed at encouraging lawyers and other conflict managers to be overtly analytical when deciding which interventions may or may not be helpful in a particular conflict. Second, to illustrate this analytical framework, there are two lists of factors or diagnostic indicators that suggest that certain conflicts probably need the decision of an umpire or judge and that certain other conflicts probably need written claims to be filed in a court or tribunal. This article does not attempt to create lists of factors that indicate the suitability of many other processes, such as early neutral evaluation, problem‐solving mediation, and arbitration.

This article describes an orthodox teaching and learning process known as the pyramid. It sets out how this basic process can be used in mediation (and other) training courses. The variations, advantages, and disadvantages of this learning procedure are described. Analogies are drawn between the pyramid method and mediation. Finally, mediators are challenged to add this process and its variations to their repertoires both as trainers and as mediators.

John Wade ; Volltext // Exemplar mit der Signatur: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- Brit. 540 xa

Volltext // Exemplar mit der Signatur: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- Brit. 540 x

[Verf.: John Wade] ; Volltext // Exemplar mit der Signatur: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- Bibl.Mont. 5200