Important moments inside
the process of mediation.

HANS BOSERUP

Workshop

Country:
Denmark

Language:
English

1. Getting information without asking questions is the gateway to the most important information. What's the danger in asking questions?
2. Realizing their agenda and your agenda and where the difference stems from.
3. The difference between addressing the surface conflicts from the very beginning compared to a strategy of starting the process by addressing general issues and values of importance within the life of the parties.
4. How can common categorizing of diverse ideas, which appear heterogeneous on the surface, be useful for the process towards agreement or transformation?
5. Living in a circular world and addressing that world in a linear way. Does that make sense? Is it effective? Is it contraindicated?
6. What are the differences between linear and circular questions?
7. How to address neutrality in a circular paradigm? When guidelines of neutrality from the linear paradigm are less useful in a circular approach, how then to benefit from the systems theory about: 1) domain of aesthetics, 2) domain of production and 3) domain of reflection.
8. What is fairness? Fairness compared to diversity in culture and origin.
9. What is truth? Truth compared to the eyes of the observer.
10. What's the difference between observing on one side and of evaluating, analyzing, judging, moralizing, etc. on the other side?
11. What are the differences in responding to the question: What do you feel? Compared to the question: What do you think? What are the differences in intention and in effect?
12. Differences in communication methods between the transformative approach compared to the settlement driven approach.

Ad 1.: Getting information without asking questions is a gateway to the most important information. What's the danger in asking questions? We are accustomed to get information by asking questions. It's just very habitual for us. What we rarely realize is that every question has a certain intention behind it and a certain effect. The intention may be in the way of neutrality or autonomy. The effect may be in the way for learning, reflecting and expanding the mind. When you ask questions you own the stage. When you ask questions it may be difficult to get off that stage and leave it to the parties. You will get a lot of answers and you will cut yourself short from important information. Often it is possible to get information without asking question. You can design your way of active listening that way.

Ad. 2.: Realizing their agenda and your agenda and where the difference stems from. It's habitual for many of us to have certain ideas about a preferred outcome of the mediation. The preference have much to do with our ideals and values. The art is about learning the ideals and the values of the parties. How to find a shortcut to those?

Ad. 3.: The difference between addressing the surfaced conflicts from the very beginning compared to a strategy of starting the process by addressing general issues and values of importance within the life of the parties. Some mediators feels it natural instantly dealing with the conflict that the parties bring to them. It's effective to let the parties vent their emotions on the event but it can be unproductive to stay there. Often it's productive to make a detour to what in general is important in the life of the parties. Going there on detour the chance of finding common ground increases. Common ground is important in any mediation. Having realized common ground details in the conflict are often easier settled.

Ad. 4.: How can common categorizing of diverse ideas looking heterogeneous on the face of them be useful for the process torwards agreement or transformation? In the pyramid of demands, interests and needs it is a general experience that the higher a level (demands) you work on the more difficult it is to find common ground. The deeper you dive over interests into needs the more chances your find in creating common ground. Quite often the parties express themselves in terms looking diverse and still it is often possible to unify the heterogeneous statements or ideas in certain categories. Finding their ideas in the same category is a very lifting and promising experience for parties. It takes some practice to find categories covering heterogeneous ideas, yet it is possible when you look on the information surfaced from a helicopters perspective.

Ad. 5.: Living in a circular world and addressing that world in a linear way. Does that make sense? Is it effective? Is it contraindicated? During our upbringing we are used to be taught in linear thinking. What's the effect and what's the cause? In order to get order in a chaotic course of events it makes it easier to comprehend when we put events into a linear sequence. But life is not linear and effects have plenty of causes. Everything is depending on everything. When we are not aware that linear thinking is just a pedagogical means of education, - a simplification, and not a description of the world as it is, we get much wiser and more able to find new ways of living together. Now therefore it is efficient to make the mediators confident with a circular picture of life. Staying in the circular world may trap them.

Ad. 6.: How does the difference between linear and circular questions looks like? A linear question is e.g.: How come you broke into that house? Why are you so angry? Questions like those tend to create defense, which is not very productive in a mediation. A circular question is e.g.: What would it take preventing you from braking into peoples houses? What should happen to make you more easy going? What has happened the day you found your self less frustrated? Circular question tend to make parties reflect more than linear questions.

Ad. 7.: How to address neutrality in a circular paradigm? When guidelines of neutrality from the linear paradigm are less useful in a circular approach, how then to benefit from the systems theory about: 1) domain of aesthetics, 2) domain of production and 3) domain of reflection. In a linear world neutrality is much about how to behave and paying no conscious interest to the outcome of the process. In a linear world the mediator regard himself as an independent subject observing the parties as objects from outside the mediators world. Realizing mediator as an integrated part of the process you can not easy separate the parties universe from the mediators universe. Where neutrality is concerned it makes then more sense to ask the parties what they feel about mediators neutrality. The behavior of the mediator as he regards it becomes less important than the experience of the parties. The values of the mediator become important. How are the values of the mediator compared to the values of the parties? Are the parties or one of them acting or thinking very different from the mediator where aesthetics are concerned? If so, should the mediator give up staying as mediator in that very conflict? And what to do if issues of the conversation during the mediation make mediator think about right or wrong solutions (the domain of production). You have or you have not got a flue. This distance is 20 yards not 30. In different cultures you meet a variety of answers to what is right or wrong. Is it possible to act as a mediator is he has a different view of right and wrong compared to the parties or one of the parties? Is it OK to stay reflective to whatever the parties present to you not taking a stand? (Domain of reflection). As a mediator you need to know in which domain you are operating in the particular conflict.

Ad. 8.: What is fairness? Fairness compared to diversity in culture and origin. Can we define fairness without clarifying which standards to respect? Are the criteria of fairness the same in every culture? Who's fairness is the best one? Where did we learn our particular paradigm of fairness? Would we have learned the same standard if we as adopted children were brought up in an other country or culture?

Ad. 9.: What is truth? Truth compared to the eyes observing. Who's eyes is telling the truth? Do we se the same picture when we observe events? How to decide whether one picture is more correct than another picture. How to determine why we deal with this certain inch of the yardstick and not another inch or three inches of the yardstick?

Ad. 10.: What's the difference between observing on one side and of evaluating, analyzing, judging, moralizing, etc. on the other side? It looks like people tend to evaluate, analyze, judge, moralize, minimize, manipulate, dominate, etc. when they address human activities. Is that natural or habitual? Is the way creating an effective communication? Is it possible to communicate by using observations instead of? Is it possible to learn the parties communicate by observations and needs only? What to do if you want to try? What is the effect of using the observing language over the evaluating language?

Ad. 11.: What are the differences of responding to the question: What do you feel? Compared to the question: What do you think? What are the differences in intention and in effect? Many mediators is brought up by the tradition that mediation is more an affective and not much of a cognitive process. They claim that emotions are a shortcut to unmet needs, a way of empathy, a way of affirmation, etc. Plenty find themselves comfortable with that context. Others fear that looking at mediation as a process of emotions brings it dangerous close to therapy and brings the parties in a situation where they get stocked in the past. So what are the difference in answer to the question: What do you feel? Compared to the question: What do you think? What are the differences in intention and in effect?

Ad. 12.: Differences in communication methods when you are working transformative compared to working settlement driven. Is it necessary to change methods of communication when you want to work transformative compared to settlement-driven? If so, what are the differences about? How to determine which way of communication to use?