Volume 19, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Despite rapid growth in the provision of alternative dispute resolution services by governments, little sociological attention has been paid to the emerging form these services take. In this paper I offer a preliminary analysis of mediations conducted by the Community Justice Program in Queensland. I focus on the interactional management of two competing constraints on the talk. On the one hand mediation services must provide an accountably standardised and recognisable process. This creates the need for formalisation of the mediation process. On the other hand, because of philosophical commitments to disputant control over the dispute and its outcome, Community Justice Program mediations must be conducted in such a way as to display this commitment to disputant control and authority in the proceedings. This creates a conflicting need for displays of informality. This paper focuses on some strategies which appear to be designed to achieve this mix of formality and informality in Community Justice Program mediations.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Astor, H. and C.M. Chinkin
    (1992) Dispute resolution in Australia. Butterworths, Sydney.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Atkinson, J. M.
    (1979) Sequencing and shared attentiveness to court proceedings. In G. Psathas (ed.) Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York, Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Atkinson, J.M.
    (1982) Understanding formality: The categorisation and production of ‘formal’ interaction. The British Journal of Sociology33,1:86–117. doi: 10.2307/589338
    https://doi.org/10.2307/589338 [Google Scholar]
  4. Atkinson J.M. and P. Drew
    (1979) Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London, MacMillan Press. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑04057‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-04057-5 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baldock, J. and Prior, D.
    (1981) Social workers talking to clients: A study of verbal behavior. The British Journal of Social Work11:19–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bernard, S.E. , J.P. Folger , H.R. Weingarten , and Z.R. Zumeta
    (1984) The neutral mediator: Value dilemmas in divorce mediation. Mediation Quarterly4:49–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Community Justice Program
    Community Justice Program (1992), Training and resource manual. Brisbane, Community Justice Division, Department of the Attorney-General.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Coulter, J.
    (1990), Elementary properties of argument sequences. In G. Psathas (ed.) Interaction competence. Lanham, Maryland, International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dingwall, R.
    (1980) Orchestrated encounter: An essay in the comparative analysis of speech-exchange systems. Sociology of Health and Illness2,2:151–175. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9566.ep10487779
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep10487779 [Google Scholar]
  10. (1988) Empowerment or enforcement? Some questions about power and control in divorce mediation. In R. Dingwall and J. Eekelaar (eds) Divorce mediation and the legal process: British practice and international experience. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dingwall, R. and D. Greatbatch
    (1991) Behind closed doors: A preliminary report on mediator/client interaction in England. Family and Conciliation Courts Review29,3:291–303. doi: 10.1111/j.174‑1617.1991.tb00235.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-1617.1991.tb00235.x [Google Scholar]
  12. (1993) Who is in charge? Rhetoric and reality in the study of mediation. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law6:367–85. doi: 10.1080/09649069308412414
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069308412414 [Google Scholar]
  13. (1994) Divorce mediation – The virtues of formality?In J.M. Eekelaar and M. Maclean (eds) Readings in socio-legal studies: Family law. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Drew P. and J. Heritage
    (1992) Analysing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Garcia, A.
    1991 Dispute resolution without disputing: how the interactional organization of mediation hearings minimizes argument. American Sociological Review56:818–835. doi: 10.2307/2096258
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2096258 [Google Scholar]
  16. Greatbatch, D. and R. Dingwall
    (1989) Selective facilitation: Some preliminary observations on a strategy used by divorce mediators. Law and Society Review23,4:613–641. doi: 10.2307/3053850
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3053850 [Google Scholar]
  17. Greenhouse, C.J.
    1985 Mediation: A comparative approach. Man20,1:90–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gulliver, P.H.
    (1977) On Mediators. In I. Hamnett (ed.) Social anthropology and law. London, Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Have, P. t’en
    (1990) Methodological issues in conversation analysis. Bulletin de Mithodologie Sociologique27:23–51. doi: 10.1177/075910639002700102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/075910639002700102 [Google Scholar]
  20. Heritage, J.
    (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (1989) Current developments in conversation analysis. In D. Roger and P. Bull (eds) Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective. Avon, Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Heritage, J. and J.M. Atkinson
    (1984) Introduction. In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Heritage, J. and D. Greatbatch
    (1991) On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman (eds) Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge, Polity Press
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Heritage, J. and Watson, D. R.
    (1979), ‘Formulations as conversational objects.’, in Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, edited by Psathas, G. , New York, Irvington Publishers, pages123–162.
  25. Ippolito, C.A. and D.G. Pruitt
    (1990) Power balancing in mediation: Outcomes and implications of mediator intervention. International Journal of Conflict Management1:341–356. doi: 10.1108/eb022688
    https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022688 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jefferson, G.
    (1984) Transcription notation. In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Sacks, H.
    (1984) Notes on methodology. In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (1992), Rules of conversational sequence. Lectures on Conversation (Vol.1: Fall 1964-Spring 1968) Oxford, Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Sacks, H. , E. Schegloff , and G. Jefferson
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language50,4:696–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  30. Schegloff, E.A.
    (1992), On Talk and its institutional occasions. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Watson, D. R.
    (1981) Conversational and organizational uses of proper names: an aspect of counsellor-client interaction. In P. Atkinson and C. Heath (eds) Medical work: Realities and routines. Westmead, Gower.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error