1887
Volume 9, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this study, mediator – party power dynamics in workplace disputes mediation dialogues are examined. Adopting Gramsci’s concept of hegemony (e.g. 2005) and Foucault′s notion that power is not fixed in dialogues, but constantly negotiated by participants (e.g. Foucault 1980), the analyses show that the power dynamics shift in the mediation setting when mediators subordinate dominant parties and enforce their own formalized power as procedural guides to design (Aakhus 20032007) a favorable context for conflict resolution. When their procedural power is threatened, mediators may use specific devices in their interventions that correlate with the four devices – interruption, enforcing explicitness, topic control, and formulation – Fairclough (1989, 135–137) states can be used by dominant participants to control weaker parties in dialogues.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00033.bij
2019-07-05
2019-10-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aakhus, Mark
    2003 “Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation.” Argumentation17(3): 265–290. 10.1023/A:1025112227381
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025112227381 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2007 “Communication as design.” Communication Monographs74(1): 112–117. 10.1080/03637750701196383
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701196383 [Google Scholar]
  3. Adrian, Lin and Solfrid Mykland
    2014 “Creativity in Court-Connected Mediation: Myth or Reality?” Negotiation Journal30(4): 421–439. 10.1111/nejo.12069
    https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12069 [Google Scholar]
  4. Burr, Anne M.
    2002 “Confidentiality in mediation communications: A privilege worth protecting.” Dispute Resolution Journal57(1): 64–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Carneiro, Davide, Marco Gomes, Paulo Novais and José Neves
    2011 “Developing dynamic conflict resolution models based on the interpretation of personal conflict styles.” InPortuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ed. byHelena S. Pinto and Luis Antunes, 44–58. Heidelberg: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Davis, Albie M. and Richard A. Salem
    1984 “Dealing with Power Imbalances in the Mediation of Interpersonal Disputes.” Mediation Quarterly6 (1): 17–26. 10.1002/crq.38919840604
    https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.38919840604 [Google Scholar]
  7. Deason, Ellen E.
    2001 “The Quest for Uniformity in Mediation Confidentiality: Foolish Consistency or Crucial Predictability.” Marquette Law. Review85: 79–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fairclough, Norman
    1989Discourse and Power. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Foucault, Michel
    1977Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, transl. byAlan Sheridan. London: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 1980Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977, ed. byColin Gordon, transl. byColin Gordon New York: Pantheon.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Freedman, Lawrence R. and Michael L. Prigoff
    1986 “Confidentiality in Mediation: The Need for Protection.” Ohio St. Journal on Dispute Resolution2: 37–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Garcia, Angela C.
    2000 “Negotiating negotiation: The collaborative production of resolution in small claims mediation hearings.” Discourse & Society11(3): 315–343. 10.1177/0957926500011003003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926500011003003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gerami, Arghavan
    2009 “Bridging the theory-and-practice gap: Mediator power in practice.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly26(4): 433–451. 10.1002/crq.242
    https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.242 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gewurz, Ilan G.
    2001 (Re)designing mediation to address the nuances of power imbalance. Conflict Resolution Quarterly19(2): 135–162. 10.1002/crq.3890190203
    https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3890190203 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gramsci, Antonio
    2005Selections from Prison Writings, ed. and transl. byQuintin Hoare and Geoffrey N. Smith. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Greco Morasso, Sara
    2011Argumentation in Dispute Mediation: A Reasonable Way to Handle Conflict (Vol. 3). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.3 [Google Scholar]
  17. Heritage, John and Paul Drew
    1992Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hughes, Scott H.
    1995 “Elizabeth’s Story: Exploring Power Imbalances in Divorce Mediation.” Geo. J. Legal Ethics8: 553–596.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Jacobs, Scott
    2002 “Maintaining neutrality in dispute mediation: Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree.” Journal of Pragmatics34(10): 1403–1426. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00071‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00071-1 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jacobs, Scott and Mark Aakhus
    2002 “What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation”. Conflict Resolution Quarterly20(2): 177–203. 10.1002/crq.3890200205
    https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3890200205 [Google Scholar]
  21. Janier, Mathilde and Chris Reed
    2017 “Towards a theory of close analysis for dispute mediation discourse.” Argumentation31(1): 45–82. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9386‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9386-y [Google Scholar]
  22. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 “Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction.” Pragmatics and Beyond New Series125: 13–34. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  23. Kelly, Joan B.
    1995 “Power imbalance in divorce and interpersonal mediation: Assessment and intervention.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly13(2): 85–98. 10.1002/crq.3900130203
    https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3900130203 [Google Scholar]
  24. Moore, Christopher
    1986The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Managing Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Neumann, Diane
    1992 “How mediation can effectively address the male‐female power imbalance in divorce.” Mediation Quarterly9(3): 227–239.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Perelman, Chaim
    1979The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and its Applications. Holland: Reidel Publishing Company. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑9482‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9482-9 [Google Scholar]
  27. Perelman, Chaim and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1971The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, transl. byJohn Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑1713‑8_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1713-8_8 [Google Scholar]
  28. Reboul, Anne
    1992Rhétorique et stylistique de la fiction. Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Reboul, Anne and Jacques Moeschler
    1996 “Faut-il continuer à faire de l’analyse de discours?.” Hermès, revue de linguistique, (16): 61–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Rifkin, Janet, Jonathan Millen and Sara Cobb
    1991 “Toward a new discourse for mediation: A critique of neutrality.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly9(2): 151–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Silberman, Linda and Andrew Schepard
    1986 “Court-Ordered Mediation in Family Disputes: The New York Proposal.” NYU Rev. L. & Soc. Change14: 741–756.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Van Bijnen, Emma and Sara Greco
    2018 “Divide to unite: making disagreement explicit in dispute mediation.” Journal of Argumentation in Context7(3): 285–315. 10.1075/jaic.17032.bij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.17032.bij [Google Scholar]
  33. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    2008Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑07299‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-07299-3 [Google Scholar]
  34. Van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs
    1993Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Vasilyeva, Alena L.
    2012a “Argumentation in the context of mediation activity.” Journal of Argumentation in Context1(2): 209–233. 10.1075/jaic.1.2.04vas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.1.2.04vas [Google Scholar]
  36. 2012b “Topics as indication of being on-task/off-task in dispute mediation.” Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication3(1): 61–82. 10.1386/ejpc.3.1.61_1
    https://doi.org/10.1386/ejpc.3.1.61_1 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2015 “Identity as a resource to shape mediation in dialogic interaction.” Language and Dialogue5(3): 355–380. 10.1075/ld.5.3.01vas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.5.3.01vas [Google Scholar]
  38. 2017 “Strategic maneuvering in dispute mediation.” Argumentation and Advocacy53(3): 234–251. 10.1080/00028533.2017.1341452
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2017.1341452 [Google Scholar]
  39. Wiersma, Nienke
    2011 “Machtsstrijd met de advocaat”. NMI Tijdschrift Conflicthantering7: 2–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Wiseman, Vivian and Jean Poitras
    2002 “Mediation within a hierarchical structure: How can it be done successfully?” Conflict Resolution Quarterly20(1): 51–65. 10.1002/crq.10
    https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.10 [Google Scholar]
  41. Wodak, Ruth
    (ed) 1989Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse (Vol. 7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ct.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ct.7 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00033.bij
Loading
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