Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Dialogical self theory and mediation. Toward a self-narrative model of conflict resolution
.pdf
MASTER THESIS
DIALOGICAL SELF THEORY AND MEDIATION:
TOWARD A SELF-NARRATIVE MODEL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION
SUBMITTED BY
DINARA OSPANOVA
ADVISOR: PROF. DR. WERNER NOTHDURFT
CO-ADVISOR: PROF. DR. NORBERT SCHRÖER
Astana, 2016
UDK 81.2 Engl-9
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND EUROPEAN STUDIES (ICEUS) DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND CULTURAL STUDIES
HOCHSCHULE FULDA UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES
DIALOGICAL SELF THEORY AND MEDIATION:
TOWARD A SELF-NARRATIVE MODEL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION
The thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master of arts
Intercultural communication and European studies (ICEUS) department of social and cultural studies
Hochschule Fulda university of applied sciences
Advisor: Prof. Dr. Werner Nothdurft
Co-advisor: Prof. Dr. Norbert Schröer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 6
2. Transformation of Mediation ................................................................................................ 8
2.1. Timeline of mediation ........................................................................................................... 8
2.2. Transformative mediation ............................................................................................... 22
2.3. Motivation for further theoretical and practical enhancement of mediation ..................... 31
3. Dialogical Self: Theory and Practice ..................................................................................... 34
3.1. Summary of dialogical self theory ...................................................................................... 34
3.2. Methods for assessment of personal positions .................................................................... 44
4. Towards an Experimental Self-Narrative Model of Mediation .............................................. 51
4.1. DST: implications for conflict-resolution ........................................................................ 51
4.2. Towards a theory of mediation as self-narration ................................................................. 54
4.3. Model of self-narrative mediation ....................................................................................... 57
5. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 61
References .................................................................................................................................. 64
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1: List of internal and external positions ................................................................... 69
Appendix 2: List of affective terms ............................................................................................ 70
3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Conflict deterioration spiral ..................................................................................... 23
Figure 2.2. Conflict transformation ............................................................................................ 24
Figure 2.3. Model of transformative mediation ......................................................................... 27
Figure 3.1. PPR's bi-plot and clusters ........................................................................................ 47
4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1. Matrix of internal/external positions ......................................................................... 45
Table 3.2. Matrix of valuations and affects ............................................................................. 49
5
1. Introduction
Dialogical self theory (DST) and mediation – what is a rationale behind this
relation? At first glance, a psychological concept of dialogical self seems to have a little
in common with a triadic form of dispute resolution. However, the current thesis dare to
contradict this proposition. It is argued that the notion of dialogical self can be indeed
helpful for conflict resolution, and particular for mediation. By its very classic definition,
mediation is a way of resolving conflicts amicably and mutually with assistance of a
neutral third party. Indeed, mediation serves a goal of resolving conflicts. Types of
conflicts handled by mediation include such spheres as environment, workplace, family,
community, business etc. For many years scholars and practitioners have been
unanimous about the model of mediation as well as its goals and outcomes.
However, a closer inquiry has allowed to indicate that since
1990s' the field of mediation has undergone notable changes. Nowadays there are
diverse post-modern practices in the field that have taken form of unexpected models
of conflict resolution. Therefore, the underlying thesis of the current work is that the
field of mediation has been encountering a transformation. The transformation
regarding models, goals and outcomes of mediation. The whole Chapter 2 is dedicated
to these insights. The purpose of the chapter is two-fold: on one hand, it is to present
alternative models to the dominant in the field integrative problem-solving model of
mediation, on the other hand, it is on the basis of this theoretical and practical
transformation that has made it possible to relate intra-psychological with social. The
research showed that the most recent model of mediation, namely narrative mediation,
takes its roots in the tradition of narrative family therapy. To mention is that dialogical
self theory is also rooted in the tradition of narrative but self therapy. The Chapter 3 is
fully dedicated to the theory and practice of dialogical self which is equal with the notion
of narrative self. The aim of the chapter however is neither to critically examine the
theory and practice of dialogical self, nor to allocate DST among other identity theories.
The research objectives of the current master thesis as such are to manifest the
potential of theory and practice of dialogical self in resolving conflicts on interpersonal level and to present this manifestation in a concrete form. The Chapter
6
4 deals with practical implications of DST for conflict resolution and elaborates on an
experimental self-narrative model of mediation that represents a synthesis of narrative
self and transformative and narrative mediation practices. The outcome of the thesis is
thus a creative theoretical work on the part of the writer. The self-narrative model of
mediation is called experimental because it is a completely new invention based on
untested ideas as well as techniques that are not yet stabilized or finalized. Such an
unpretentious character of the thesis requires no specific research method.
7
2. Transformation of Mediation
2.1. Timeline of mediation
Mediation as a triadic form of peaceful dispute resolution has existed since
ancient times in various cultures. It is definitely not a recent or new phenomenon
(Silbey, 1993). In China and Japan mediation has been used widely as a tool for conflict
resolution based on the Confucian ideas of harmony in human relations. In some parts of
Africa the kbelle moot or neighborhood meeting was practiced (Besemer, 1993). In
England mediation has existed since Anglo-Saxon times. To North America mediation
is believed to have arrived with the Quakers and the Dutch-Scandinavian settlers
(Whiting, 1982). Although, the phenomenon of mediation is well-known across various
cultures around the globe, the “organized effort to promote mediation as a distinct
institution and process” (Silbey, 1993: 350) is quite new and to some extent modern
appearance. The formation of the current understanding of mediation is owed to the
ADR movement. Mediation as a process was rediscovered and laid emphasis on during
the quest for alternative ways to formal litigation during the late 60's of the XX century
in the USA known as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) movement.
In the USA before mid 60's mediation was known to be successfully practiced
in labor disputes (Bush/Folger, 2005; Nothdurft, 1995a; Silbey/Merry, 1986). In the
late 60's US judicial system and community leaders noticed a potential of mediation
for resolving community and neighborhood disputes and rushed to legitimate it as a
regular alternative for formal justice system (cf. Bush/Folger, 2005: 7). By some, a
necessity for inventing and implementing alternative ways of resolving especially
minor disputes arose from the need to free US court system from ever increasing flow of
petty lawsuits that affected courts' efficiency. The mediation process was expected to
be time-efficient, fewer cost, and be able to resolve disputes amicably and mutually (i.a.
Breidenbach, 1995). By others, the quest for alternative ways of conflict resolution was
initiated by law activists because of the growing dissatisfaction with formal litigation
processes (Auerbach, 1983). Anyway, it is exactly at this time that mediation programs
proliferated due to the support of federal, state and local governments and agencies
8
(Silbey/Merry, 1986). Despite the variety of interest groups, the maxims adopted for
these experiments were universal to all:
1. participants should get to the mutually acceptable agreements on their own;
2. participants arrive at settlements with mediators who have no power to
impose solutions by themselves;
3. shared obligations and behavioral change rather than legal rules serve as
ground for creating agreements;
4. development of a consensus rather than articulation of interests and rights are
to be brought into the forefront (cf. Silbey/Merry, 1986: 8).
The emergence of principles such as voluntary participation in mediation,
impartiality of a third-party, confidentiality of the process is ascribed to the ADR
movement, as well. The ethics of mediation was brought to the fore by its own very
definition that emerged when having promoted mediation:
“The language used by the court when promoting mediation is based on the assumptions that
mediation is a value-free (impartial/fair) process, practiced by trained mediators (neutrals), that belongs
to the parties (self-determination/autonomy), who come with the intention to negotiate (good faith) as
equals, and which responds to their individual (confidential/private), interests and needs” (Oberman,
2008: 13).
The one of the key principles of mediation is a free will. Basically, if the parties
are not ready or unwilling to negotiate, mediation should not take place. If mediation
takes place against the parties’ wishes, the process is doomed to failure, because
another principle of mediation is participation. Parties will not constructively
participate, if they are forced. However, for instance, in Australia, giving credit to the
positive effect of mediation in reducing court congestion and to the empowerment
mediation gives for parties to determine their own agreements, courts are looking
forward to introducing mandatory mediation: parties will be obliged to mediate the
dispute before going to court (cf. Spencer/Altobelli, 2005: 223).
Another major principle of mediation is impartiality of a mediating person,
meaning that the mediator is free of bias and personal feelings, opinions or agendas;
he/she should not have any relationships with the parties outside of the mediation; he/she
is disinterested in the outcome; he/she gives all speakers a chance to tell their story
9
and is approaching the proceedings with an open mind. And yet, no-one can guarantee
the full impartiality of the mediating person. Empirical evidence shows that experts, for
instance, rarely stay neutral; and mediators more often than not are biased (cf. Nothdurft,
1995a: 276). In fact, in mediation one can only “stick to the fiction of neutrality” of the
third party as well as to the idea of voluntary participation (cf. Nothdurft, 1995a).
Confidentiality is another important principle of mediation, that is mediation sessions
take place behind closed doors. Working in private is an important precondition for
mediation to work. However, this principle is the main obstacle for gathering data for
extensive scientific research. As it turned out, it is practically impossible to adhere to the
guiding principles of mediation entirely.
Proceeding with the historical development of mediation, at the dawn of 80's a
considerable contribution to the dispute-resolution studies was made by Roger Fisher
and William L. Ury (1981) with the introduction of the breaking-through method of
principled negotiation based on the Program on Negotiation (PON) of the Harvard
Law School that achieved iconic status in the annals of dispute resolution history. In
Germany the method became famous as „Das Harvard Konzept“. This method advocates
negotiating agreements without the need to compromise, and thus requires much
creativity on the part of the participants. The method was later applied to the process of
facilitating negotiation with impartial third-party (mediation) by Folberg and Taylor
(1984). There have been many models of mediation developed over the past decades.
However, most of them are believed to derive from the method of principled negotiation
of the Harvard project. Fisher and Ury present the essence of method of principled
negotiation or negotiation of merits as follows:
"The method of principled negotiation developed at the Harvard negotiation project is to decide
issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what each side says it will and
won't do; It suggests that you look for mutual gains whenever possible, and that where your interests
conflict, you should insist that the results be based on some fair standards independent of the will of
either side" (Fisher/Ury/Patton, 1999: 6).
According to Fisher and Ury, one basic reason for people never attain a wise
efficient and amicable agreement is the fact that they tend to argue over positions and
not interests. Arguing over positions is inauspicious in many ways: the more person is
10
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]