Oh dear..... trying to explain the mediation process is a lot like trying to explain the OST process..... the words never seem to quite convey the experience..... but since you asked, Romy, I'll give it a try.....
A mediator is a person who attempts to help people resolve conflict. Mediators are neutral, have no interest in the outcome of the dispute, and have no authority to make any decisions for the participants. The mediation process usually consists of these stages: 1. Beginning (Opening) 2. Middle (Story-Telling) 3. Middle (Creative Problem-Solving) 4. End (Closing) The opening and closing are roughly equivalent to the same stages in the OST process, and meet some of the same needs. They're a bit more structured, however. The opening includes a conversation about the role of the mediator, confidentiality, and other details. It ends with the participants signing an Agreement to Mediate. The ending sometimes includes a formal written agreement between the parties. The middle part begins with story-telling. Over time the story-telling begins to include ideas about solving the problem. Many people rush to try to solve a problem before fully hearing or understanding each other's stories, however, so the mediator might actively slow things down by asking questions to help flesh out the stories. Over time, story-telling and problem-solving weave back and forth as understandings merge and ideas emerge. If there are multiple issues, the mediator might also help the participants decide how they want to structure their conversation, and might check in to see if they want to return to their agenda if they begin straying to other issues and topics. At a deeper level, I think the primary role of the mediator is to provide emotional safety for the participants. When the dialogue between the participants is constructive, the mediator usually stays out of their way. If it becomes destructive, the mediator usually becomes more active. In these situations, the mediator might slow things down again by summarizing the various points of view, asking questions to help clarify issues that may still be misunderstood, or reframing toxic language into non-toxic language. All of that is how mediation feels to me in practice. I'm still not sure how to best convey any of that to students, or how to help them find their own sense of how to help themselves and others through difficult conflicts. The training manuals I have are filled with steps and stages, activities and discussion topics. None of it resonates much with me anymore. What's a person to do? .....okay, now I get it..... maybe I'm trying to teach something that's at a different level of consciousness than I'm reaching for. Or maybe mediation itself isn't at that different level, but the way I'm trying to teach it is. Hence the frustration. I think this fits with the Wilber discussion, but I haven't read much of Wilber's stuff. Any help or insights here would be most appreciated ~ Julie * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu, Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
