MichelleLeBaron, University of British Columbia Faculty of Law;
Andrew FloyerAcland, Andrew Acland and Associates;
CarrieMacLeod, European Graduate School, Switzerland
The presentation will be based on the The Choreography of Resolution: Conflict, Movement and Neuroscience recently published by ABA in 2013. This ground-breaking book focuses on a dimension of conflict and resolution that until now has been neglected: the extent to which people carry conflict in their physical presence, and the concomitant need of interveners to address its embodiment with their bodies as well as their minds. Going far beyond customary treatments of non-verbal behaviour and body language, this session will raise issues and ideas that no serious practitioner can afford to overlook.
Concurrent Session B
Thursday, April 03, 201411:15 AM-Thursday, April 03, 201412:15 PM
SharonEllison, Institute for Powerful Non-Defensive Communication
The success of ADR methods is dependent, to a significant degree, on the professional's level of skill in asking questions. In this interactive session, we will review how the physiology of defensiveness impacts dispute resolution and look at common pitfalls in question-asking. Participants will learn how to change intention, tone, and body language, using a range of specific formats for asking highly effective questions. Theses skills can greatly increase the odds that parties and other professionals will shift from defensive positions and negotiate with greater trust. Parties can be empowered to more quickly identify crucial interests and mutually beneficial resolutions.
Concurrent Session D
Thursday, April 03, 20143:00 PM-Thursday, April 03, 20144:15 PM
The presenters, both experienced mediators and students of decision-making, will highlight some of the most relevant findings in neuroscience and psychology. Drawing on recent research and years of conflict practice--as well as participants' insights--the session will engage compelling claims related to neurobiology and conflict behaviors. The limitations of such research and its implications for dispute resolvers will be addressed, too.
Concurrent Session F
Friday, April 04, 20149:00 AM-Friday, April 04, 201410:15 AM
Mediators cannot take sides - yet parties desperately want us to. For many disputants, their deepest need is to be told that they are "right" and the other side is "wrong." Standard mediation texts advise deflection of moral discourse toward discussion of interests. Often, however, the parties resist such deflection and want to engage with us about who behaved fairly - and who didn't. This workshop explores the psychological reasons why the need to be "right" is so profound, and how mediators can successfully engage with parties on this risky subject, affirming the parties' intentions to "do the right thing.”
Concurrent Session G
Friday, April 04, 201410:30 AM-Friday, April 04, 201411:30 AM
SuzanneOrenstein, US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
The presentation will highlight the importance of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) in the process of problem definition. This often overlooked practice underscores the importance of making an "opportunity analysis" of the issues raised by single party problem-solvers, clients, and coaches, as a baseline for forward momentum in problem-solving, risk analysis and collaborative endeavors. Investigate with a panel of three practitioners what it means to use Appreciative Inquiry in three different settings: in single party problem-solving, dialog facilitation, and conflict coaching. Leverage AI skills to create the velocity needed to move parties forward with a more positive focus and affirmative framework.
Concurrent Session I
Friday, April 04, 20142:30 PM-Friday, April 04, 20143:45 PM
Ellen E.Deason, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law;
SarahCole, Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law;
Jennifer K.Robbennolt, University of Illinois College of Law
Findings from psychology have a number of implications for how the roles of parties, attorneys, and neutrals in dispute resolution are structured. Professor Robbennolt will discuss how parties’ desires in dispute resolution (for things such as money, accountability, voice) can inform the way a process is designed and the neutral’s role. Professor Deason will consider lessons from the psychology of decision-making processes for choices about who conducts judicial mediation/settlement conferences and how mediation and arbitration are combined. Professor Cole will examine the role of heuristics in arbitration and consider whether a requirement for reasoned opinions would improve arbitral decision-making.