This article builds on the January 1994 Negotiation Journal article by Sander and Goldberg on the same taxonomy topic. But it takes a much broader view of the problem, first by also looking at others’ analysis of the same problem – specifically the work of the CPR International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution, the Federal Judicial Center, and Professor Edward Dauer. Although these sources do not always use the same terminology or focus on the same types of cases, Sander and Rozdeiczer identify the three main areas of inquiry as: 1) the goals of the parties, 2) the features of the process, the case or the parties that point to a particular dispute resolution process, and 3) the capacity of a procedure to overcome impediments to effective resolution. The upshot of their analysis is that mediation is by far the most hospitable and effective process for most situations. They conclude their analysis by recommending a mediation-centered approach, consisting of the following three steps: 1) assume mediation, unless the case falls into one of the rare situations where mediation is not appropriate; 2) if mediation is appropriate, then decide what kind of mediation should be used (evaluative, facilitative, transformative etc.); 3) if mediation is not appropriate, what method(s) should be used? This involves a loopback to Part II of the article setting forth the three main areas of inquiry listed above.

Read original article


Tags: