Bridging Disciplinary Boundaries (January 11 - 14, 2007)

Quantitative research methods can be very effective in evaluating intervention programs when successful outcome measures are uncontested. Sometimes, however, the performance measures of popular interventions become controversial. Such is the case of mediation, a form of conflict resolution in which a mediator facilitates discussion between disputing parties in order to address identified issues and achieve resolution. Mediation proponents draw from empowerment theory to explain how mediation helps clients to identify and advocate for their interests, evaluate options, and accept responsibility for outcomes. Success is measured by high settlement rate and conflict reduction. Mediation critics, however, argue that high settlement rates and conflict reduction are actually indications of “coerced consensus” imposed through institutional and societal pressures as well as mediator techniques. Empirical research has supported theories of coerced consensus and “harmony ideology” by demonstrating how mediator techniques can be used to manipulate weaker parties. In this study, a qualitative approach was used to examine the contested measures of settlement rate and conflict reduction for evaluating mediation as an intervention tool. In order to examine the complex dynamics of interpersonal conflict and of implementing mediation services as a solution, an ethnographic case study design was used focusing on the collaboration of an elder advocacy organization with one dispute resolution center and one probate court. The study site was selected within a larger elder advocacy project implementing mediation services for older adults and caregivers in three states. An elder advocacy organization was selected given specific attention in social work on elder mediation as an empowerment tool. The probate court was important both as a source of mediation referral and to compare mediated cases with those solely handled by the judge. Data collection methods included; document analysis of outreach materials, case management paperwork, and progress reports; over two hundred hours of participant observation in the agency, court, dispute resolution center, and outreach meetings in which detailed field notes were taken on how cases evolved and were “settled;” fifteen semi-structured interviews with legal, mediation, and social work professionals, and six informal interviews with mediation clients, and nine mediation observations. The goal was to achieve interpretive validity, which means an accurate understanding of “emic” or insider perspectives in order to ensure an authentic “etic” analysis as an outsider who can also draw from direct observation experience. The main research questions were: What are the empowering and coercive dynamics of mediation as implemented in this program? Do study results support mediation as an empowerment tool as proposed in social work literature? A rival theory approach was used to analyze results by applying both empowerment and critical theories of mediation to interpret meanings of settlement rate and conflict reduction. Study results explain how interpretation of settlement rate as an outcome measure varies by professional location and client self interest. Results support limited use of mediation as a tool in social work empowerment practice with older adults and caregivers. Successful application helps families focus on common interests in eldercare and autonomy.