Document Type
Article
Publication Date
6-2025
Abstract
This article critiques the widespread use of the terms “facilitative” and “evaluative” to describe mediation techniques. Despite their popularity in scholarship and practice, these labels are inconsistently defined, frequently misunderstood, and fundamentally flawed. Drawing on a survey of mediation experts, the article documents significant confusion about how professionals interpret these terms – and how they think that others interpret them. It builds on Leonard Riskin’s critique of the facilitative-evaluative framework, which shows that the language not only oversimplifies complex processes but also risks confusing parties and undermining informed decision-making.
As an alternative, the article proposes a behavioral vocabulary that reflects mediators’ values and describes their actions in plain language. It argues that artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as the Real Practice Systems Coach, can promote better communication by using clear terminology. The article suggests that AI tools might be more effective than traditional human-centered reform efforts in promoting the use of clearer language. It urges AI developers, writers, educators, and practitioners to support party decision-making by making mediation easier to understand.
Recommended Citation
John Lande,
How AI Can Help Mediators Say What They Really MeanUniversity of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2025-29
(2025).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs/1265