Preparation for the University of Missouri's lecture on dispute resolution and consideration of commentary prompted additional thoughts on the issue and a more refined perspective on the issue of facilitation-versus-evaluation and its role in the continued development of modem ADR. Rather than attempt to fine-tune a completed article, this reply will address the additional perspectives as well as note points of distinct conflict or quibble with commentators. First, this reply provides some additional assessment framing the facilitative-evaluative debate as well as a modified brief in support of the legitimacy of some elements of evaluation in the eclectic mediation that is rightfully becoming the norm. Second, I note for the record a few points of contention with my commentators and additional information suggesting that the definition of "proper" mediation should be broadly and eclectically defined so as to permit "trans-substantive" eclectic mediation applied through the exercise of considerable discretion by the mediator. Finally, I suggest an agenda for additional ADR research that should receive some of the energy previously expended on the facilitative-evaluative debate.
Jeffrey W. Stemple,
Identifying Real Dichotomies Underlying the False Dichotomy: Twenty-First Century Mediation in an Eclectic Regime,
2000 J. Disp. Resol.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2000/iss2/10