Some of these benefits are due to the particular arguments of facilitation proponents, while others involve a general development of the field resulting from the debate. The first benefit is that facilitation proponents have highlighted how mediation can promote many important values such as party self-determination, and they have cautioned about risks of unfairness created by mediator evaluation as described in Part III. Second, the facilitation-evaluation debate has stimulated a better appreciation of the appropriateness of these techniques in different types of cases, as described in Part IV. Third, the debate has contributed to reducing ill-considered evaluation practice, as discussed in Part V. Fourth, the debate may cause many mediators to consider and reject simple assumptions, developing a more sophisticated understanding of the process. Re-examination of mediator evaluation could become part of a broader, healthy questioning of taken-for-granted mediation theory more generally, as considered in Part VI. Before examining these propositions, Part II provides a brief review of terminology used in the debate and what I suggest are overly law-centered assumptions embedded in Stempel's use of certain terms.
Toward More Sophisticated Mediation Theory,
2000 J. Disp. Resol.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2000/iss2/7