Maintaining neutrality in dispute mediation: Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Dispute mediators are active but neutral facilitators of discussion. Their job is inevitably marked by the need to manage multiple competing demands. These competing demands are a paradigm case of the kind of situation that the pragmatics literature has identified as giving rise to the production of various complex, nonstraightforward ways of talking. This paper shows three tactics mediators use to manage their multiple competing demands: indirect advocacy, framing of advocacy, and equivocal advocacy. These tactics serve as functional substitutes for more simple and straightforward moves of direction, correction, disagreement, argument, and the like. In this way, mediators manage disputes while maintaining an appearance of neutrality.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1403-1426
Number of pages24
JournalJournal of Pragmatics
Volume34
Issue number10-11
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 19 2002
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Argument
  • Conflict resolution
  • Dilemma
  • Disagreement
  • Dispute mediation
  • Implicature
  • Indirection
  • Multiple demands
  • Neutrality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Artificial Intelligence

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Maintaining neutrality in dispute mediation: Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this