Article published in:
Dialogue in institutional settings
Edited by Franca Orletti and Letizia Caronia
[Language and Dialogue 9:1] 2019
► pp. 84–105

Dialogical power negotiations in conflict mediation

| Università della Svizzera italiana (Switzerland)
In this study, mediator – party power dynamics in workplace disputes mediation dialogues are examined. Adopting Gramsci’s concept of hegemony (e.g. 2005) and Foucault′s notion that power is not fixed in dialogues, but constantly negotiated by participants (e.g. Foucault 1980), the analyses show that the power dynamics shift in the mediation setting when mediators subordinate dominant parties and enforce their own formalized power as procedural guides to design (Aakhus 2003, 2007) a favorable context for conflict resolution. When their procedural power is threatened, mediators may use specific devices in their interventions that correlate with the four devices – interruption, enforcing explicitness, topic control, and formulation – Fairclough (1989, 135–137) states can be used by dominant participants to control weaker parties in dialogues.
Keywords: conflict mediation, power asymmetry, power negotiation, context design, workplace disputes, four devices
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Power, institutionalized discourse, and power asymmetries
    • 2.1Power
    • 2.2Institutionalized discourse and power asymmetries
    • 2.3Types of power asymmetries in workplace disputes
      • 2.3.1Party versus party negotiation
      • 2.3.2Party versus mediator (re)negotiation
  • 3.The four devices
  • 4.Data: Collection and treatment
  • 5.Case context
    • 5.1New board and old church
    • 5.2New laws and old habits
  • 6.Power device analyses
    • 6.1Power negotiations
    • 6.2Power device combinations
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 05 July 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00033.bij
References
Aakhus, Mark
2003 “Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation.” Argumentation 17(3): 265–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Communication as design.” Communication Monographs 74(1): 112–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Adrian, Lin and Solfrid Mykland
2014 “Creativity in Court-Connected Mediation: Myth or Reality?” Negotiation Journal 30(4): 421–439. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burr, Anne M.
2002 “Confidentiality in mediation communications: A privilege worth protecting.” Dispute Resolution Journal 57(1): 64–70.Google Scholar
Carneiro, Davide, Marco Gomes, Paulo Novais and José Neves
2011 “Developing dynamic conflict resolution models based on the interpretation of personal conflict styles.” In Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ed. by Helena S. Pinto and Luis Antunes, 44–58. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Davis, Albie M. and Richard A. Salem
1984 “Dealing with Power Imbalances in the Mediation of Interpersonal Disputes.” Mediation Quarterly 6 (1): 17–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deason, Ellen E.
2001 “The Quest for Uniformity in Mediation Confidentiality: Foolish Consistency or Crucial Predictability.” Marquette Law. Review 851: 79–111.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
1989 Discourse and Power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel
1977 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, transl. by Alan Sheridan. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
1980 Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977, ed. by Colin Gordon, transl. by Colin Gordon et al. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Freedman, Lawrence R. and Michael L. Prigoff
1986 “Confidentiality in Mediation: The Need for Protection.” Ohio St. Journal on Dispute Resolution 21: 37–46.Google Scholar
Garcia, Angela C.
2000 “Negotiating negotiation: The collaborative production of resolution in small claims mediation hearings.” Discourse & Society 11(3): 315–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerami, Arghavan
2009 “Bridging the theory-and-practice gap: Mediator power in practice.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 26(4): 433–451. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gewurz, Ilan G.
2001 (Re)designing mediation to address the nuances of power imbalance. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 19(2): 135–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gramsci, Antonio
2005 Selections from Prison Writings, ed. and transl. by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey N. Smith. London: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar
Greco Morasso, Sara
2011 Argumentation in Dispute Mediation: A Reasonable Way to Handle Conflict (Vol. 3). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John and Paul Drew
1992 Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, Scott H.
1995 “Elizabeth’s Story: Exploring Power Imbalances in Divorce Mediation.” Geo. J. Legal Ethics 81: 553–596.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott
2002 “Maintaining neutrality in dispute mediation: Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree.” Journal of Pragmatics 34(10): 1403–1426. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Scott and Mark Aakhus
2002 “What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation”. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20(2): 177–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janier, Mathilde and Chris Reed
2017 “Towards a theory of close analysis for dispute mediation discourse.” Argumentation 31(1): 45–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
2004 “Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction.” Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 1251: 13–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Joan B.
1995 “Power imbalance in divorce and interpersonal mediation: Assessment and intervention.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 13(2): 85–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Christopher
1986 The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Managing Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Neumann, Diane
1992 “How mediation can effectively address the male‐female power imbalance in divorce.” Mediation Quarterly 9(3): 227–239.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaim
1979 The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and its Applications. Holland: Reidel Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaim and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
1971 The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, transl. by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reboul, Anne
1992 Rhétorique et stylistique de la fiction. Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
Reboul, Anne and Jacques Moeschler
1996 “Faut-il continuer à faire de l’analyse de discours?.” Hermès, revue de linguistique, (16): 61–92.Google Scholar
Rifkin, Janet, Jonathan Millen and Sara Cobb
1991 “Toward a new discourse for mediation: A critique of neutrality.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 9(2): 151–164.Google Scholar
Silberman, Linda and Andrew Schepard
1986 “Court-Ordered Mediation in Family Disputes: The New York Proposal.” NYU Rev. L. & Soc. Change 141: 741–756.Google Scholar
Van Bijnen, Emma and Sara Greco
2018 “Divide to unite: making disagreement explicit in dispute mediation.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 7(3): 285–315. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A.
2008 Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs
1993 Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, Alena L.
2012a “Argumentation in the context of mediation activity.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 1(2): 209–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012b “Topics as indication of being on-task/off-task in dispute mediation.” Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication 3(1): 61–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “Identity as a resource to shape mediation in dialogic interaction.” Language and Dialogue 5(3): 355–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 “Strategic maneuvering in dispute mediation.” Argumentation and Advocacy 53(3): 234–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiersma, Nienke
2011 “Machtsstrijd met de advocaat”. NMI Tijdschrift Conflicthantering 71: 2–5.Google Scholar
Wiseman, Vivian and Jean Poitras
2002 “Mediation within a hierarchical structure: How can it be done successfully?” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20(1): 51–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth
(ed) 1989 Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse (Vol. 7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar