In 2006 American Board of Neutrals Association (ABNA) incorporated and started accepting applications for membership this January. The organization is geared towards those who have graduate degrees – masters, doctoral, LLM – in the field of Negotiations and Conflict/Alternative Dispute Resolution/Peace Studies.
The ABNA’s web site indicates that it is quite an ambitious organization. It states that it’s goal “is to become the most relevant CS/ADR practice resource for the public” and that the “days of other professions defining your profession are over.” Having (a) done a little bit of research in the secondary nature of ADR careers and (b) seen the empirical research on what disputants want from their mediators, they have a long hill to climb to meet the second goal. As for the first goal, it will be interesting to see how the organization competes with the two primary ADR professional organizations, the ABA’s Dispute Resolution Section and the Association for Conflict Resolution.
For more about the ABNA, check out its website:
abananeutral.org/default.aspx
I guess I fail to see the need for an organization which accredits third-party neutrals (TPN). I understand there is some confusion about what TPN should be called – mediator, facilitator, negotiator, neutral – and how these classes of TPN different from each other, but that does not seem to warrant a certification process. A dictionary could easily remedy this conflict through examining the history and development of each of the words. However, even this may be unnecessary, since what matters is current and common associations with each term. To the general public these terms are fairly interchangeable, and I do not see a problem with that. After all, who cares what you call it as long as it does the job correctly?
Doing the job correctly is another reason potentially supporting accreditation. However, some of the best negotiators are those without any formal education. I always think of my mother, who bravely handled conflicts between four girls and their father. She was an expert at keeping secrets when they were not particularly relevant to my father’s interests and passing along information in a way to make sure everyone was happy. I learned my most valuable lesson about negotiation from her – always ask why and always have an answer for the why that is reasonable. I believe the purpose of a third-party neutral is simply to be neutral, objective. Accreditation cannot necessarily create and enforce neutrality.
An accreditation program would keep some very intelligent and skilled TPN out of the field simply because their knowledge and skills come from real life experience. There simply is not any reason for formal education to be a requirement. What does formal education do? Teach the lingo, push the inexperienced through simulations, become well-versed in theory and alternative views? I would take a third-party neutral with life experience over a formally educated neutral any time.
Perhaps the only persuasive reason to require education would be an ethical claim, but that can be easily satisfied with a single text and a single test. But for mediators even ethics is variable depending on the situation and the problem at hand. What may be ethical in one case may not be ethical in another case. The person in the situation, at the time of the incident, is the best judge of the course of action to take. A review board would have hind-sight bias and make force honest, reliable, and skilled TPN out of the profession. Finally, if a third-party neutral does a bad job, then consumers will not go to that person. Perhaps a better solution would be an Angie’s list (Craig’s list) type site where people can hear actual feedback from those who previously used that third-party neutral.
Generally, a certification process results in more hurdles to enter a profession, including membership expenses and additional education. Accreditation in some professions in unnecessary and even harmful. Here I think of Paralegal Association of Wisconsin (PAW), which the WI Supreme Court even refused to allow them to create an accreditation system for paralegals. The reasons, accreditation was unnecessary and potentially harmful.
Finally, when mediation is truly in need of objective guidance, current legal standards and ethics for attorneys is a fine standard to follow.
Perhaps you could address some of these issues and offer your opinion on why accreditation for TPN is necessary.
On another note, their website states, “Finally, all students of undergrad, graduate, law and doctoral programs should become members as they represent the future of the profession.” Thus, I would assume this includes JD students.
Their website clearly leaves off JDs, presumably b/c the ABA DR Section is already there to represent their interests.
You mention the LLM. Would the JD be sufficient?