Here’s the third part in the Theory of Change symposium.
Perhaps not surprisingly, many of the pieces in this part focus on use of technology in DR. As Alyson Carrel points out, technology in DR not just ODR. So we need to recognize the broad range of ways that people can and do use technology in DR.
Colin Rule provides a good overview of technology in DR, noting that it provides the kinds of benefits that Frank Sander had in mind when he proposed the multi-door courthouse. Alyson Carrel argues that technology innovation and dispute resolution should go hand in hand and suggests three ways for the DR field to influence the diffusion of technology in the practice of law. Scott Maravilla urges the use of new technologies for conflict resolution in the federal government. Linda Seely advocates for a coalition of interested stakeholders to produce standards and principles for ODR platforms. These pieces complement Michael Buenger’s piece in Part 1, which advocates fundamental re-thinking of the courts recognizing the opportunities provided by new technology.
This part also focuses on basics of dispute resolution. In an important reminder about (what should be) Mediation 101, Michael Lang argues that mediators should consider the particular nature of each dispute in deciding how to intervene instead of reflexively using the same strategy in all cases. Scott Maravilla recommends increased professional development of ADR practitioners in the federal government.
Nancy Welsh argues that our field needs relevant, routinely-collected, up-to-date empirical data about the full range of dispute resolution processes so that we will know what and how we need to change.
Here’s more detail with links to the pieces:
Alyson Carrel: Opportunity to Influence at the Intersection of Dispute Resolution and Technology. Alyson argues that technology innovation and dispute resolution should go hand in hand. She presents three pathways for the DR field to influence the diffusion of technology in the practice of law. She is a clinical associate professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and was the assistant dean of law and technology initiatives from 2017-2019. Click here for more information about her.
Michael Lang: Good Mediators Act Out of Choice, Not Habit. Michael argues that mediators should consider the particular nature of each dispute in deciding how to intervene instead of reflexively using the same strategy in all cases. He encourages mediators to be flexible and responsive and not dependent on comfortable and familiar routines. He has been a mediator for over 40 years and served as the founding director of graduate programs in dispute resolution. He is the author of The Guide to Reflective Practice in Conflict Resolution (2019) and The Making of a Mediator: Developing Artistry in Practice (2000).
Scott Maravilla: We Need to Re-invigorate Federal Administrative ADR. Scott recommends increased professional development of ADR practitioners and use of new technologies for conflict resolution in the federal government. He is an administrative judge with the federal Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition. The views presented here are solely his own and do not represent the views of his agency or any other organization.
Colin Rule: Integrate Technology into the Practice of Dispute Resolution. Colin urges the dispute resolution community to integrate technology into the provision of mediation and arbitration, as well as training and certification of mediators and arbitrators. He is vice president for online dispute resolution at Tyler Technologies. In 2017, Tyler acquired Modria.com, an ODR provider that Colin co-founded. From 2003 to 2011 he was director of online dispute resolution for eBay and PayPal.
Linda Warren Seely: We Need Standards and Principles for ODR. Linda argues that many people in the public and ODR providers do not understand how ADR works. As a result, ODR platforms may not help the public effectively, efficiently, and ethically resolve their disputes, ensure compliance with the values of the DR profession, and serve the public good. She advocates for a coalition of interested stakeholders to produce standards and principles for ODR platforms. She is the director of the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution.
Nancy A. Welsh: We Need Good Data to Know Whether What We Are Doing – and Espousing – Is Good. Nancy argues that our field needs relevant, routinely-collected, up-to-date data about the full range of dispute resolution processes. She describes the work of the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution’s Advisory Committee on Dispute Resolution Research in developing recommendations about what data should be collected. She is professor of law and director of the Aggie Dispute Resolution Program at Texas A&M School of Law.
I welcome additional contributions to this symposium. If you might be interested in writing a short piece – they generally are 2-4 pages – please take a look at posts that provide the basics about writing for the symposium and give more information about what does and doesn’t fit into the parameters of the symposium.
I plan to post a collection of contributions every few weeks as long as people want to write pieces for the symposium.
Here’s a post with an index of the contributions to this symposium. As I add posts, I will link to them all in this index post so that you can find them all in one place. You can bookmark this post if you like.
