We’ve all used the terms “facilitative” and “evaluative” to describe mediation as if everyone knows what they mean.

Earlier this year, I surveyed experts about how they understand these terms – and how they think others understand them.

Spoiler alert:  This study found that people are hopelessly confused about these terms, including experts in our field.

It shows that even ADR experts – including academics, mediators, and lawyers – interpret these terms in strikingly inconsistent ways.

So you’re kidding yourself if you’re sure that others understand the terms the same way you do – or that you understand what others really mean when they use these terms.  You may think you’re talking about the trunk of an elephant and they may think you’re describing the elephant’s tail.

Len Riskin published a searing critique of the concepts in 2003, less than ten years after he coined the terms.  But did most textbook authors, trainers, academics, or mediators pay attention?  You know the answer.

I wish I believed that rational arguments would convince folks in our field to use better language.  Perhaps some people will be convinced and change their language.  But I’m not holding my breath that we humans will start using clearer language about mediation styles, BATNA, or a host of our other problematic jargon.

It’s easier to train bots to do so than to persuade humanoids to change our linguistic habits.  AI developers can help practitioners and parties by intentionally making language choices that promote clarity and good decision-making.

Until you start using tools like these, consider whether parties, students, or even experts really understand what you actually mean when you use your favorite jargon – and whether you might communicate more clearly using behavioral terms identified in the article.

Think about it.