Author: Hanna Przybyła-Basista
Institution: Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach
Year of publication: 2015
Source: Show
Pages: 47-71
DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/kie.2015.03.03
PDF: kie/109/kie10903.pdf

The objective of this paper was to analyze the socio-cultural and personal reasons pivotal to the openness of the conflicting parties to a dialogue in the framework of family mediation. In the quest to answer the question what factors can influence the development of the family mediation in Poland and its acceptance both by the society and the families in conflict, the author presented the results of international and Polish research on the efficacy of the family mediation process and the readiness of the parties to use the mediation in family conflicts. Two theoretical concepts characterizing the socio-cultural origins of resistance to mediation were analyzed in detail, namely that of the social resistance proposed by B. Mayer and that of the moral resistance by R. Benjamin. Moreover, the paper addressed the issue of the promotion of mediation together with the unrealistic expectations as to what can be achieved through mediation, mythologization of mediation and dilemma connected with the neutrality of the mediator. Finally, an integrated systemic approach to family mediation was proposed, which could enhance the chances of acceptance of the mediation by the parties in conflict. In essence it is proposed that the promotion of mediation should be exercised on three levels: (1) general societal level (to promote the winwin solutions in family conflicts), (2) level of specific educational activities for the conflicted parties (e.g. organization of pre-mediation consultative meetings), and (3) level of specific actions targeted at various professional groups (e.g. judges, lawyers, probation officer, employees of the family support centres, etc).

REFERENCES:

  • Balawajder, K. (1998). Komunikacja, konflikty, negocjacje w organizacji. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
  • Beck, C.J.A., Sales, B.D. (2001). Family mediation. Facts, myths, and future prospects. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Benjamin, R.D. (1998). Negotiation and evil: The sources of religious and moral resistance to the settlement of conflicts. Mediation Quarterly, 15 (3), s. 245 – 266.
  • Benjamin, M., Irving, H.H. (1995). Research in family mediation: Review and implications. Mediation Quarterly, 13 (1), s. 53 – 82.
  • Brown, E.M. (1985). Emotional dynamics of couples in mediation. W: J.C. Hansen (red.), Divorce and family mediation (s. 80 – 93). Rockville: Aspen Systems Corporation.
  • Carr, A. (1995). Positive practice: A stepbystep guide to family therapy. Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers.
  • Cobb, S., Rifkin, J. (1991). Practice and paradox: Deconstructing neutrality in mediation. Law and Social Inquiry, 16 (1), s. 35 – 62.
  • Crane, D.R. (2002). Podstawy terapii małżeństw. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
  • Cronen, V., Pearce, B. (1985). Toward an explanation of how the Milan method works. An invitation to a systemic epistemology and the evolution of family systems. W: D. Campbell, R. Draper (red.), Applications of systemic family therapy: The Milan approach (s. 69 – 84). London: Grune–Stratton.
  • Douglas, K., Field, R. (2006). Looking for answers to mediation’s neutrality dilemma in therapeutic jurisprudence. eLaw Journal,13 (2), s. 177 – 201.
  • Ellis, E.M. (2000). Divorce wars. Interventions with families in conflict. Washington: APA.
  • Ellis, D., Stuckless, N. (1996). Mediating and negotiating marital conflicts. London–New Delhi: Sage Publications.
  • Emery, R.E., LaumannBillings, L., Waldron, M., Sbarra, D.A., and Dillon, P. (2001). Child custody mediation and litigation: Custody, contact, and coparenting 12 years after initial dispute resolution. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, s. 323 – 332.
  • Haynes, J.M., Haynes, G.L. (1989). Mediating divorce. Casebook of strategies for successful family negotiations. San Francisco–London: JosseyBass Publishers.
  • Hopper, J. (2001). The symbolic origins of conflict in divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, s. 430 – 445.
  • Irving, H.H., Benjamin, M. (1995). Family mediation. Contemporary issues. London–New Delhi: Sage Publications.
  • Kawula, S. (2007). Dyskurs wokół pedagogiki i pedagogii rodziny. Kultura i Edukacja, 3, s. 6 – 22.
  • Kelly, J.B. (1996). A decade of divorce mediation research: Some answers and questions. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 34, s. 373 – 385.
  • Kelly, J.B., Gigy, L. (1989). Divorce mediation: Characteristics of clients and outcomes. W: K. Kressel, D.G. Pruitt (red.), Mediation research. The process and effectiveness of third party intervention (s. 263 – 283). San Francisco–London: JosseyBass Publishers.
  • Kressel, K., Pruitt, D.G. (1989). Conclusion: A research perspective on the mediation of social conflict. W: K. Kressel, D.G. Pruitt (red.), Mediation research. The process and effectiveness of third party intervention (s. 394 – 436). San Francisco–London: JosseyBass Publishers.
  • Matsumoto, D., Juang, L. (2007). Psychologia międzykulturowa. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
  • Mayer, B.S. (2004). Beyond neutrality. Confronting the crisis in conflict resolution. San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers.
  • Moore, Ch.W. (1996). The mediation process. Practical strategies for resolving conflict. San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers.
  • Myers, D.G. (2003). Psychologia społeczna. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Zysk i Ska.
  • Nordhelle, G. (2010). Mediacja. Sztuka rozwiązywania konfliktów. Gdańsk: Fundacja Inicjatyw Społecznie Odpowiedzialnych.
  • Olczak, P.V. (1991). Resistance to mediation: A socialclinical analysis. W: K.G. Duffy, J.W. Grosch, P.V. Olczak (red.), Community mediation. A handbook for practitioners and researches (s. 153 – 166). New York–London: The Guilford Press.
  • Parkinson, L. (1997). Family Mediation, London: Sweet and Maxwell.
  • Pearson, J., Thoennes, N. (1989). Divorce mediation: Reflections on a decade of research. W: K. Kressel, D.G. Pruitt (red.), Mediation research. The process and effectiveness of third party intervention (s. 9 – 30). Francisco–London: JosseyBass Publishers.
  • PrzybyłaBasista, H. (2006). Mediacje rodzinne w konflikcie rozwodowym. Gotowość i opór małżonków a efektywność procesu mediacji. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
  • PrzybyłaBasista, H. (2008). The influence of spouses’ resistance on their decision to enter into divorce mediation. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 48 (3/ 4), s. 67 – 89.
  • PrzybyłaBasista, H. (2011). Akceptacja mediacji jako formy rozwiązywania konfliktów rodzinnych. Chowanna, nr 2 (37), s. 251 – 278.
  • PrzybyłaBasista, H. (2015). Rozwiązywanie konfliktów w kryzysie rozwodowym a psychologiczne uwarunkowania gotowości do udziału w mediacjach rodzinnych. W: D. BoreckaBiernat (red.), Sytuacje konfliktu społecznego. Przyczyny – Sposoby Rozwiązywania – Skutki, Seria: Prace Psychologiczne LXIII, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis, No. 3601 (s. 199 – 214). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
  • Rubin, J.Z. (1980). Experimental research on thirdparty intervention in conflict: Toward some generalizations, Psychological Bulletin, 87 (2), s. 379 – 391.
  • Saposnek, D., Hamburg, J., Delano, C.D., Michaelsen, H. (1984). How has mandatory mediation fared? Research findings of the first Year’s Followup. Conciliation Courts Review, 22, s. 7 – 19.
  • Silbey, S.S. (1993). Mediation Mythology. Negotiation Journal, October, s. 349 – 353.
  • Tański M., CzaykaChełmińska K. (2014). Wyniki badania opinii mediatorów na temat przyczyn niskiego poziomu kierowania przez sądy spraw rodzinnych do mediacji. Raport Społecznej Rady do spraw Alternatywnych Metod Rozwiązywania Konfliktów i Sporów przy Ministrze Sprawiedliwości, Warszawa. Pobrano z: http://www.mediacja.org/upload/files/mediacja_rodzinna_a_sadypodsumowanie_badania.pdf.
  • Tavris, C., Aronsosn, E. (2008). Błądzą wszyscy (ale nie ja). Dlaczego usprawiedliwiamy głupie poglądy, złe decyzje i szkodliwe działania. Sopot–Warszawa: Smak Słowa.
  • Taylor, A. (1997). Concepts of Neutrality in Family Mediation: Context, Ethics, Influence, and Transformative Process. Mediation Quarterly, No. 14 (3), s. 215 – 236.
  • Taylor, A. (2002). The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution. Mediation Theory and Practice. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
  • UmińskaKrygier, E. (2013). Mediacje rodzinne w Polsce – badanie świadomości i potrzeb społeczeństwa oraz praktyki sądowej. Rodzina i Prawo, nr 26 – 27, s. 59 – 67.
  • Ury, W.L. (2006). Dochodząc do zgody. Taszów: Biblioteka Moderatora.
  • Volpe, M.R., Bahn, Ch. (1987). Resistance to Mediation: Understanding and Handling It. Negotiation Journal, No. 3, s. 245 – 255.
  • Wall, J.A., Jr., Lynn, A. (1993). Mediation. A Current Review. Journal of Conflict Resolution, No 37 (1), s. 160 – 194.
  • Wilmot, W.W., Hocker, J.L. (2011). Konflikty między ludźmi. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Wiadomość do:

 

 

© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart