Summary of AI and Community Mediation: Views from Six Experts
(May 2025) John B. Stephens, Ph.D.
I am glad to offer highlights from a study of how community mediation (CM) leaders perceive the potential risks and benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) in their field. Six experienced CM professionals from North Carolina and Maryland, each averaging over 20 years in the field, participated. Using two surveys and a focus group in February-March 2024, the study assessed participants’ initial views on AI, their reactions to educational materials, and their deliberations about AI’s appropriate use in CM.
For the complete report, with depth on individual and group thinking about AI, please see: Artificial Intelligence and Community Mediation—Views from Six Experts | UNC School of Government
First Survey: Limited Exposure, Cautious Curiosity
The first survey revealed minimal hands-on experience with AI among most participants. Many expressed concerns about AI’s ability to replicate human emotional understanding and cultural nuance—core aspects of effective community mediation. Raquel Dominguez (Elna B. Spaulding Conflict Resolution Center, Durham, NC) notes, “Mediators have to reflect not only the things being said, but they have to ask about body language and facial expressions… I would be skeptical of AI’s ability to keep up.”
Despite these reservations, there was openness to learning. One participant, Laura Jeffords The Mediation Center, Asheville, NC) had used AI tools for professional tasks and was familiar with conversations about AI bias. Will Dudenhausen (Orange County Dispute Settlement Center, Carrboro, NC) drew a parallel between AI and social media, noting both their promise and their social risks. Still, he admitted that the shift to remote mediation during the pandemic taught him that “the humanity of face-to-face conflict resolution is irreplaceable,” though tech-assisted mediation was not as problematic as he once feared.
Second Survey: Post-Exposure Reflections
After reviewing AI-related videos and a mediate.com article (https://mediate.com/artificial-intelligence-ai-in-mediation-chatgpt-as-mediator-4-0/ ) participants were more receptive to specific, narrow applications of AI. Several recognized AI’s potential in administrative tasks like intake processing, scheduling, and document creation. Frances Henderson (Orange County Dispute Settlement Center, Carrboro, NC) and others noted that AI could serve as a “mentor” for novice mediators, aiding in training and coaching scenarios.
Yet, skepticism remained about AI’s capacity to serve within the core mediation process. Jeffords raised concerns about cultural and philosophical misalignment between dominant AI models and the inclusive, participant-centered ethos of CM. She critiqued the notion of AI offering “objective” input: “I think it’s likely that such ‘objective information’ generated by ChatGPT is based on dominant culture and could perpetuate bias in mediation.”
Focus Group: Practical Use vs. Philosophical Fit
The focus group surfaced a nuanced view of AI’s potential as a supplemental—not central—tool in CM. Participants highlighted three domains where AI might be helpful:
Henderson recalled: “It occurred to me that when we were trying to… write on whiteboards and do post-it notes and calculators… it could have been useful to have some sort of AI assistant that would generate possibilities for how things could be divided up.”
However, serious reservations were voiced about AI’s alignment with CM values such as self-determination, inclusivity, and emotional attentiveness. Participants were especially concerned about AI reinforcing power imbalances or failing to recognize trauma, coercion, or subtle emotional cues. Tracee Ford (Community Mediation Maryland) encapsulated the concern by asking: “What skills do we surrender in the name of efficiency and convenience?”
Some participants worried that the promise of efficiency might overshadow the deeper goals of CM. AI-generated options could lessen disputants’ investment in solutions and reduce the transformative potential of the mediation process. Henderson wondered whether AI involvement would “lessen self-determination” in cases where parties chose from pre-generated outcomes.
Conclusion
While all participants agreed that AI has utility in administrative and training contexts, they rejected the idea that it could or should replace the human mediator. The strength of CM lies in its relational, nuanced, and culturally adaptive nature—qualities not easily replicated by current AI systems. As the field of AI develops, CM leaders will need to continually reassess its relevance, ensuring that technological tools do not erode the participatory and human-centered foundation of their work.
Business Conflict Blog by Peter Phillips The ABA Business Law Section has about 50 substantive committees, many of which include subcommittees addressing dispute resolution in their field. In the past...
By F. Peter PhillipsMost of us shy away from conflict, doing everything in our power to avoid it. However, living a life free of conflict isn’t always possible and there are moments when...
By Sophie BishopI am sure many of you have read Getting To Yes, Getting Past No, and Beyond Reason from the brilliant people who started the Program on Negotiation at Harvard, so...
By Jeff Thompson, William Ury
