Recently I had a conversation with someone in regards to Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) and how the person thought it had less human interaction compared to traditional ADR methods. I responded saying I actually think instead of viewing as ‘less’ or ‘more’, it is another choice for the parties. ODR is a new form of human interaction.
It reminds me of a teaching of impermanence- nothing stays the same regardless of how much you like or dislike it. ODR has arrived because people find it useful with the grwoing use of the internet and computers. It does not mean it is for everyone and it does not have to be. It is just like hybrids versions of ADR- new ones keep popping up as people’s preferences change and evolve.
The variety of ADR services, now including ODR/iDR I think is reflective of the world we currently live in. Yes, we are ‘global citizens’ more now than ever but there is still that uniqueness that is present and should be acknowledged. Mediation via email or txt is str8 2 da pt 4 sum ppl & that is a good thing.
No idea what that means? No idea what the LOL image means? Embrace technology- Learn text talk here.
For others, letting some machine automate some number that is supposed to make both sides happy works for them. For the stubborn and ancient dinosaurs, there is face to face mediation still. Of course the last comment is sarcastic but my point is look how ADR has evolved. It is an example of the impermanence I mentioned earlier. As times change, it is only natural that the way we as conflict resolvers look at conflict and then appropriately adjust to the parties needs. Let’s not forget, it is their process.
Self determination (recently discussed here) is a major reason people turn to ADR. People like having a say in how issues that directly affect them will be decided. Conflict could be broken down into three levels- substantive, psychological and procedural. It is in the third, procedural, where the new world of ODR has given the parties yet another choice on how to interact with the other party.
Pheasant v Pheasant [1972] 1 All ER 587 The facts of this case may seem ridiculous! The petitioner husband alleged that the wife had not given him the spontaneous demonstrative...
By Mary AderibigbeThis post is based on his recent publication in International Journal of Law in Context. Also published here: https://adrresearch.net/2020/06/22/what-do-lay-people-know-about-justice/ In June 2017 I travelled from Scotland to attend a symposium...
By Charlie IrvineAlbie Davis shares a training experience she had where when the parties were silent at a climactic point, the mediators in training were fearful, whereas the parties felt differently at...
By Albie Davis