This document discusses the importance of analysis and premediation work before formal mediation sessions begin. It argues that understanding the context, parties involved, and their perspectives and interests is essential to a successful mediation outcome. Several models and tools for conflict analysis are described that can help mediators and parties better comprehend the issues before attempting to resolve them. Initiating participation in the mediation process through established university programs is also discussed as important, though challenging. Overall the document emphasizes that thorough preparation and understanding of the conflict is just as important as the mediation sessions themselves.

1. CADR 530
Mediating at the University Level: Analysis and Premediation
Fall 2013/ December 6, 2013
Amanda Gilmore
The intellectual knowledge, ideas and opinions found in this assignment are mine and
mine alone. Any additional knowledge, ideas, thoughts, words, or phrases belonging to
others have been properly attributed using standard and approved citations.
–Amanda Gilmore

2. Gilmore 1
Introduction: The Traditional Focus on Mediation Sessions
When dealing with a conflict, there is much that happens before a successful
mediation can begin. Focusing solely on what happens during the mediation session
avoids vital groundwork and key processes that exist prior to the onset of any viable
solution. Although the importance of pre-mediation and analysis is not a new revelation,
this topic remains less developed than the exciting process of mediation that actually
attempts to solve the dispute when the conflicting parties agree to meet for sessions
(Zartman, 1989).
Despite its lack of attention, a solid understanding of the conflict at hand and the
attempted initiation of mediation processes are arguably the two most important steps to
successfully resolving the parties’ conflict. Even when attempts at reaching an agreement
have failed, there are substantial benefits to at least attempting the early phases of
problem solving (Stein, 1989). In addition, a thorough understanding of the conflict
context, affected parties, and the issue itself contributes greatly to the overall success of
finding the appropriate solution and implementing it effectively (Fisher, Abdi, Ludin,
Smith, & Williams, 2000, p.17).
These concepts apply to various forms and levels of mediation, including the types
that occur at universities. Mirroring the current, overall picture of research available on
mediation, research regarding university mediation revolves around the creation of
Dispute Resolution Centers (DRCs) on campuses and the action that occurs in resolving
disputes at these centers or other comparable implemented systems, including ombuds
programs (Jameson, 1999). How to best understand university conflicts that are ripe for

3. Gilmore 2
mediation and get those parties to seek help through these mediation systems are
underemphasized, often forgotten facets in the overall landscape of university mediation
research.
The intent of the following theoretical discussion is to assert the importance of
these often underestimated processes and determine how they can best be used to
address university mediation situations. The conditions and challenges unique to the
college environment are considered within this analysis and serve as a basis for the
conclusions and suggestions drawn. Such research is not to discredit the importance of
the current dialogue on campus mediation services, but rather to compliment the existing
groundwork by offering a fuller picture.
By preparing properly for mediation sessions, mediators will serve the campus
community with more confidence and ease. The resulting positive experiences will build
the DRCs’ reputations and persuade conflicting campus parties to seek help in this
positive manner, as opposed to resorting to offensive or violent means. In an increasingly
conflicted world, universities should make the improvement or establishment of well-
rounded DRCs a priority.
Analysis as an Essential First Step
Efforts at resolving any conflict on a college campus should first be grounded in a
solid understanding of the contested issue or issues, especially when the parties are using
the self-driven process of mediation. Because of the complexity typical of disputes, it
makes sense that a considerable amount of time is necessary to get a grasp on the

4. Gilmore 3
intricacies of the situation. Anyone who intends to intervene to help students, faculty, or
staff must first familiarize him or herself with the details of not only the conflict itself, but
also the factors that are likely to impact the mediation. This person must know the details
of the disagreement before any sessions take place in order to prepare a productive and
fair environment (Kent, 1993). The clear background information generated by
meticulous analysis helps ensure that the best, most appropriate solution will be available
to those who need it.
In more recent research published in the North Dakota Law Review, authors Jack
G. Marcil and Nicholas D. Thornton (2009) cite this lack of preparation as one of the most
common reasons that mediations fail. “Regardless of the excuse, the failure to prepare
for the mediation will most certainly result in slowing the mediation process to a crawl, if
not a halt. Furthermore, valuable time is wasted” (Marcil & Thornton, 2009).
Understanding the conflict and the parties involved prior to mediation sessions creates a
more productive environment for everyone involved. Without this piece, the entire
process is likely to be doomed or painfully slowed. For busy, stressed students and
overburdened faculty and staff, time is a rare and valuable resource. If they do not see
the mediation sessions as useful or productive, they are likely to abandon the process
entirely.
In Jameson’s (1999) article on implementing DRCs at universities, she stresses the
usefulness of adequate preparation and research, referring specifically to the importance
of understanding campus groups and what is important to each group. However, this
general understanding of what it means to be part of these groups can only serve as an

5. Gilmore 4
early glimpse into the context of how that party is likely to view the conflict. There are a
plethora of other factors that color a person’s perception of any given situation. Those
intervening as a third party for campus mediation, or any dispute for that matter, have an
obligation to research the issue through the lenses of all involved (Kent, 1993). Giving
equal consideration not only helps bring clarity to the overall picture of the dispute, but
also promotes an unbiased, fair atmosphere. Without this welcoming and empathetic
atmosphere, many students would balk at the idea of sitting through a formal mediation
session.
During this investigative process by the third party mediators, there are specific
criteria that will collectively make a full, accurate picture of the conflict in most cases.
According to Kent (1993), the highest priority is to understand the situation. Kent (1993)
states, “Describing the conflict generally should be the first step in attempts at resolving
the conflict. After all, one would not expect a doctor to diagnose and treat an illness until
a specific set of symptoms was presented” (p. 396). This analogy helps illustrate the
fundamental importance of context, and what can go drastically wrong without it. Within
university mediation, sufficient attention to situation and context would first include a list
of inarguable facts concerning the situation. What is it about, when did it happen or
begin, and who is involved? There are likely to be plenty of generalities all parties can
agree upon (Kent, 1993). The mediators are expected to flush out these details and create
a clear picture of the situation. This vocalized mutual understanding will serve as a basis
for the rest of the session, and hopefully clear up any miscommunication. For example, if
it is a mediation between a professor and student about an assignment the student was

6. Gilmore 5
offended by, they will probably have similar responses that give a blanket understanding
of the context. Simple facts such as the name of the class, the prompt or instructions
provided, the weight of the grade, or the timeline of the assignment are largely fact-
based and inarguable due to the syllabus provided by the professor. Additionally, simply
agreeing about such tautological statements can inspire further agreement in more
complex areas.
After a baseline context is understood, the key players must be objectively
analyzed (Kent, 1993). A preliminary report about who will hopefully be coming to the
mediation table is extremely helpful. Are the participants low-income, first-generation
college students, or tenured and well-respected faculty members? If these two,
drastically different parties are in conflict, how might a power imbalance affect
mediations? Any other racial, gender, religious, sexual, age, or cultural differences should
be considered. These factors may seem of secondary importance to mediators, but will
inevitably shape how participants view, understand, and react to their conflict. Therefore,
mediators who are able to see the dispute through the participants’ cultured lenses
during premediation analysis are better prepared to facilitate a positive mediation
experience.
The intervening professionals should prepare for how elements of the
participants’ identities may affect their points of view (Kent, 1993). This insight will help
mediators balance power and reflect an honest concern for the people involved. Given
the resources available on most campuses, it makes sense for mediators to request help
from psychologists or diversity experts if the departments are available. Insight from

7. Gilmore 6
these professionals may contribute to a more accurate picture about the personalities
and backgrounds of the conflicting parties, once again increasing the likelihood of an
amiable outcome for the participants, however they define it. As an example, consider
the help a diversity department could provide when mediating a case involving an Asian
international student. Because their conflict lens will be entirely foreign, the diversity
expert could work with the mediators in advance to learn the appropriate strategies to
foster communication.
Once it becomes clear who each person is and how they identify on campus, the
mediators can work towards gaining the participants’ unbridled trust. It might sound like
a silly secondary concern, but mediator trust is a large determinant of mediation
outcome. Without fully trusting the mediator or mediators, the participants will not fully
commit to the process or give it their best effort. According to Jean Poitras of HEC
Montréal, “Experienced mediators agree that parties’ trust in them is a key precondition
of their success… when parties trust the mediator, they are able to effectively bridge the
gap between them to facilitate the initiation of discussion. Trust also determines whether
a party will feel comfortable openly stating his or her needs within a mediation” (Poitras,
2009, p. 307). Because the burden of finding creative solutions lies on participants,
mediators’ success or failure is contingent on their clients’ mindsets. Mediators need to
employ trust-building techniques and recognize trust as the priority that it is in facilitating
productive sessions.
For university mediations, this trust might be initially stronger or weaker
depending on the campus member’s previous experiences at the institution. Mediators

8. Gilmore 7
will either have a positive relationship to build from, or will have to establish a
relationship of trust separate from the person’s prior negative affiliation with the
university. For example, a student who has experienced prejudicial, racist treatment from
various campus administrations in the past is less likely to automatically trust that the
mediator is impartial and non-judgmental. On the contrary, he will probably expect
discrimination. Likewise, a graduate student who has regularly seen and worked with
unqualified professionals in other campus departments may assume that the meditator
will also be unqualified to handle her dispute. Although these past experiences cannot be
erased, the mediator can work to prove that he or she, unlike their past acquaintances, is
worthy of their trust.
How does this relate to premediation analysis? Although many may assume that
trust building is accomplished in the heat of intense mediation sessions or after a
successful session, trust can be built before the sessions even begin. Initial trust can be
powerfully forged through the clear effort made by the mediator who comes to the first
session fully prepared and knowledgeable about the dispute in question. Poitras points
this out in the article What Makes Parties Trust Mediators, stating, “The mediator can
reassure the parties of her professionalismby carefully reviewing the case prior to
mediation and demonstrating her familiarity with it” (Poitras, 2009). If the mediator
clearly “did his homework” and invested time in analyzing the conflict and knowing the
parties well, he has already made a strong impression on the participants’ perception of
his motives and abilities. Even if a student has had negative experiences with other
university staff members in the past, this attention to premediation has the power to

9. Gilmore 8
reverse that perception and begin anew in a positive relationship that will foster a
smoother mediation process.
After building this relationship of trust, mediators can more easily discover what
the parties’ individual interests are. Through open conversation, the parties should
explain their wants and needs from their own perspectives. Mediators, as usual, should
dig deep enough and ask for clarity until they have gathered enough information to
confidently determine the honest feelings, values, and goals of each person involved
(Kent, 1993). After those in conflict feel heard and their perspectives are acknowledged,
the parties are more likely to trust the mediators’ abilities. This trust will help everyone
involved commit to the process and reciprocate the mediators’ genuine effort.
Models Useful for Analysis
Even after these first two steps, there is still more analysis to be done. To make
sense of the information mediators obtain from the first two steps, conflict analysis tools
should be employed. Used as flexible guidelines, tools help people understand conflict
properly through a new lens and multiple perspectives (Fisher et al., 2000). Its design
encourages a comprehensive, objective approach to resolution. In the “Tools for Conflict
Analysis” chapter of Working With Conflict, the authors explain a variety of ways to
visualize conflict.
Of these, conflict mapping stands out as particularly applicable to campus
mediations. The authors describe this tool as clarifying relationships between parties,
outside groups, and their issues (Fisher et al., 2000). This can be useful to help an outsider

10. Gilmore 9
understand the complexities of that campus’s structure and how certain departments and
people relate and define their individual roles. As an added benefit of the tool, it is
extremely flexible when compared to other conflict analysis tools. The mediator or the
participants can customize the map to most accurately depict the situation on campus,
designing boxes and lines of different sizes, shapes, directions, and colors (Fisher et al.,
2000). These pictorial characteristics create a workable, sensible image through
symbolization for everyone to reference before, during, and after mediation tactics are
applied.
The same authors also suggest using a simple tool known as the ABC triangle to
help understand conflict (Fisher et al., 2000). The triangle portrays how attitudes,
behaviors, and context cyclically affect each other. As a result, a change in any of these
three areas can either break a conflict cycle or perpetuate it (Fisher et al., 2000). This is a
relevant tool for mediating university conflict, which can often unintentionally become
systemized in campus structure, procedure, and culture. A break from the norm or a
change in policy is difficult for university officials to successfully establish campus-wide.
Even so, change agents are more likely to succeed in that effort if a tool such as this one
explains the root of reoccurring conflicts that are sent to mediation. Change could be a
long process, especially for larger institutions, but a clear explanation of the problem is a
good place to start.
Lastly, although any of the other models Working with Conflict describes could be
usefully applied to university mediation, “The Onion” nicely compliments the two other
tools recommended above. Echoing earlier sentiments about understanding the parties’

11. Gilmore 10
perspectives, this tool’s purpose is to clearly display needs, interests, and positions (Fisher
et al., 2000). Because disputing parties on campus are often parts of larger peer groups,
departments, or organizations on campus, their true needs can often be shrouded in
positional statements that reflect the campus masses instead of their unique, specific
dispute. According to the authors, this model will help parties get past those broad claims
to search for areas of compromise (Fisher et al., 2000). This tool would be useful to break
down the differences between the participants and find common ground on which to
mediate through further discussion.
It should also be emphasized that these tools are not exclusively for the third
party mediators. Those directly entrenched in the conflict may find these tools helpful for
their own understanding (Fisher et al., 2000). Brainstorming in a fresh, clear context can
help disputing parties better comprehend their own issues. This advantage makes perfect
sense when applied to university mediation. Colleges and universities are places that
primarily value learning and growth. Empowerment to address personal and professional
issues is a life lesson that aligns well with the educational mission of academic
institutions.
Furthermore, because mediation is built upon the concept of allowing participants
to create their own mutually beneficial solutions, encouraging their direct usage of these
clarifying conflict tools makes even more sense. Mediators should provide the
participants the proper physical resources and writing utensils, such as markers and a dry
erase board. Making this self-directed progress visually in a “classroom” environment
would feel natural to mediators, students, faculty, and staff alike. Again, sufficient

12. Gilmore 11
preparation is crucial here. Having to delay or reschedule a mediation session until the
proper materials are obtained would stifle the participants’ creativity and waste
everyone’s valuable time.
Initiating Participation
For all of this analysis to reach the full potential of its value, the parties must
participate in a formalized mediation process through an objective resource on campus.
The ideal medium for that process, whether it is counseling, judicial, or residence life
professionals, is not a matter of concern in this particular discussion. These issues within
campus mediation have already been addressed by previous research (Jameson, 1999).
Regardless of where the conflict is placed within the university’s designated system, that
system is of little use if parties in conflict will not use it.
Sadly, this is a struggle for campus mediation programs. With a low caseload,
many DRCs are forced to close (Makdad, 2002). It is the biggest challenge that mediation
faces in the realm of higher education. Without positive awareness or word-of-mouth
references, DRCs can be intimidating and mysterious, instead of welcoming and practical.
Education and promotion of the new service is key to the successful adoption of a new
campus DRC (Jameson, 1999). It is critically important to direct campus members in
dispute to a healthy, safe environment where professionals can engage them in
productive mediation conversations.
According to Janice Gross Stein (1989), prenegotiation is characterized by
information gathering, exploration, and the generation of negotiation boundaries,

13. Gilmore 12
participants, and agendas. Because of these functions, this early phase is a vital precursor
to the negotiation process (Zartman, 1989). Although these scholars are specifically
referring to prenegotiation, the same principles apply to the necessity of premediation.
Without these integral parts of the process, campus members have little chance of
communicating better and creatively solving their problems. Even the best campus
mediation centers have failed if they ignore the power that premediation has on the
quality of future solutions.
Even when those who explore the idea of assisted dispute resolution processes
do not agree to meet for mediation sessions, it is a learning process for everyone involved
(Stein, 1989). Just as with prenegotiation, when disputing parties consider coming to the
mediation table, they learn about each other and their own conflict styles. It also helps
indicate the current stage or level of the problem (Stein, 1989). This telling indication
about the severity of the issue is crucial for campus professionals dealing with large-scale
conflicts.
Because campuses are typically densely populated, serving as the home, school,
and workplace of thousands of inter-connected, diverse people, it is important to ensure
the stability of that atmosphere for the well-being of everyone (Jameson 1999).
Premediation as a check-in can help safeguard not only those directly involved, but also
safeguard the campus population at large from being adversely affected by widespread
conflict. As an example, the information garnered from premediation contact that
involves threats of large-scale strikes or violence might be particularly useful to prevent
significant damages.

14. Gilmore 13
In spite of the significance of mediation and the positive changes it could lead to,
the people who populate campuses may be particularly difficult to reach. Students and
staff alike are often particularly conflict averse people. Lewicki and Hiam (2006) claimthat
based on their assessments, 10 to 30 percent of people in the workplace deal with
conflict mainly by accommodating. More notably, they find that these numbers are much
higher in “helping industries like health care and social work” (Lewicki & Hiam, 2006, p.
186).
It is not a stretch to assert that student affairs and higher education professionals
are part of a helping industry. The personalities of this industry often accommodate as an
immediate reaction to problems. Instead of dealing with issues in a constructive, open,
and healthy way, Lewicki and Hiamfind that many accommodating people bottle up their
frustrations. Thoughtful and intentional accommodation can be useful in some cases, but
many people who accommodate do so in a visceral, reactive way instead of a strategic
way (Lewicki & Hiam, 2006). This apparent predisposition to immediate accommodation
is likely to prevent many higher education and campus professionals from engaging in
forms of mediation.
Similarly, stressed and busy college students may be at a high risk for avoiding
conflict, and therefore mediation sessions, altogether. While Lewicki and Hiam (2006)
primarily defend avoidance as an underrated strategy, students are probably not using
avoidance for the right reasons. Even if the outcome and relationship is fairly important,
students may procrastinate about social and professional differences to avoid additional
stress.

15. Gilmore 14
The popularity of social media and Internet interactions among students may also
cause students to be increasingly uncomfortable with face-to-face confrontation.
Scheduled mediation sessions are less convenient and more intimidating than chat room
sessions and passive-aggressive group texts. Why should students attend mediation
sessions when they can vent their emotions on Twitter with less immediate
consequences? In order for students to see the value of the mediation process, they may
need extra education about the benefits of the process and the importance of their
relationships.
Concluding Thoughts for Progress
All of this analysis points to a problem within the realm of university conflict and
campus mediation centers. If the dialogue remains disproportionately focused on the
traditional aspects of mediation at these centers, many disputing people within campus
populations will either settle for hasty, unstable solutions or not explore mediation
processes at all. This gap in the early stages of the mediation process requires more
attention in the field.
In the most idealistic sense, universities create and shape the leaders of the future
world. Because of this responsibility to impressionable youth, campus staff and
administration should model constructive reactions to conflict. As part of that effort,
universities must bring more attention to premeditation conflict analysis techniques and
other premediation theories and practices. Without these stages being a priority in the

16. Gilmore 15
research and professional realm, their importance will never trickle down to the everyday
practice of campus mediation.
Suggestions for Future Research
In particular, the field would benefit from a study that focuses on finding a
relationship between quality mediation outcomes and the use of analysis and
premediation. Cases with extensive preparation should be juxtaposed with hastily
prepared cases to clearly reveal the differences. These studies should also monitor the
longevity of the agreements to look for further, more long-term correlations. Although
the relationship between preparation and results is clear to many mediation
professionals, quantitative research would give credible, inarguable weight to this
hypothesis.
Additionally, during the course of this research, it was discovered that attention to
post-mediation is also lacking. Just as analysis and premeditation are underplayed in the
mediation field, so are mediators’ follow-up and other post-mediation processes. When
participants’ leave the final mediation session with an agreement, the process still lives
on. Although it is easy enough for a confident mediator to detach from the conflict and
hope for the best, the participants do not have that luxury— they have to live with the
agreement. More researchers should take interest in the post-mediation ramifications by
conducting studies that monitor the tenacity of the agreement, revisit the processes that
have deteriorated over time, and gather feedback from the agreements that have been
largely upheld. Insight from these areas not only has the potential to increase participant

17. Gilmore 16
satisfaction on an individual level, but to fundamentally change what is considered the
“end” of the traditional mediation process.

18. Gilmore 17
References
Fisher, S., Abdi, D. I., Ludin, J., Smith, R., & Williams, S. (2000). Working with conflict: Skills
and strategies for action. London: Zed Book Ltd.
Jameson, J. K. (March 08, 1999). Diffusion of a campus innovation: Integration of a new
student dispute resolution center into the University culture. Conflict Resolution
Quarterly, 16(2), 129-146.
Kent, G. (1993). Analyzing conflict and violence. Peace & Change, 18(4), 373-398.
Lewicki, R. J., & Hiam, A. (2006). Mastering business negotiation: A working guide to
making deals and resolving conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, a John Wiley &
Sons Imprint.
Makdad, N. (February, 2002). 10 challenges facing campus mediation programs. Conflict
Management in Higher Education Report, 2(2), 1-5.
Marcil, J., & Thornton, N. (April 07, 2009). Avoiding pitfalls: Common reasons for
mediation failure and solutions for success. North Dakota Law Review, 84, 861
875.
Poitras, J. (July, 2009). What makes parties trust mediators? Negotiation Journal, (25)3,
307-325.
Stein, J. G. (April 01, 1989). Getting to the table: The triggers, stages, functions, and
consequences of prenegotiation. International Journal, 44(2), 475-504.
Zartman, I. W. (April 01, 1989). Prenegotiation: Phases and functions. International
Journal, 44(2), 237-253.