The document discusses the importance of voluntariness in mediation. It defines mediation as communication between two or more parties with the assistance of a neutral third party mediator. Voluntariness means full and willing participation from both parties. While a resolution is not guaranteed, voluntariness ensures effective communication. It creates authenticity and makes both parties responsible for the outcome. Mediators may need to address the needs and concerns of reluctant parties by focusing on their sense of belonging, understanding, respect, safety and trust to achieve voluntariness.

1. Reflection:
The Communication Studies Practice courses are designed around the use of
communication skills and the application of theoretical frameworks and research methods in
specific contexts. These courses are designed having two main outcome goals in mind for
Communication Scholars – Communication Competence and Social Responsibility.
Communication Competence is, as the name suggests, the ability to communicate competently
and in a theoretically informed manner in a variety of contexts. SocialResponsibilityis alsorather
straightforward and is the idea that we demonstrate ethical awareness and community
engagement.
I chose this paper as a demonstration of the above ideals for a number of reasons. First
of all, this paper actively discusses both facets that Practice courses are concerned with – theory
(Communication Competence) and ethics (Social Responsibility). Moreover, I decided to choose
this paper due to the deep impact that Mediation has had in my life. Not only did this course
help the concepts of Practice to make sense to me as a scholar, but it acted as the catalyst that
setme on acourse towards pursuing a career in Dispute Resolution and Employee Relations. This
course opened up to me an entirely new way of thinking about the relationships we forge
between each other and equipped me with the tools to fix problems when they arise.

2. Mediation is the communication between two or more parties with the assistance of a
third party neutral mediator. In this process, the mediator acts not only as a conduit for messages
between the parties, but also sort of like a referee when conversations get out of hand (and they
most definitely can). While there are a few different schools of thought when it comes to
mediation, many believe that a facilitative approach is the best approach to a mediation. In this
approach, mediators are less concerned about getting a resolution out of the mediation
(although, a resolution is always a nice plus!), but are rather more concerned about mediating
for the sake of having effective communication. Much of this belief comes from the fact that
people, when they are placed in stressfulsituations with a lot of emotional baggage,havetrouble
both communicating with and listening to other parties involved – the use of a mediator allows
these messages to pass from one party to the next in the hope that the both parties will be more
receptive to what the other is saying (believe me – this definitely works!). Ultimately, mediation
believes that people, when empowered with proper communication skills, are able to come
together to work on a meaningful and satisfactory solution – the mediator makes it all possible.
One of the most basic requirements for a solid foundation in a mediation is the idea of
"Voluntariness." Voluntariness is more than simply showing up to a mediation and then
proceeding to just "go through the motions" -- it requires full, willing participation with 100%
effort from both parties. Now, it's important to note that there may not even be a resolution;
the important part is that both parties are willing to give it their all for the sake of effective
dialogue.
But so what? Why should this seemingly small detail matter? "Surely a resolution can be
achieved even if someone is just going through the motions of their participation," you might tell

3. yourself. To be fair, that’s not entirely wrong, either -- it is seemingly plausible that a resolution
could very well be attained even if one party isn't "in it" 100%. The problem arises, however, in
the fact that this sort of resolution isn't a "good" one because the other person wasn't truly in a
state of "voluntariness." John Hyman (2013) does a fairly commendable job at pointing out the
difference in this section:
...it is doubtful whether or not the 'narrow' sense of 'voluntary', the sense in which acts
are not voluntary if they are done reluctantly, as the lesser of two evils … is really a sense
of 'voluntary' at all. Being reluctant is contrasted with being willing, and 'voluntary' does
not mean the same as 'willing'. … An act is done willingly if it is done with a certain
attitude or in a certain frame of mind, if the person welcomes doing it or at least does it
without reluctance... (p. 693)
Reluctance does not yield true voluntariness. And, again, so what? Why does it matter? Well,
let’s look at a hypothetical situation that most everyone has found themselves in at one point or
another: Let’s say that you have a relative (usually a sibling) around the same age as you, which
you liked to tease a lot as a child (all in good fun, of course). At one point, you were tattled on
to your parents, and then they immediately forced you to apologise. Of course, you apologised,
but instead of being sincere, it was delivered dripping with sarcasminsincerity. You went through
the motions, but didn’t mean any of it. That brings me to my next point: Authenticity.
Voluntariness is so important because it makes the mediation “authentic.” The article
"The Concept of Voluntary Consent" tells us that "to be authentic, actions must faithfully
represent the values, attitudes, characteristic motivations, and life plans that the individual

4. personally accepts … Authenticity is a necessary condition of voluntary choice" (Nelson et al.,
2011, p. 11). It's not only about integrity, however; there's a practical application, too, as
"perceived autonomy with regard to independence ('voluntariness') and freedom ('freedom of
choice') may heighten consciousness, trust, and feelings of responsibility" (Baarsen, 2013, p.
140). Voluntariness on both sides of the party not only ensures that both parties get something
they want out of mediation, but also leaves both parties with the feeling that they are both
responsible for the outcome.
Of course, the difficulty is always the matter of "How do we get both parties to be
voluntary?" Unfortunately, there's not a single "fix-all" technique to rope everyone in all the
time, and it'llsometime take a variety of techniques to bring people to the point of voluntariness.
To hammer home this point, the "Carrot and the Stick" metaphor helps to frame the situation
nicely. On the one hand, there's the "carrot" which represents all the beneficial incentives that
a mediation can offer (i.e. whatever the party seeks to achieve out of mediation), while on the
other hand, there's the idea of the "stick" which represents all the negative impacts and negative
consequences that could result in not following through with mediation (e.g.legalfees,etc. etc.).
Sometimes, simply present both sides for the parties to weigh the consequences is enough to get
them to participate in the procedure.
Unfortunately, life is a fickle mistress and is rarely that easy, so you may have to resort to
playing the part of the "therapist" in order to get parties to participate. In this method, your
main goal is to try and recognise and address the "needs" of the party -- the idea is that the
reason that the party is not participating in the process is that one (or more) of their "needs" are
not being met, and once you address the need, then participation will naturally follow. To

5. elaborate more on the "Needs," it is based loosely on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs pyramid,
which places people's needs in order of essentiality. In Mediation, there's an acronym used
known as "B.U.R.S.T" which stands for "Belonging Understanding Respect Safety Trust." While
B.U.R.S.T isn't organised in a pyramid like Maslow's needs, it's just as important to look for and
address any of these underlying issues. Once these issues are addressed, the parties should both
be on track to participate.
In closing, voluntariness is the very foundation upon which mediation hinges. While
voluntariness may not ultimately lead to a resolution, it is absolutely necessary in order for
effective communication. In addition, a proper understanding of voluntariness from both parties
is necessary in order to achieve an authentic mediation. In the worst case scenario, a mediator
might have to take some extra effort to pull both parties on board, but this should be able to be
addressed as long as a mediator pays careful attention to both parties needs.

6. Baarsen, B. (2013). Person autonomy and voluntariness as important factors in motivation,
decision making, and astronaut safety: First results from the Mars500 LODGEAD study. Acta
Astronautica, 87139-146. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.02.006
Hyman, J. (2013). Voluntariness and Choice. Philosophical Quarterly, 63(253), 683-708.
doi:10.1111/1467-9213.12074
Nelson, R. M., Beauchamp, T., Miller, V. A., Reynolds, W., Ittenbach, R. F., & Luce, M. (2011). The
Concept of Voluntary Consent. American Journal Of Bioethics, 11(8), 6-16.
doi:10.1080/15265161.2011.583318