background characteristics and incentives of mediators in georgia: exploring differences in public,...

R E S E A R C H

Background Characteristics and Incentives of Mediators in Georgia: Exploring Differences in Public, Private, and Government Agency Mediators

Dawn E. Goettlel; Margaret S. Herman, Jerry Gale

In this initial study from the Mediator Skills Project (MSP), background characteristics and incentives of mediators who practice in public, private, and government agency settings in Georgia are examined. First, mediators in the state are described to provide a projle of the range of practicing mediators in a state population. Second, mediators are compared across practice settings. D8erences werefound among mediators across the three settings on the following variables: sex, age, family income, education, occupation, and career- and income-related incentives.

During the late 1970s and 1980s, mediation expanded from labor management relations into local community level programs in the United States (Merry and Milner, 1996). Meierding (1993) also noted an increase since 1983 in the use of voluntary and confidential private mediation by divorcing couples. Furthermore, it has become common for courts to require that divorcing couples seek services from mediators in court-related programs for resolving disputes (Pearson, 1993). The result is now a greater variety of settings in which mediators practice. Growth in the practice of mediation (Herman, 1989-90; Merry and Milner, 1996) increases the need for better understanding of who

Note: This research was supported by grants from the William and Flora Hewlett Founda- tion, no. 97-1502, and the State Justice Institute, no. SJI-96-036-D-233. The Consortium on Negotiation and Conflict Resolution was an early supporter of the project. Points of view expressed are those of the researchers and do not necessarily represent official positions or policies of the Hewlett Foundation or the State Justice Institute. This project is a joint endeavor of the Carl Vinson Institute of Government and the Department of Child and Fam- ily Development at the University of Georgia.

MEDIATION QUARTERLY, vol. 16, no 3 , Spring 1999 0 Jossey-Bass Publishers 22 1

222 Goettlel; Herman, Gale

mediates and their motives for continuing to practice, because different types of people may be drawn to particular settings.

General descriptions of mediators practicing in public, private, and government agency settings exist. Government agency mediators have been described as mediators with collective bargaining experience from previous work predominantly in industry, business, union, or government occupations (Indik, Goldstein, Chernick, and Berkowitz, 1966). However, mediators in private practice have been identified as attorneys (Meierding, 1993). Schwerin (1995) characterized public mediators serving as volunteers in the Honolulu community program as managerial and professional or mental health workers.

If mediators working in different settings have varying educations and occupations, they may have different incentives for mediating and may use different styles of conflict resolution.

Previous mediation research typically examined conflict resolution strategies with fairly homogenous samples of mediators (for example, Camevale and Pegnetter, 1985; McLaughlin, Carnevale, and Lim, 1991; Wall and Rude, 1985). The extent to which conflict resolution findings generalize to other samples of mediators is unclear. Thus, a comparison of mediators’ backgrounds and incentives collected in the same data set may help clarify how much con- sideration should be given to different practice settings in mediation research studies.

However, descriptive information from mediators in different work settings has not been compared in the same study. Historically, Indik, Goldstein, Chernick, and Berkowitz (1966) studied mediators in different states, but the research occurred when labor-management mediation dominated the field. Current descriptions of mediators may be found in literature about particular programs (for example, Beer, 1986; Schwerin, 1995). Many states have offices of dispute resolution, and a few have begun to collect demographic information on their mediators (for example, Nebraska, Florida). However, these data usually only include mediators practicing in community or court-connected programs and exclude private mediators or individuals who mediate for other government agencies. In short, most existing descriptions of mediators are lim- ited to unique samples and may not provide an adequate estimate of the population of mediators.

The Mediator Skills Project (MSP) at the University of Georgia has sur- veyed the population of mediators in Georgia, including mediators working in different settings. The purposes of this initial article from the MSP are twofold: to describe a population of mediators representative of different practice settings in terms of demographic background and incentive variables, and to compare mediators representative of different practice settings on demographic background and incentive variables. Thus a cross-section of mediators serving an entire state is examined to identify the variability among a population of mediators as well as to compare mediators in public, private, and government agency practice settings. Georgia mediators will be described and compared

Dgerences in Public, Private, and Government Agency Mediators 223

on the following categories of variables: Personal demographic characteristics (sex, race and ethnicity, and income), belief systems (religious and spiritual beliefs, importance of beliefs, and political stands), educational and occupational backgrounds, and incentives for mediating.

Method

In September 1996, 1,025 surveys were sent to mediators practicing in Georgia. The survey was twenty-five pages long and contained questions addressing personal demographic information, mediation practice patterns, training, and personality. Names and addresses of mediators were obtained from the complete list of mediators registered with the Georgia Office of Dis- pute Resolution (GODR) as of September 1996, a list of mediators provided by the State Merit System, and lists from various private firms including Resolu- tion Resources and U.S. Mediation and Arbitration Services. It is estimated that the combined list probably encompasses 90 percent to 95 percent of the mediators providing services to Georgia courts, government agencies, and people in the private sector. A total of 365 surveys were returned, a 36 percent response rate. To substantiate our findings, data on similar variables were compared to data provided by the GODR. The GODR comparison is presented within our results and provides evidence for the representativeness of the sample.

Of the 365 surveys returned, 339 of the mediators were considered active (that is, they had mediated in the past five years) and were thus suitable for inclusion in this analysis. Our sample represents mediators at different points in professional development as mediators. On average, active mediators in the state of Georgia have been mediators for almost five years (fifty-nine months). About one-third have mediated two years or less, another third have mediated from two to four years, and the final third have mediated four years or more. Three hundred of the active mediators identified their primary practice setting as public, private, or government agency

Findings

In the following four sections, descriptive and comparison data are provided for the four categories of variables: personal demographic characteristics, belief systems, educational and occupational backgrounds, and incentives for mediating.2

Personal Demographic Characteristics. Mediators responding to our survey primarily represent a white, middle-class to upper-middle-class sample of professionals in their forties (see Table 1). Almost equal numbers of men and women participated in the survey. Ninety-one percent of the mediators were European American (white, not of Hispanic origin), and 6 percent were African American. The age of most mediators was from forty-one to fifty years (39 percent) followed by fifty-one to sixty years (22 percent). This information

224 Goettlel; Herman, Gale

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Mean Comparisons of Mediator Personal Demographic Characteristics

Total Public Private Agency Government

Variable (N = 339) (n = 173) (n = 88) (n = 39) x2

Sex Male Female

Age 26-40 41-50 5 1-60 61f

Race or Ethnicity Black, not of

White, not of

Hispanic Asian Native American Mixed ethnicity

Less than $9,000

$16,001-$25,000

Hispanic origin

Hispanic origin

Family Income

$9,001-$16,000

$25,00 1-$35,000 $35,001-$50,000 $50,001-$75,000 More than $75,000

50.5% 49.5

20.3 38.6 22.4 18.6

6.1

90.5 1.0 .3

1.0 1.0

.3 2.1 3.1 6.9

15.8 20.6 51.2

44.5% 55.5

23.4 32.9 21.6 22.2

7.6

89.5 .6 .6

1.2 .6

.6 3.0 4.8 4.8

17.4 25.1 44.3

66.7% 33.3

16.3 40.7 27.9 15.1

1.2

94.2 1.2

1.2 2.3

-

- - 1.2 5.8 8.1

13.2 68.6

40.5% 59.5

16.2 59.5 13.5 10.8

10.8

86.5 2.7 - - -

- - -

18.4 26.3 20.6 42.1

(2,295) = 13.05***

(6,284) = 12.82*

ns

(12,289) = 32.21***

Note: *p < .05, ***p < ,001, ns = not significant

is fairly consistent with data from 823 mediators registered with the GODR.3 In its sample of mediators, 47 percent are female and 53 percent are male. Eighty percent of the GODR mediators are European American and 10 percent are African American. A majority of the GODR mediators range in age from forty-one to fifty (35 percent) followed by mediators ranging in age from fifty- one to sixty (28 percent).

The gross annual household income for most of the respondents was more than $75,000 (51 percent) whereas the smallest percent earned $35,000 or less (12 percent). In the middle ranges, respondents were most likely to earn between $50,001 and $75,000 (21 percent) in comparison to the $35,001 to $50,000 range (16 percent). The income level probably reflects more than one income since 75 percent of the respondents were either married or remarried.

Mediators practicing in different settings (public, private, o r government agency) were compared on personal demographic characteristics.+ The chi- square values for sex, age, and family income were significant as illustrated in

Differences in Public, Private, and Government Agency Mediators 225

Table 1. For sex, the greatest difference is in private practice where 67 percent of the mediators are men and 33 percent are women. The smallest difference is in public practice where 45 percent are men and 55 percent are women.

Mediators in public, private, or government agency settings were each most likely to be between forty-one and fifty years of age. However, 60 percent of mediators in a government agency fell into this category, whereas only 41 percent of mediators in a private setting and 33 percent of mediators in a public setting were in that age range. Mediators in a private setting were more likely to be in the fifty-one-to-sixty age bracket (28 percent) than those in a public (22 percent) or government agency (14 percent) setting. Finally, mediators in a public setting were more likely to be aged twenty-six to forty (23 percent) than those in a private (16 percent) or government agency (16 percent) setting.

Mediators in public, private, or government agency practice also differed on income. While many mediators in each setting had a gross family income of $75,000 or more, 69 percent of private mediators fell into this category, whereas only 44 percent of public mediators and 42 percent of government agency mediators grossed $75,000 or more household income. Thus mediators practicing in public and government agency settings are more likely to be represented at lower income levels than private mediators.

Educational and Occupational Backgrounds. Our sample of mediators represents a fairly highly educated group of individuals who tend to hold advanced degrees (see Table 2). Respondents were asked to indicate the highest degree that they have obtained. Fifty percent of the mediators have obtained a law degree. About 27 percent of the mediators have a graduate degree other than a law degree, and 7 percent hold a combination of advanced degrees (that is, law degree and master’s degree or law degree and Ph.D., M.D., or Ed.D). About 7 percent of the mediators have had some graduate coursework and less than 7 percent have not completed a bachelor’s degree.

To examine differences in education between mediators practicing in public, private, and government agency settings, categories of mediator education were created for analysis. The first category is mediators with a B.S. degree or less. These mediators may have taken graduate courses but do not have graduate degrees. The second category is mediators with an advanced graduate degree other than a law degree, and the third category is mediators with a law degree. The chi-square value for education suggests a significant difference between mediator setting and category of education. Specifically, mediators in a private setting were more likely to have a law degree (71 percent) than those in a public (45 percent) or government agency (24 percent) setting. Mediators practicing in a government agency were most likely to have an advanced degree other than a law degree (53 percent) in comparison to mediators in a public (25 percent) or private (18 percent) setting. Mediators in the public setting were more likely to have a B.S. degree or less (30 percent) than those in a private (10 percent) or government agency setting (24 percent).

226 Goettlel: H e m a n , Gale

To examine the occupations of our mediators, respondents were asked to write in what they regarded as their primary oc~upat ion .~ Forty-two percent of the respondents fell into a category of legal judicial work, which includes attorneys, judges, and court administrators. Fourteen percent of mediators listed a business-related occupation, including business management relations (human resources, managers, advertising) and occupations in finance or sales (accountant, investor). Nine percent were educators. Only 6 percent identified themselves primarily as mediators, and another 6 percent worked in social services. The primary occupations specified by our mediators seem to be fairly consistent with data from the GODR. Of the 823 mediators registered with GODR, 47 percent are in a legal profession, 7 percent work in mental health or social services, 13 percent are in business-related occupations, and 6 percent work in education.

A significant difference was also found between occupation and practice setting. Mediators in a private setting were most likely to have an occupation

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Mean Comparisons of Mediator Education and Occupation

Government Total Public Private Agency

Variable (N = 339) (n = 173) (n = 88) (n = 39) x2

Education B.S. degree or less Advanced degree

Law degree

ADR administration Administrative

or executive Business, finance,

or sales Business management

relations Technical or medical Technical or other Politics and activists Religious Social services Legal judicial work Mediation Government

Education Creative Manual labor Nonpaid work

(M.S., M.D., Ph.D.)

Occupation

or legal support

23.5%

26.5 50.0

.9

6.8

4.1

9.9 1.4 3.6 .5

2.7 5.9

42.3 6.3

3.6 8-6 1.4 .5

1.8

30.1%

24.9 45.1

1.7

7.5

5.0

10.8 .8

6.7 .8

3.3

35.8 9.2

4.2 10.0 1.7

.8 1.7

-

10.3%

18.4 71.3

-

4.2

2.8

1.4 2.8 - - 2.8

11.1 62.5

2.8

2.8 4.2 1.4

1.4 -

(4,294) = 35.67*** 23.7%

52.6 23.7

(30,192) = 60.05***

10.0

3.3

26.7 - -

- 16.7 20.0 3.3

3.3 13.3 - - 3.3

Note: * * * p < ,001

DiJferences in Public, Private, and Government Agency Mediators 22 7

in legal judicial work (63 percent) compared to mediators in government agency (20 percent) and public (36 percent) settings. Mediators in a government agency were more likely to be in business management relations (27 percent) than mediators in private (1 percent) or public (11 percent) settings. Mediators in a government agency were also more likely to work in social services (1 7 percent) than those in public (0 percent) or private (1 1 percent) settings. Mediators in a public setting were most likely to identify mediation as a primary occupation (9 percent) compared to mediators in a private (3 percent) or government agency (3 percent) setting.

BeliefSysterns. To obtain a sense of mediator belief systems, data were collected on religious and political beliefs (see Table 3). A majority of the sample (62 percent) are Protestant followed by 11 percent Catholic, 10 percent Jewish, and 2 percent agnostic. The remaining respondents noted no religious affiliation, or an affiliation in other faiths. Religion or a spiritual component in life is very important to 54 percent of the participants, fairly important for 31 percent of the participants, and of little or no importance to only 15 percent of the participants. In terms of political stands, 38 percent identified themselves as moderate in their political beliefs. Twenty-nine percent identified themselves as

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Mean Comparisons of Mediator Personal Beliefs


Variable ( N = 339) (n = 173) (n = 88) (n = 39) x2 ~ ~ ~~~ ~

Religious and Spiritual Beliefs Protestant 62.2% Catholic 11.0 Buddhist .7 Jewish 10.3 Agnostic 2.4 Atheist 12.0 Other .3

Very important 53.9

Not too important 11.2

Importance of Beliefs

Fairly important 30.8

Not at all important 4.1

Very conservative 3.1 Conservative 22.4 Moderate 37.3 Liberal 28.5 Very liberal 5.1 Nonpolitical or uninterested 1.4

Other 2.4

Political Views

62.4% 10.6

1.2 7.6 2.4

14.7 .6

57.6 29.7 11.0 1.7

2.9 23.4 35.1 28.7

5.8

1.2 2.9

64.3% 10.7

15.5 2.4 6.0

-

49.4 29.4 14.1 7.1

4.7 20.9 43.0 24.4 4.7

1.2 1.2

~ ~~

ns 56.8% 13.5

10.8 2.7

13.5

-

-

47.4 39.5

5.3 7.9

- 12.1 34.2 36.8

6.7

2.6 2.6

ns

ns

Note: ns = not significant

228 Goettlel: Hewman. Gale

liberal, and 22 percent saw themselves as conservative. Thus a range of political beliefs seems to be represented in our sample. Mediators practicing in public, private, and government agency settings did not differ on these three variables.

Mediator Incentives. Factors that sustained active mediators’ interest over time were explored. As shown in Table 4 , mediators were asked to rank the following eight items: to serve the community, to help others resolve disputes cooperatively, to learn mediation skills, for personal growth, to meet people, to build my career, to supplement my income, and because friends or colleagues are doing it.6 The top reasons for continuing as mediators seem somewhat altruistic and reflective of a commitment to the field. For example, “Helping people solve their problems in a cooperative way” was identified as the most highly sustaining interest (97 percent of the mediators ranked this item from 1 to 3). “Serving one’s community” is also a highly sustaining interest (62 percent ranked this item from 1 to 3). “To learn mediation skills” was the next sustaining interest (56 percent ranked this item from 1 to 3) followed by “for personal growth (50 percent ranked this item from 1 to 3).

Mediators seem least likely to continue as mediators for professional or material reasons. The item least likely to sustain interest in mediation is “because friends or colleagues are doing it” (96 percent ranked this item from 6 to 8). “To meet people” (69 percent ranked this item from 6 to 8) and “to supplement my income” (61 percent ranked this item from 6 to 8) were also clearly items that do not sustain interest in mediation. Mediators did not seem to respond as strongly to the item “To build my career,” which was ranked more toward the middle (40 percent ranked this item as a 4 or 5 , 40 percent ranked it from 6 to 8, and 21 percent ranked it from 1 to 3-the extra percentage point being due to rounding error).

Chi-square values associated with only two of the rankings were significant. Specifically, the incentive items-to build my career and to supplement my income-were significantly different for mediators practicing in different settings. Mediators in a private setting were more likely to mediate to build a career (33 percent) compared to those in a public (16 percent) or government agency (14 percent) setting. Mediators in a public setting were less likely to mediate to build a career (45 percent) than those in a private (34 percent) or government agency (29 percent) setting. Mediators in government agencies were least likely to continue mediating in order to supplement income (78 percent) compared to mediators in private (49 percent) or public (63 percent) settings. Mediators in private settings were most likely to rank this item as a highly sustaining interest (25 percent) compared to those in public (13 percent) or government agency (9 percent) settings.

Discussion

The first purpose of this study was to describe a sample of mediators representing different practice settings. Our approach to collecting data from mediators in Georgia is unique because efforts were made to incorporate public


Table 4. Descriptive Statistics and Mean Comparisons of Mediator Incentives to Practice


Variable (N = 339) (n = 173) (n = 88) (n = 39) x2

To Serve the Community High 61.8% 64.9% 56.0Oh Moderate 27.0 26.3 26.2 Low 11.3 8.8 17.9

To Help Others Resolve Disputes Cooperatively High 96.6- Moderate 2.0 Low 1.4

High 56.1 Moderate 36.3 Low 7.6

To Learn Mediation Skills

For Personal Growth High 49.7 Moderate 40.3 Low 10.1



To Supplement My Income High 16.2 Moderate 23.1 Low 60.6

To Meet People

To Build My Career

96.5 2.4 1.2

59.8 33.7

6.5

49.4 40.0 10.6

1.8 32.1 66.1

16.3 38.6 45.2

13.4 23.8 62.8

95.3 2.3 2.3

47.6 40.2 12.2

41.3 47.5 11.3

3.7 22.2 74.1

32.5 33.8 33.8

24.7 25.9 49.4

Because Friends or Colleagues Are Doing It High .7 .6 1.3 Moderate 2.9 4.3 1.3 Low 96.4 95.0 97.5

60.5% 31.6

7.9

100 - -

57.9 39.5 2.6

68.4 26.3

5.3

2.9 26.5 70.6

13.9 58.3 27.8

9.4 12.5 78.1

- -

100

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

(4,278) = 14.99**

(4,273) = 10.60*

ns

Note: 'p < .05, **p < 01, ns = not significant

mediators, private mediators, and mediators working in other government agencies. Based on contacts provided by the National Association for Com- munity Mediation (NAFCM), few states seem to have comparable data about their mediators. At best, states may collect data across mediation programs. The Offices of Dispute Resolution in Nebraska and Florida shared demographic information about mediators in their programs with our project. We compared Georgia mediators with these two states to explore the representativeness of our sample to other parts of the country

The annual report from the Nebraska Office of Dispute Resolution (Sev- erens, 1997) highlights information about mediators in their six regional

230 Goettlel: Herrrnan, Gale

nonprofit centers (464 mediators total). The Florida Office of the State Courts Administrator maintains records on certified mediators (4,206 mediators total) and shared information with our project. In comparison to Georgia, there is a higher proportion of female mediators in Nebraska (60 percent versus 48 percent) but a higher proportion of male mediators in Florida (67 percent versus 53 percent). The percentage of European American mediators in Nebraska (86 percent) is very similar to Georgia (84 percent). In Florida there is a slightly higher percentage of European American mediators. Of the 3,715 mediators who responded to the item, 94 percent were European American and 3 percent were African American. Thus, mediators in Georgia seem to fall between Nebraska and Florida with respect to sex. Differences in ethnic background seem minimal. Specific racial and ethnic compositions of each state may need to be considered in order to understand better whether mediators appropriately represent state ~ l ien te le .~

Mediators in Georgia have both occupational similarities and differences with mediators in Nebraska and Florida. Most mediators in Nebraska and Florida are attorneys or health and human service workers. Legal professions were also well represented in Georgia. However, business professions were more prominent in Georgia than health and human service professions. These differences may be difficult to interpret, because we did not have complete occupation data from all respondents.

Thus, as mentioned, our study represents an attempt to identify the variety of mediators practicing in a state. Data from public, private, and government agency mediators could not be found from other states. However, our data seem somewhat comparable to statewide information on sex, ethnicity, and occupational variables. Future studies in other states may provide important information as to whether profiles of mediators are the same in different parts of the country Furthermore, in interpretations of research designed to explore the relation between background characteristics and style of conflict resolution in mediation research, the idea that practice implications may not necessarily be applicable to different parts of the country until further profiles of mediators from other states are known should be considered.

The second purpose of the study was to compare mediators in different settings on background and incentive variables. Our results suggest that mediators in public, private, and government agency settings differed on variables in three of the four categories. First, in terms of personal demographic characteristics, sex, age, and income differences were found. Specifically, males and females were represented differently in public, private, and government agency settings. The greatest distinction was that males were twice as likely as females to practice in a private setting. Females were also more likely than males to practice in a government agency. A review of the literature about bargainers and negotiators supports the importance of considering sex (see Rubin and Brown, 1975). Previous mediation studies have suggested that males and females may resolve conflicts differently (Maxwell, 1992; Weingarten

Dgerences in Public, Private, and Government Agency Mediators 23 1

and Douvan, 1985). Studies employing samples of private mediators or government agencies with the intention of generalizing findings to mediators in other settings may want to consider whether males and females are equally represented.

Mediators in the different settings were also found to differ on age. Specif- ically, both younger mediators and older mediators were most likely to practice in a public setting. Mediators in government agency settings were most likely to be of middle age. In future mediation research potential generational differences may need to be considered. Specifically, in research that is conducted in particular settings, the age range of mediators should be recognized. Research in public settings may be most likely to capture a broad range of ages.

A third personal demographic characteristic to consider is income. Private mediators were more likely to have a gross family income over $75,000. Pre- vious research has not necessarily examined the influence of a mediator’s SES on practice. Rubin and Brown (1975) note the difficulty of drawing conclu- sions about the relation between bargaining and socioeconomic status variables. This potential influence needs to be explored further, given that it distinguished mediators in a private setting from those in public or government agency settings.

Mediators practicing in the three different types of settings also differed on education and occupation variables. The greatest distinction was that mediators in a private setting were most likely to have a law degree. Similarly, mediators in a private setting were most likely to work in the legal judicial field. Mediators in a government agency on the other hand, were most likely to have an advanced degree other than a law degree and were also most likely to be in a business management relations occupation.

Finally for the most part, mediators in the various settings seem to have many of the same reasons for continuing to practice. However, mediators in a private setting are more likely to continue for professional or material reasons. Specifically, mediators practicing in a private setting were more likely to highly rank the items “to build my career” and “to supplement my income.” Media- tors in a public setting were least likely to continue practicing to build a career, and government agency mediators were least likely to continue practicing to supplement an income.

The long-term goal of the MSP is to identify components of quality mediation. A first step was to define a general population of mediators and then compare background characteristic and incentive variables for mediators practicing in different settings. The next step in the project is to identify the skills mediators use. Because some background and incentive differences were found to be significantly different for mediators practicing in different settings (that is, sex, age, income, education, occupation, and career- and income-related incentives), setting context will be considered in our study of skills. Mediators practicing in different settings may approach conflict resolution with different sets of skills. The recognition of diversity of mediators in different settings may be

232 Goettlel: Herman. Gale

important for others to consider when studying and interpreting conflict resolution research. Specifically, research from samples of mediators representative of programs or private mediators may not be generalized to other mediators given the differences that exist between groups of mediators in different settings.

Notes 1. Public mediators, including volunteer mediators, practice in court-related programs. Private

mediators charge hourly fees, and are not assigned cases by the courts. Government agency mediators are noncourt government mediators.

2. Percentages reported in the findings are based on the total number of respondents who answered the particular question. Thus, percentages may not always add up to 100. For the comparison data, 300 of the 339 active mediators specified a practice setting. Thus, figures in the tables representing the number of mediators in each category will not add up to 339.

3 . Data from the Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution do not contain any missing information from mediators and may appear somewhat higher simply because percentages will always add up to 100. 4. Crosstab analyses were run on SPSS for Windows, version 7.5. Significant differences were

determined from the significance levels ( p value) associated with chi-square values (x’) computed for each variable. Crosstab analysis reports significant differences between variables but does not specify where the significant differences between groups exist. Percentages are reported in table form to illustrate where the greatest differences exist.

5. From the list of responses, a content analysis of items was conducted, and occupational codes were developed. Out of the 339 active mediators in our sample, only 251 provided the occupation they identify with most, and of those who provided first occupations, 164 provided second occupations. In this case, percentages are reported for only the 251 respondents and thus will add up to 100 percent.

6. Ranks from 1, “the most sustaining interest” to 8, “the least sustaining interest” were assigned for each item. Respondents were not allowed to use a rank number more than once. Ranks were grouped for analysis as follows: ranks 1 to 3 represent highly sustaining interests, ranks 4 and 5 represent moderately sustaining interests, and ranks 6 to 8 represent least sustaining interests.

7. According to the 1996 Georgia Guide (the year that data was collected), 72.4 percent of the state is European American and 27.6 percent is African American, while 87 percent of the mediators are European Amencan and 7 percent are African American. These statistics suggest a need for more ethnically diverse mediators. In addition, McKnight (1997) has expressed concern about the extent to which low-income, rural, and culturally diverse populations can access mediation services.

References Beer, J . E. Peacemaking in Your Neighborhood: Reflections on an Experiment in Community Mediation.

Camevale, P.J.D., and Pegnetter, R. “The Selection of Mediation Tactics in Public Sector Disputes:

Herrman, M. S. “ADR in Context: Linking Our Past, Present, and a Possible Future.”Journal of

Indik, B. P., Goldstein, G., Chernick, J., and Berkowitz, M. The Mediator: Background, Self-Image,

Maxwell, D. “Gender Differences in Mediation Style and Their Impact on Mediator Effectiveness.”

Philadelphia: New Society, 1986.

A Contingency Analysis.”Journal of Social Issues, 1985, 41 (2), 65-81.

Contemporavy Legal Issues, 1989-90,3, 35-55.

and Attitudes. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1966.

Mediation Quarterly, 1992, 9 (41, 353-364.


McKnight, M. 5. “Access to Mediation Services for Rural, Low-Income, and Culturally Diverse Populations.” Mediation Quarterly, 1997, 15 (l), 39-50.

McLaughlin, M. E., Carnevale, P., and Lim, R. G. “Professional Mediators’Judgments of Media- tion Tactics: Multidimensional Scaling and Cluster Analyses.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1991, 76 (31,465-472,

Meierding, N. R. “Does Mediation Work? A Survey of Long-Term Satisfaction and Durability Rates for Privately Mediated Agreements.” Mediation Quarterly, 1993, 11 (21, 157-170.

Merry, S. E., and Milner, N. The Possibility ofPopularJustice: A Case Study of Community Mediation in the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996.

Pearson, J. A. “Family Mediation.” In S. Keilitz (ed.), National Symposium on Court-Connected Dis- pute Resolution Research: A Report on Current Research Findings-lmplicationsfor Courts and Future Research Needs. Washington, D.C.: National Center for State Courts, 1993.

Rubin, J. Z., and Brown, B. R. The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation. New York Aca- demic Press, 1975.

Schwerin, E. W. Mediation, Citizen Empowerment, and Transformational Politics. New York: Praeger, 1995.

Severens, K. “Nebraska Office of Dispute Resolution Fifth Annual Report, July 1996-June 1997.”

Wall, J. E., and Rude, D. E. ‘yudicial Mediation: Techniques, Strategies, and Situational Effects.”

Weingarten, H. R., and Douvan, E. “Male and Female Visions of Mediation.” NegotiationJournal,

Nebraska Supreme Court Administrative Office of CourtsRrobation, 1997.

Journal ofsocial Issues, 1985, 41 (2), 47-63.

1985, 1(4).

Dawn E. Goettler is a doctoral candidate in the Deaartment of Child and Familv Develoa- ment, University of Georgia, and a graduate research assistant on the Mediator Skills Project (MSP).

Margaret S. H e r m a n is principal investigator of the MSP and senior associate at the Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia.

Jerry Gale is coprincipal investigator of the MSP and associate professor in the Department of Child and Family Development, University of Georga.

background characteristics and incentives of mediators in georgia: exploring differences in public,...

Documents