An investigation into the different styles of the lawyer and construction specialist when mediating construction disputes

Ray Wall, Nii Ankrah, Jennifer Charlson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract


Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to assess the views and experiences of mediators from different professional backgrounds practising in the construction industry. Previous research shows that the legal profession dominates construction mediation in both England and Wales.

Design/methodology/approach
The phenomenological approach was used to capture the lived experiences of the interviewees and gain insight into their views and practices. The data collection was by semi-structured interviews. The data was then analysed using software to establish themes.

Findings
The major difference in mediator practice discovered between the two groups is the use of the evaluative style by lawyer and facilitative style by non-lawyer mediators. Non-lawyer mediators strongly reported their criticisms of the evaluative style in mediation suggesting that it undermines the parties’ ability to self-determine their own dispute and reduces the level of satisfaction experienced by the parties in the process of mediation. Lawyer mediators supported the use of the evaluative style as an acceptable compromise on the parties’ self-determination and feelings of satisfaction in pursuit of achieving the goal of a settlement in mediation, which was significantly better than the escalation of stress and costs to the parties in the event that the dispute escalates to litigation. In addition, mandatory mediation, the role of advisors/advocates, governance and the future of mediation were explored.

Originality/value
The research is anticipated to be of particular benefit to parties considering referring a construction dispute to mediation.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)137-160
JournalInternational Journal of Law in the Built Environment
Volume8
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 11 Jul 2016

Fingerprint

lawyer
mediation
self determination
construction industry
software
methodology
cost
legal profession
escalation
self-determination
compromise
experience
criticism
governance
event
ability
costs
interview
litigation
Group

Cite this

Wall, Ray ; Ankrah, Nii ; Charlson, Jennifer. / An investigation into the different styles of the lawyer and construction specialist when mediating construction disputes. In: International Journal of Law in the Built Environment. 2016 ; Vol. 8, No. 2. pp. 137-160.
@article{069c37c8120a435082274b8afdbdca75,
title = "An investigation into the different styles of the lawyer and construction specialist when mediating construction disputes",
abstract = "PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to assess the views and experiences of mediators from different professional backgrounds practising in the construction industry. Previous research shows that the legal profession dominates construction mediation in both England and Wales.Design/methodology/approachThe phenomenological approach was used to capture the lived experiences of the interviewees and gain insight into their views and practices. The data collection was by semi-structured interviews. The data was then analysed using software to establish themes.FindingsThe major difference in mediator practice discovered between the two groups is the use of the evaluative style by lawyer and facilitative style by non-lawyer mediators. Non-lawyer mediators strongly reported their criticisms of the evaluative style in mediation suggesting that it undermines the parties’ ability to self-determine their own dispute and reduces the level of satisfaction experienced by the parties in the process of mediation. Lawyer mediators supported the use of the evaluative style as an acceptable compromise on the parties’ self-determination and feelings of satisfaction in pursuit of achieving the goal of a settlement in mediation, which was significantly better than the escalation of stress and costs to the parties in the event that the dispute escalates to litigation. In addition, mandatory mediation, the role of advisors/advocates, governance and the future of mediation were explored.Originality/valueThe research is anticipated to be of particular benefit to parties considering referring a construction dispute to mediation.",
author = "Ray Wall and Nii Ankrah and Jennifer Charlson",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
day = "11",
doi = "10.1108/ijlbe-01-2015-0002",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "137--160",
number = "2",

}

An investigation into the different styles of the lawyer and construction specialist when mediating construction disputes. / Wall, Ray; Ankrah, Nii; Charlson, Jennifer.

In: International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, Vol. 8, No. 2, 11.07.2016, p. 137-160.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - An investigation into the different styles of the lawyer and construction specialist when mediating construction disputes

AU - Wall, Ray

AU - Ankrah, Nii

AU - Charlson, Jennifer

PY - 2016/7/11

Y1 - 2016/7/11

N2 - PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to assess the views and experiences of mediators from different professional backgrounds practising in the construction industry. Previous research shows that the legal profession dominates construction mediation in both England and Wales.Design/methodology/approachThe phenomenological approach was used to capture the lived experiences of the interviewees and gain insight into their views and practices. The data collection was by semi-structured interviews. The data was then analysed using software to establish themes.FindingsThe major difference in mediator practice discovered between the two groups is the use of the evaluative style by lawyer and facilitative style by non-lawyer mediators. Non-lawyer mediators strongly reported their criticisms of the evaluative style in mediation suggesting that it undermines the parties’ ability to self-determine their own dispute and reduces the level of satisfaction experienced by the parties in the process of mediation. Lawyer mediators supported the use of the evaluative style as an acceptable compromise on the parties’ self-determination and feelings of satisfaction in pursuit of achieving the goal of a settlement in mediation, which was significantly better than the escalation of stress and costs to the parties in the event that the dispute escalates to litigation. In addition, mandatory mediation, the role of advisors/advocates, governance and the future of mediation were explored.Originality/valueThe research is anticipated to be of particular benefit to parties considering referring a construction dispute to mediation.

AB - PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to assess the views and experiences of mediators from different professional backgrounds practising in the construction industry. Previous research shows that the legal profession dominates construction mediation in both England and Wales.Design/methodology/approachThe phenomenological approach was used to capture the lived experiences of the interviewees and gain insight into their views and practices. The data collection was by semi-structured interviews. The data was then analysed using software to establish themes.FindingsThe major difference in mediator practice discovered between the two groups is the use of the evaluative style by lawyer and facilitative style by non-lawyer mediators. Non-lawyer mediators strongly reported their criticisms of the evaluative style in mediation suggesting that it undermines the parties’ ability to self-determine their own dispute and reduces the level of satisfaction experienced by the parties in the process of mediation. Lawyer mediators supported the use of the evaluative style as an acceptable compromise on the parties’ self-determination and feelings of satisfaction in pursuit of achieving the goal of a settlement in mediation, which was significantly better than the escalation of stress and costs to the parties in the event that the dispute escalates to litigation. In addition, mandatory mediation, the role of advisors/advocates, governance and the future of mediation were explored.Originality/valueThe research is anticipated to be of particular benefit to parties considering referring a construction dispute to mediation.

UR - https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/IJLBE-01-2015-0002

U2 - 10.1108/ijlbe-01-2015-0002

DO - 10.1108/ijlbe-01-2015-0002

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 137

EP - 160

IS - 2

ER -