Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive review of the neutrality literature and suggests areas ripe for future research.

The authors reviewed journal articles on the topic of neutrality in mediation, which included theoretical viewpoints and empirical research on practicing mediators’ understanding of neutrality.

The review of literature revealed that party perspectives are largely missing from current neutrality literature. Two potential concepts emerged from the authors' review of literature that could potentially influence parties’ attributions of mediator neutrality: symmetry and transparency. Symmetry refers to the equal treatment of parties, whereas transparency refers to providing an explanation of past or future behavior. Research on whether symmetry and transparency are key influences on party assessment of mediator neutrality could make a significant contribution to the field.

The authors call on researchers with diverse methodological perspectives to examine, from the party’s perspective, important questions regarding the meaning of neutrality, mediator strategies to successfully enact neutrality and the impact of neutrality on mediation outcomes.

Neutrality is arguably one of the most important concepts to the mediation field. Despite its significance to the field, only limited research has been conducted to better understand how neutrality is enacted in practice. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the literature and provides a launching point for future research.

This study aims to investigate the relationship between perceptions of mediators acting symmetrically (treating parties equally) and transparently (providing an explanation of past or future behavior) with parties’ assessments of the neutrality of their mediator and satisfaction with the mediation process.

This mixed-method study surveyed parties and mediators from 35 naturally occurring mediation sessions at community mediation centers about their perceptions of neutrality, symmetry, transparency and satisfaction.

The results showed that parties overwhelmingly assessed their mediators as acting neutrally. Compared to parties’ assessments of mediator neutrality, mediators rated their own neutrality even higher. Symmetry and transparency were both positively correlated with parties’ assessment of mediator neutrality and also emerged as qualitative themes. Speaking order and talk time did not significantly correlate with perception of symmetry. Overall, symmetry appeared to be a more salient factor in parties’ assessment of mediator neutrality than transparency. Both neutrality and symmetry were positively correlated with party satisfaction with the mediation process, but transparency was not.

The present study provides a foundation for future research in understanding neutrality from both parties and mediators’ perspectives. The primary limitation was a small sample size and possible selection bias in achieving the sample.

The study found that symmetry and transparency are useful strategies for managing party perceptions of mediator neutrality and party satisfaction with the mediation process.

This study is one of only a few empirical research studies that investigated the parties’ perspective of mediator neutrality. The study provides a foundation for future research in understanding neutrality from both parties and mediators’ perspectives.