Source: (-0001) North Dakota Law Review. 84(3):823-860.

The objective of this article is to articulate and clarify the key differences between the harmony and transformative frameworks of mediation practice and to argue for the importance of maintaining an awareness of these core differences in both theory and practice. The first two parts discuss how the harmony and transformative frameworks differ along three dimensions: (a) the ideological premises that shape the goals and expectations for conflict intervention; (b) the nature of and expectations for the third party role within each approach to intervention; and (c) the specific intervention practices that are central to third party work in each of the frameworks. Part III section focuses on why the differences between the two frameworks are often overlooked or misunderstood in the mediation field. It clarifies the sources of confusion and discusses the impact the misunderstandings have had on the development of transformative mediation practice. The final part of the article argues for the importance of sustaining a clear distinction between these two ideological approaches to conflict intervention. It contends that the differences matter at both a conceptual and applied level for the preservation of sustainable practice within each framework. (excerpt)