Mediation is often held out as a panacea. The current state is that information and exchange seldom flow freely between different areas of Dispute and Conflict Resolution theory and practice, and the quality and quantity of mediation research are suffering as a result. Analysis of the historiography of the fields of Conflict Resolution/Conflict Transformation (CR) and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) reveals evidence of how and why this compartmentalisation has arisen and provides clear evidence of common origins and of the divergence of ADR and CR from the 1980s onwards. This is demonstrated through a qualitative analysis of the historiography of the two fields, cross-field UK/USA English language author analysis, analysis of how each field represents itself and the ‘other’, and the impact of this representation.
I apply ADR in this article as capturing mediation and negotiation as its primary focus, not arbitration. This is due to some OECD English-speaking jurisdictions no longer considering arbitration to be ‘ADR’, because the time, cost and procedure in arbitration has made it virtually indistinguishable from judge-led court processes in these jurisdictions.
Please note the world-wide variation in the application of the term ‘ADR’.
Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management