Response to Condlin's Critique of Transformative Mediation

Authors

Robert A. Baruch Bush, Maurice A. Deane School of Law, Hofstra University
Joseph P. Folger, Temple University

Abstract

We welcome thoughtful critical analysis of the transformative framework because we believe such comments further substantive discussion and debate. Some prior critiques of the framework have been beneficial in helping to clearly map the ideological divide in the ADR field-a divide that separates very different approaches to conflict intervention. Cogent and honestly substantiated critiques of the transformative approach have strengthened the discourse about conflict intervention practice by building stronger arguments on all sides of the debate over the various goals and expectations for mediation.

Disciplines

Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | Jurisprudence | Law

Recommended Citation

Robert A. Bush & Joseph P. Folger, Response to Condlin's Critique of Transformative Mediation, 15 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 231 (2013).
Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cjcr/vol15/iss1/10