Public mediation in Europe : a comparative study

(1)

(2)

Abstract

This analysis provides an in-depth look into the interest in public mediation in Europe and how practitioners give local meaning to their practice through the analytical tool of translation theory. The first part of the analysis reveals five key challenges that help account for the growth in interest in the practice, which are shifts in: 1) power 2) complexity 3) networks 4) knowledge 5) economic situation. Interviews for this part of the analysis were conducted in Sweden, Italy, Germany, Finland and the Netherlands, to draw in a broad picture of the character of growth in interest. The second part of the analysis moves from the focus on interest in mediation practice, to the

experiences of the practitioners who are trying to work with mediation in public settings. Here we take an in-depth look into the practice of public mediation in Sweden and Italy. Using translation theory it is analyzed how historically layered and complex source texts are adjusted to local practices of public mediation. It also argues that the practitioners do not act in a professional vacuum. They are engaged in trying to do something in the world and this shared practical interest provides the focal point for—and shapes—the interaction within a community of practice.

Key words: Public mediation; Conflict; Translation Theory; Governance; Complexity; Power; Europe

(5)

Chapter 1 Introduction

When I first started to look into mediation it struck me as odd that in the United States and Canada public mediation is used regularly by government and citizens to resolve conflicts over public issues, while in Europe many people do not even know what it entails. This does not mean public mediation and related practices are not used in Europe to solve different kinds of conflict; they indeed are practiced. The use of mediation has deep roots in Europe; Vikings already used a form of mediation in their communities in 922 (Wall et al 2001:370). Moreover, many northern European states have traditions of consensus- oriented decision- making. This made me curious. If mediation is a practice as old as 922, what is its current status in Europe? Anecdotal evidence suggest that it is considered and used more in recent years, but is this indeed the case? And if it is used, how is it practiced? Does it look different in different parts of the continent?

To satisfy my curiosity I interviewed two practitioners in this field, one in Sweden and one in Italy to find out about their work. I asked them, What is it that you do? Could you explain this to me? How do you see your practice developing? These conversations solidified my initial interest. Both respondents confirmed that public mediation was practiced, that interest for the practice was growing, and that different method and approaches were being imported into their respective countries.

This thesis further develops my initial curiosity about where and how public mediation is being practiced in Europe and how related practices are developing along with it. I have broken my analysis into two parts. The first part takes up the question, Why is interest in public mediation growing in Europe? What problems and challenges do citizens and public officials see it as a response to? In short, what is the headache for which this practice is the pill? This headache is experienced by local politicians on a daily basis, and the form it takes varies. For this opening part of the analysis, I conducted interviews with practitioners who practice public mediation and with public officials, who bring in the mediators to resolve conflicts over policy issues that they face. Here I cast my net broadly and interviewed practitioners and public officials from: Italy, Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands and Finland.

The second part of the analysis takes a more in-depth look at how public mediation is practiced in Europe. Does it changes as it is transplanted or, as I will argue, translated into local European setting? Does it look different in different national contexts? Or is it a rather uniform or even universal practice? The central question of this part of the analysis is, how do practitioners of public mediation give local meaning to the practice of public mediation?

(6)

opposites sides of Europe, both geographically and in their political traditions. The political culture in Sweden, at least up until the 1980's, '… was based on consensus (Lindvall and Rothstein

2006:49)'. This meant that political majorities and support of interest groups were considered of high value (Ibid). Italian politics has been divided into three main types of regime: the liberal, the Fascist and the republican (Newell 2010:9). When thinking about political culture in Italy it is hard to ignore the history of favoritism and corruption: '… corruption appears to have been spread to the point where it became a systemic in the late 1980s (Ibid:32)'. The collapse of the Berlin wall was a direct encouragement for a series of investigations into this problem.

Through this more in-depth look at public mediation in these two national contexts I tried to see if these differences made a difference in practice. In part two I thus analyze the similarities and differences between practices in Sweden and Italy. Preliminary interviews made it apparent that the public mediators working in these contexts did not dream up their practice locally. They drew on, often common, resources from abroad. To describe and make sense of the differences that develop as these resources are brought in, I draw on translation theory and examine how the theories and method that practitioners import changes as practitioners work with them in the local context. This part of the analysis highlights the importance of context in a practice like mediation that depends on communication and which confronts deep issues. To succeed at a practical level, mediators must respond to the views of the people they work with (as well as their own views) on life, on how to communicate and express emotion, and on the meaning of conflict. Differences in these views determine how shared theory is translated into practice.

To summarize, the first part of the analysis addresses the why and when questions surrounding the use of public mediation in Europe at a relatively broad scale and less depth. The second part of the analysis digs deeper in two national contexts to address what and how questions regarding public mediation. The restricted scope allows the analysis to get to the greater depth that these questions demand.

Throughout the thesis, the focus is on public rather then private mediation. Private mediation often entails divorce mediation and resolving disputes between private firms and individuals

(Susskind 1999:97) and is also practiced in the different national contexts I examine. Public mediation takes place in the public sector where a diverse group of stakeholder representatives come together in an effort to negotiate a consensus agreement on how to address a controversial question about public policy, the use of public space, or other government action (Laws and Forester 2006:514). This is, however, a distinction that I brought. Most of the mediators I spoke with did not see such a sharp distinction. Some cases they work on are more public, others are more private. Other practitioners did not even refer to their work as mediation or to themselves as

(7)

mediators. They used terms- like facilitator, creative conflict manager, participatory process facilitator, alongside or in place of mediator. The diverse terms that practitioners used reflect the scope from conflict prevention to conflict resolution, and de-escalating or reducing the size of a conflict that mediation involves. This is exactly what made researching practice interesting. More important than what the titles practitioners used to describe themselves, is how they make sense of their role in relationship to stakeholders. I chose to use the term public mediator because it is broadly recognized, because it covers the breath of practices, and because it is used in many, though not all, of the shared sources that the practitioners I spoke with draw on. In my analysis I refer to my respondents by their first name because it clearly sets them apart from other scholars referred to in this analysis.

In order to address these questions, I adopted a qualitative approach that combined unstructured and semi- structured interviews with practitioners who are directly involved. This choice reflected my interest in practical experience of individuals working in this area. I do not try to draw abstract general conclusions about the practice of public mediation, but focus instead on how individual practitioners working in local contexts see mediation and related practices evolving, how they explain the kind of challenges they face, what insights their ways of working can provide. The choices about methods reflect this, especially the need to manage the potential of interviewing to not lead the interviewees in a preconceived direction. This, I have come to see, is a matter of managing my relationship as a researcher to preconceptions and hopes about what might come up, rather than trying to rid myself of preconceptions. Links to the academic literature and practical research remained a consideration, but for this study they followed the practitioners' accounts of their own work and experience rather than driving the interviews.

The thesis is organized as follows. Chapter two summarizes the theoretical framework in which the research material is analyzed. Chapter three describes the methodological challenges and choices and discusses features of the research experience that are relevant to understanding the results. Chapters four and five analyze the interview results and other data that was acquired during field research in light of the theoretical framework described in chapter two. Chapter four presents a view of the analysis from above and chapter five presents the view from the driver's seat. Chapter six presents a summary and draws conclusions what the analysis means for this field of practice and for cooperation between related fields.

(8)

Chapter 2 Theoretical framework

2.1 Part 1: Governmental Challenges

In this chapter I examine the institutional context in which the interest in public mediation has developed. I identify several general trends in institutional development that might help to explain the interest in mediation that is examined in empirical detail in the next chapter.

The central question to be answered in this part of the analysis is two fold: why is interest in public mediation growing in Europe? What problems and challenges do citizens and public officials see it as a response to?

What first needs to be answered is that last question. What is the headache for which this is the pill? Whose headache is it in the first place? Most public mediation cases are contracted by regional politicians. When reading the work of Laws and Rein or Sorensen this does not seem surprising. A municipal politician quoted in the article by Sorensen states: 'We are placed in the center [of a complex society] of a chaos and seek to create some order (2006:107)'. Already by reading this quote it becomes apparent that a tool such as mediation can be the organizing tool these practitioners need to create order in the chaos they are faced with.

The above quote points to a broader shift in society. Laws and Rein point to the fact that policy making has changed, '...policy issues are characterized by radical forms of uncertainty... (2003:172)'. Sorensen states that we are witnessing a change in the way society is governed and that there is a change from government to governance (2006:98). What this, among others, entails is that the ability of the politicians to control the decision making process declines (Ibid:104). The role of self- governing actors in decision making increases, which changes the role of political actors. Kooiman in his analysis of the concept of governance points out that governance has become somewhat of a catch phrase in recent years, although he does acknowledge that there is a need for this concept (1999:68). Castiglione and Warren point out, in most countries democracy evolved into '...its familiar form based on elections of political representatives (2005:1)'. This evolvement was, and is, considered a positive development, mostly because public issues don't have to be discussed in enormous unmanageable meetings with thousands of people. The right to vote is a simple means of political equality (Ibid). Two other key characteristics of democratic representation are that: representation identifies a place for political power to be exercised responsibly and last but not least it invokes a principal- agent relationship (Ibid). The concept of representation needs a bit of

refurbishing though, '...the standard view is no longer adequate to a world in which spaces of politics are de-centered, and, as a consequence so too are the potentials, possibilities, and practices of democracy (Ibid:2)'. A consequence of this de-centeredness is that the chains of interaction

(9)

lengthen:

These chains become increasingly institutionalized, level and multi-dimensional. These lengthening chains cause and require a proliferation of the number of actors in society, while the number of interactions among these parties also multiplies.The twin forces of differentiation and proliferation also require some form of reintegration. Hence, they engender a growing but different need for collective action, not in the form of public action as an expression of this

collective need alone, but also of public-private modes of collective action as a response to those societal needs or to create new societal opportunities (Kooiman 1999:73).

There is thus a lot happening at once, not only are there different parties in society that are more active, but all the parties communicate with each other. An important question of modern

governance is thus 'how to cope with complexity? (Kooiman 1999:74)'. Kooiman points out that because of a reshuffling of the tasks of politicians, they need to co-operate with other societal actors. The responses to societal problems require a broader set of instruments and other partners to solve them, also by looking at practices developed by civil society actors (Ibid:73).

When looking into complexity it is first of all important to differentiate between complexity and complicated systems. Complicated systems, like computer chips, are just complicated but when we talk about complex systems we mean a system that '...are more spontaneous, more disorderly, more alive than that (Waldrop 1992:12)'. Complexity can also not be equated to chaos because there is structure, coherence and a self-organizing cohesiveness to complex systems (Ibid). But of

importance now is that, first and foremost, what makes complex systems complex is that they are always in flux. 'Many independent agents are interacting with each other in a great many ways (Ibid:11)'. These systems are adaptive and anitreductionist (Wagenaar 2007: 23). This last statement is where it gets really important. Because when we see our social world as a complex system and compare this to how democratic representation has been arranged, it sounds nearly impossible to manage this complexity. This increasing complexity of society makes it hard for representative institutions to cope with the challenges they face. One of which is the management of this complexity. Many local politicians try to understand the properties of the whole by managing its parts. Something that is unfortunately often forgotten in this respect is interaction. There are certain '...properties of the system that the separate parts do not have and are produced by interaction (Wagenaar 2007:23)'. To make society manageable the social world is controlled by a wish to

(10)

understand and manage separate parts of the system. This is thus problematic because complex systems are always on the move and nothing is fixed (Ibid: 25).

The modern world of government is thus '… complex, messy, resistant to central direction and in many respects difficult for key policy-makers, let alone members of the public, to understand (Stoker 1998:19)'. It is however undeniable that there has been a development in governing styles in which the boundaries between the public and the private sector have been blurred (Ibid:17). This means that no matter how difficult the public sector is to understand these days '... the near

exclusive responsibility of government have been shared (Ibid:19)'. This shared responsibility has created an interdependence of public, private and other sectors. Now there are mechanisms of contracting out and public-private partnerships and these mechanisms have to be taken into account in the decision-making in many countries (Ibid). This interdependence is thus a challenge public officials have to deal with. It makes the work of public officials more complex and blurred.

This interdependent system is thus build up of inter-organizational linkages and Rodes calls the several interdependent actors involved in delivering services: a network (1996:658). As Rhodes makes clear governance is about managing networks (Ibid:658). The first characteristic of this is: there is interdependence between organizations, boundaries between different sectors have shifted. The second is, 'Continuing interactions between network members, caused by the need to exchange resources and negotiate shared purposes (Ibid:660)'. Government runs into several problems when trying to manage these characteristics, it is very hard to steer complex sets of organizations. Two of the main problems are accountability and responsibility. Who is accountable to whom for what (Ibid:662)? And thus who is responsible? This can lead politicians and local officials to passing off responsibility, but in general it just creates a conundrum of when and where to take responsibility. 'Network governance is marked by...institutional ambiguity as there are no agreed upon norms, procedures, or ''constitution'' to predetermine where and how a legitimate decision is to be taken (Hajer 2005:341)'. When we thus go back to my central question, to work in a network society is a mayor challenge to which mediation might be the answer. Here again mediation seems like an attractive coping mechanism since it is not a resolution tool that is based on a hierarchical system but on a kind of network approach.

According to Castells, a driver of a network society, is technology, especially

communication and information technologies (Castells 2006). 'The network society consists of networks operated by information and communication technologies that generate, process, and distribute information on the basis of the knowledge accumulated in the nodes of the network (Ibid)'. What is pivotal about this is that for the first time in history there are horizontal

(11)

through the channels set up by the institutions of society for socialized communication (Castells in Bang 2009:13)'. Thus the creation of horizontal relationships generate a capacity for collective action without government being at the centre of it all. But for public officials this thus poses a big challenge, how do you manage complexity and interdependence when communication happens all around you without including you.

Knowledge and Resources

Another challenge in this governance network society is knowledge. Because 'no single actor, public or private, has the knowledge and resource capacity to tackle problems unilaterally

(Kooiman in Stoker 1998:22)'. Knowledge in a network governance setting also becomes an area in which all actors in a policy area need each other: 'No one has all the relevant knowledge or

resources to make the policy work (Rhodes 1996: 657)'. This again has to do with complexity, it is often impossible for a public official to have all the necessary knowledge of the slice of social reality they deal with. As Wagenaar makes clear this lack of knowledge '… is both ubiquitous and inevitable (2007:27)'. A final challenge I want to name here that local politicians face is an

economical one. Stoker explains they have to deal with spending cuts and the rise of governance does reflects to a degree '… a search for reductions in the resource commitment and spending of government (1998:18)'. This thus creates a further challenge for institutions that are overburdened with trying to cope with complexity, interdependence, horizontal communication and a permanent knowledge deficit. Mediation in this respect is a far cheaper solution that some of the other conflict resolution options, the most obvious one being, going to court. Long court procedures are not an attractive way to deal with the above mentioned issues because the approach is more expensive and cumbersome, which is the last thing you want in a constantly changing and complex society.

These characteristics of governance and their drawbacks are important because they show why these shifts in society might create an interest for mediation among those responsible to deal with certain kinds of problems that have traditionally been associated with government playing a central role. In this sense government officials are stuck in a role where they hold responsibility but do need other actors' knowledge and cooperation in order to act legitimately and effectively. Public officials thus need a new treatment for their problems, prompted by an ever growing and

complicated society where the old medicine has very little use and new ways of relieving the pains encountered need to be sought.

Government needs to find a new way of working '… which challenges past hierarchical modes of thinking (Stoker 1998:24)'. This can lead to governance failure even if government finds a way to develop the right way of operating, failures can still occur (Ibid). This is because there are a

(12)

lot of gaps that need to be filled between the different nodes of the network governance. What all of this brings with it is interdependence, which, as explained above, is a key characteristic of network governance. They have to share knowledge, resources, power and responsibility. This means that societal actors are also dependent on each other in addressing important issues and problems (Kooiman 1999: 73). 'In today's shared-power, no one in charge, interdependent world, public problems and issues spill over organizational and institutional boundaries (Bryson and Crosby in Bozeman 1993:323)'. So the big question for public officials is: how do I deal with these

interdependencies and these continuous interactions? Especially when these interdependent parties get into conflict. This is where public mediation seems like a good fit. The second key characteristic of network governance, named by Rhodes already carries with it the key word, the interdependent network members need to constantly communicate and negotiate.

Public Mediation

Taking all of the above into account we can see how broadly acknowledged shifts in the

institutional environment might generate interest for the practice of mediation. Because mediation is a conflict resolution method that focusses on interaction, communication and relationships. It is a method that can deal with interdependence and complex issues in a constructive way. On the public disputes program website it is made clear that often still public disputes are:

… either worked out behind-the-scenes by top level political decision-makers, become the focus of long and costly litigation, or find their way on to the legislative agenda. While each of these approaches has its strengths and

weaknesses, the typical outcome often seems unfair or unresponsive to the groups and individuals most involved. Often, a great deal of time and money is wasted (Public Disputes Program n.d.).

But as the website acknowledges and Susskind makes clear: 'Experience with dispute resolution in the United States indicates that consensual approaches to handling conflict in the public sector can yield outcomes that are fairer, more efficient, wiser, and more stable than traditional methods (Susskind and Cruikshank in Susskind 1999: 98)'. Advocates for mediation have noted how the practice responds to changes in the institutional environment and might help enhance the capacity of public officials and other actors to deal with the problems they face. Two models of mediation that seem to get the most attention when it comes to public dispute resolution are transformative mediation and the bifocal approach. These two models also seem most fitting to deal with

(13)

complexity. Transformative mediation focusses on the relationships (Bush and Folger 1994). The bifocal approach as the term implies tries to combine problem solving elements and the

transformative mediation approach (Mareshall 2003). To be able to '...reach an agreement that serves the mutual interests of the parties and improve the parties' relationship (Ibid: 431)'. When keeping the above challenges of current governing in mind what is also significant in mediation is that there is room for improvisation. Bellman in his article compares the practice to jazz (2006). Mediation is an in-the-moment practice because of this it is never the same and can adjust to shifts and changes. This agility is needed in a system of network governance where complexity reigns supreme.

My research in the field will show if these policy administrators actually choose public mediation as a conflict resolution method. Is there an interest in this method and if so, what challenges does this approach provide an answer too? Does what I find in the field fit the existing literature presented above? This becomes clear in Analytical chapter 1: Interest in the practice of mediation.

2.2 Part 2: Translation

'So I think this is a really successful way and we use Susan's model but we have made it more Swedish... (Lena)'.

After talking to two people who facilitate mediation in Sweden and Italy it struck me as significant that I could not imagine these two people, who both facilitate public mediation, to switch positions and takeover each others work. Their practice seems completely context bound yet it was obvious they didn't build the practice from the ground up themselves. There is a consensus on certain practices, I can point to certain connections. Currently most scholars seem to agree that mediation has three defining elements: '(1) assistance or some form of interaction by (2) a third party who (3) does not have the authority to impose an outcome (Ibid :375)'. There are some common threads, and certain methods are used in many places. Practices from all over the world are imported into

different contexts. Mediation is not a new idea, but what happens when people start to use it in different settings?

Lena Langlet, a person who facilitates mediation in Sweden, as can be seen in the quote above, stated that they use the model developed by Susan Podziba and made it more Swedish, but what does that mean? How can you research this process of importing mediation theory and transforming it into practice? This brought me to my central question: how do practitioners of public mediation give local meaning to their practice?

(14)

While researching this question it became apparent that translation theory was a useful analytical tool to help answer my question. Translation has long moved on from a pure linguistical sense and is a concept used in a much wider context. Translation seems a good fit because even when, for example, Lena explains what she means by 'making it more Swedish' it becomes clear that this means many things at once and certainly not just a literal implementation. Which because of the influence of the context on the translation is an impossible assignment.

In order to analyze the process of translating theory into practice several analytical tools are used. The first is translation theory itself, how can we use this concept for the analysis? How do public mediators give their practice local meaning? The localities here being, Italy and Sweden. Secondly, this translation takes place in communities of practice and how is that influential? And thirdly within these communities of practice how do boundary object play a role.

2.2.1 Translation Theory

To analyze the process of translation it is first key to understand what is meant by this analytical concept. Central in most theory of translation is language. 'The knowledge produced in research, used in policy and applied in practice invariably takes linguistic form, while language is the principle vehicle of its communication (Freeman 2009:4).' I start this research with the assumption that mediation theory is translated by practitioners in different settings into a practice they can use every day. Classically, translation is studied as the process of turning one language into another (Ibid). When translating mediation theory into practice, it is significant to note that everything starts with this classical form of translating. If the mediation theory is not in their spoken language, a word for word translation will probably take place. But what if the right words aren't available, if a direct translation isn't an option? Is the word left in the original language or is an appropriate substitute found? And if it the overarching term is left untranslated in this classical sense does it retain the same meaning? This brings us to the next and highly important aspect of translation. In translation not only language changes but meaning can change as well.

What do we mean when we talk about meaning? How do the mediators through the

translation of theory give their practice local meaning? According to Luhmann meaning is what is systems of all communication rely on (Ritzer 2011:334). More importantly, 'Meaning appears only against the backdrop of contingency (Ibid)'. There is no meaning if there is no possibility of being different. Meaning is found in action, and the meaning of one action is its difference from other possible actions. So the meaning is derived from the selection that is made out of the range of possible actions. One of the great writers about meaning, Clifford Geertz also points to the fact that culture as a system of meaning is public and does not exist in someone's head (1973:10). The thing

(15)

to ask about an action is not what their ontological status is but what is their import? '...what is, ridicule or challenge, irony or anger, snobbery or pride, that, in their occurrence and through their agency, is getting said (Ibid)'. According to Geertz 'Culture is public because meaning is (Ibid:12)'. Systems of meaning produce culture because they are a collective property of certain people. Meaning can be found in collective action but action can mean very different things and this is why Greetz advocates thick description as an anthropological method of explaining human action. Cultural analysis is not about discovering the continent of meaning but is guessing at meanings, assessing those and drawing explanatory conclusions from better guesses (Ibid: 20). In the area of overlap of the accounts of Luhmann and Greetz it becomes obvious that meaning is not something hidden it can be observed in social action. It is not something static, which makes it hard to pin down. When researching different translations of mediation theory, it is thus important to keep in mind that meaning needs to be sought in their occurrence not in people's psychic systems.

Translation lends itself well for the study of meaning because translation is an social act.

Meaning can be created by translation, lost in it or at least changed in the process. What is important to keep in mind with this is that '...translation, and the transformation if entails, always serves a purpose, and therefore an interest (Freeman 2009:5)'. The change in meaning takes place to serve a certain purpose. This happens with the translation of mediation theory as well, the

practitioners need this theory to do their work, and the translation serves the clear purpose of using the translated work in a specific setting, with a specific interest in mind: to make the translated theory work in practice to achieve the goal of a successful mediation process.

The concept of power cannot be left out when discussing translation. Following Newman Freeman states that, 'It is discourse theory, broadly speaking, which ''adds power'' to translation theory (Freeman 2012:19)'. This is because translation takes place within the frame of discourses. Everyone operates within the frame of certain discourses, this doesn't mean they determine everything but it is a frame of reference (Freeman 2009:5). So within a translation a dominant discourse may be reproduced but it can also be changed. 'It is reconstituted in another place in another form, with different implications (Ibid)'. Freeman, for this reason, makes clear that '… discursive regimes themselves appear wave-like, sustaining themselves through the myriad movements of meaning they entail (Freeman 2012:19)'. What the above also brings to the fore is that translation in this sense adds practice to discourse theory. Translation does not take place in a vacuum and different translations form a complex system. '… translation can be said to be

constructive, in so far as it reinvents the object which it translates; constitutive to the extent that it

creates communities of writers and readers, and contingent, to the degree that it is determined by its intelligibility and usefulness to the reader in her context for whom it is made (2009:9)'. Very

(16)

important to note is that translation also begets translation, which means that translations are often reproduced and meaning is changed significantly.

Meaning is given in the specific context in which a translation is undertaken. By pointing out that translation doesn't happen in a vacuum but in an intertwined frame of discourses, we already touched on this subject but there is more to it. Hermans in his article underscores that translation involves a network of active social agents, which do not have to be individuals, who all have certain preconceptions and interests (1996:26). 'Translation may be regarded as a particular mode of discursive transfer between cultural circuits or systems (Ibid)'. This also seems the case when we take a step back to the comment made by Lena, she states that they import Susan's work, which was created a cultural circuit which, as she indicates, gets translated into the cultural circuit of Sweden. But what exactly happens here? What determines these circuits and thus the translation? Intercultural traffic, as Hermans coins it, takes place in a social context (Ibid:27). This is a context of complex structures, these also include power structures (Ibid). Within these complex structures agents are faced with options and have to make decisions. Here the concept of norms come into play because these '..facilitate and guide the process of decision- making (Ibid)'. Norms play an important role when it comes to processes of translation and they are relevant to the whole process of transfer not just the actual process of translating (Ibid:26). They play a significant part in the decision on the import, whether to translate and how to actually do the translation. Translation is a continuous process of decision making which is governed by norms. 'Since norms imply a degree of social and psychological pressure, they act as practical constraints on the individual's behavior by foreclosing certain options and choices...(Ibid: 29)'. Norms guide decisions regarding translation in a more implicit manner. Rules can also be encountered, these are often explicit and

institutionalized. When translating mediation theory the translator will be situated in a specific social context and guided by norms and conventions. In practice norms may be a matter of disposition of habitus in Bourdieu's sense (Ibid:33). Habitus is '… an internalized mental, or cognitive, structure through which people deal with the social world. The habitus both produces, and is produced by, the society (Ritzer 2011:223)'. But what is thus important to take away from this is '… that norms are deeply implicated in the social and cultural life of a community (Hermans 1996:34)'. This also means that in complexly structured and stratified societies often overlapping and conflicting norms exist. The social context and the power relations in it do explain why there can be greater prominence of some norms over others. Hermans's work thus helps to make sense of the influence of context on the translation undertaken by mediators, translating from theory to practice: what kind of influence the social and cultural setting has on the translation. Translation is a social process and therefore it is hard to fit the outcome into a rational theoretical frame like

(17)

Riskin's grid of mediators orientations (2003:4). Even tough Riskin made some important changes to the theory of the grid in his later work, it still is trying to fit very different mediation realities in one mold.

The social and cultural perspective Hermans puts forward is also important when recognizing that what happens in a translation of theory, is not just a transfer of words but of knowledge. Wenger supports this statement by writing that knowing is an act of participation in complex social learning systems. The basic building blocks of a social learning system are communities of practice (2000: 229).

2.2.2 Communities of Practice

When analyzing the practice conundrum it is important to realize that the public mediators who translate theory into practice are at the same time part of a specific cultural circuit but also of a community of practice. Most facilitators of mediation practices again do not act in a vacuum, culturally nor professionally. '...collective learning results in practices that reflect both the pursuit of our enterprises and the attendant social relations. These practices are thus the property of a kind of community... (Wenger 1998:45)'. This community is what Wenger calls a community of practice. Practice is a pivotal word because it connotes doing. But doing in a specific historical and social context '… that gives structure and meaning to what we do. In this sense, practice is always social practice (Ibid:47)'. This brings us full circle in relation to translation. As already pointed out, context defines the translation and the person who translates as well as the community of practice a public mediator finds his or herself in.

Participating in these communities defines what is constituted as competence (Wenger 2000: 229). Wenger puts forward that within communities of practice competence is often defined by three elements: 1. Members are bound to each other by an collective understanding of what their practice entails. 2. They participate in mutual engagement. 3. They often have produced a shared repertoire i.e. language, routines, tools, stories (Ibid). The third element is especially interesting because it brings us back to the first and most basic form of translation, turning one language into another, and one of my first questions. Because even when the mediators choose not to translate certain terms and share 'the same language', do the people in the community of practice still mean the same thing when using the same vocabulary? The definitional language, as put forward in the aforementioned third element, may be shared but is the same meaning attached to this language by different practitioners? What this third element also points to is that boundary objects play a role within these communities. These can be language, tools, documents, images, symbols, roles, regulations and contracts used. This will be explained further in the following section.

(18)

But how do you trace these communities of practice? In this research I'm thus not only trying to trace a literal translation of words but of how meaning is given within communities of practice who use boundary objects and who are part of a network. A useful theory in this respect is, Actor Network Theory (ANT). An interesting question posed by Law is, why are we only

sometimes aware of the networks that lay behind and make up an actor? (Law 1992: 4). The

appearance of unity and disappearance of network has to do with simplification. According to ANT all '… phenomena are the effect or the product of heterogeneous networks (Ibid:5)'. However it is not strange that most of the time we are not aware of the network because most of the time we are not in a position to detect network complexities (Ibid). When researching the public mediators in Europe it will be important to analyze the network surrounding the individuals, because ANT writers suggest that the social is nothing other than patterned networks of heterogeneous materials (Ibid:2). These networks participate in the social, they shape it (Ibid:3). The theory does not deny that human beings have an inner life but thus that an actor is a patterned network of heterogeneous relations or an effect produced by such a network. ANT '… assumes that social structure is not a noun but a verb. Structure is not freestanding […] but a site of struggle, a relational effect that recursively generates and reproduces itself (Ibid:5)'. The emphasis on process has the implication that no version of the social order, organization or agent is ever complete or final. The effects of power are thus also always generated in a relational and distributed manner. Thus, 'the object is to explore and describe local processes of patterning, social orchestration, ordering and resistance (Ibid)'. This is exactly what is important in analyzing public mediators. These are actors who are made up of a network but these are concealed from view. As a researcher you are in the position to detect the network complexities.

2.2.3 Boundary Objects

What thus also complicate things is that translation not only, isn't performed in a vacuum

contextually, but is also conducted by different actors at once. Star and Griesemer point to this fact and explicate that translation is invariably multilateral, n-way, not one way (Star and Griesemer 1989: 412). It cannot be overlooked that within the community of practice there is also a desire to learn from one another and to talk to each other, one analytical concept developed by Star and Griesemer to explain this process, is the development of boundary objects. The creation of these is a '...key process in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds

(Ibid:393)'. Boundary objects are a means of translation in that they have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more that one world to make them recognizable (Ibid). They are however weakly structured in common use and become strongly

(19)

structured in individual-site use and can be abstract or concrete. Different participating worlds can establish protocols, they can begin to '..devise a common coin which makes possible new kinds of joint endeavor (Ibid:413)'. This does not mean to say that these protocols just impose one world view on the rest but that boundary objects act as anchors or bridges (Ibid:414). The foregoing is thus essential in describing the boundary object; it crosses boundaries. Which means that it needs to be internally heterogeneous and 'Their boundary nature is reflected by the fact that they are

simultaneously concrete and abstract, specific and general, conventionalized and customized (Ibid:408)'. Star and Griesemer identify four types of boundary objects. 1. Repositories, ordered piles of objects which are indexed in a standard fashion. 2. Ideal type, is an object such as a diagram, it is adaptable to a local site because it's a bit vague. 3. Coincident boundaries, these are common objects which have the same boundaries but different internal contents. 4. Standardized forms, are boundary objects devised as methods of common communication across dispersed work groups (Ibid). As mentioned earlier boundary objects in the public mediation communities of practice can consist of language, tools, documents, images, symbols, roles, regulations and contracts used. By using boundary objects they can manage relations within the community of practice.

When it comes to analyzing public mediation, an interesting boundary object is training. The training practitioners receive, quite possibly from other practitioners, is a boundary object in that it creates a bridge between social worlds. This can provide a common structure to more then one world but have a different meaning to those of the other social world it is being taught. A coincident boundary in the research can prove to be the municipal boundary, country boundary or even

European boundary in which public mediators operate. They share a boundary but have very different internal contents. Standardized forms may be encountered in the form of common

communication devised around certain concepts, although the odds of finding a standardized form to fill out (the example used by Star and Griesemer) will not be high in the field of public

mediation. It will be interesting to see if we can classify the imported theories themselves as boundary objects.

(20)

Chapter 3 Methodology

3.1 Qualitative Research Design

For this research a qualitative design was chosen. A feature of this design is an inductive view, theory comes out of research instead of the other way around. I've tried to honor this as much as was possible within the framework of the research set up. All the concepts used to analyze and the answers came out of the interviews. Of course there was a part of prior theoretical research done.

The epistemological position taken can be described as interpretative '...the stress is on the understanding of the social world through an examination of the interpretation of that world by its participants (Bryman 2008:366)'. The ontological position taken can be described as constructionist because social properties are analyzed as outcomes of interactions between individuals (Ibid). There is always a certain balance between structure and agency but agency takes an important place. Social properties are not viewed as outcomes by something 'out there', '… and separate from those involved in its construction (Ibid)'.

Sampling

The sampling method used for this research is snowball sampling. 'In certain respects, snowball sampling is a form of convenience sample, but it is worth distinguishing (Bryman 2008:184)'. It is a form of convenience sampling because this form of sampling starts out through existing

connections. In this case two initial connections were made with people in Italy and Sweden

through the supervising professor. These people were asked who else to interview and those people were asked again. In both Sweden and Italy the same names were repeated by different people. Some interviewee's suggestions leaded to new interviews. Since the practice in both countries can be characterized as small, a considerable group of respondents was reached through the use of this method. Although this is not to deny that this was a non-probability sample, 'Essentially this implies that some units in the population are more likely to be selected than others (Ibid:168)'. There was thus a sampling bias, because the fieldwork started by interviewing certain individuals on the basis of convenience. Leaving the people not known to this circle out of the research. As much

connections as possible were made using snowball sampling and no respondents were turned down unless there was a time restriction.

3.2 Research Method

The main research method chosen for this research is qualitative interviewing. Empirical data has been gathered by studying of documentation, informal conversation and by conducting qualitative

(21)

interviews. The interviews were done in an unstructured and semi-structured fashion. A factor influencing the entire research was the researcher's language proficiency, who is only fluent in Dutch and English. All interviews and conversations except those conducted with Dutch speakers were done in English. For none of the interviewees English was their native language. This is important to note because if a person is able to speak in their own language or not does affect the research. Some respondents were more and others less proficient in English, this affects word choice, understanding of questions, understanding of answers, speed of conversation and many more factors. Although overall understanding was good, when using interviewing as the main research technique it can't be denied that language proficiency plays a role.

Study of Documentation

First of all, I will make use of newspapers and academic literature to understand more about the countries I will conduct my fieldwork in, thus about Italy and Sweden. This will give me a sense of the context the mediators are working in and quite possibly grew up in. I will also study how mediation and related practices have evolved in these countries. If available I will also look into public mediation records. Limitations herein lay with the fact that I cannot read Italian or Swedish.

Informal Conversations

Informal conversations were used in my research. They helped me to build rapport and to collect data. These took place when meeting the mediators and public officials. Since the research is specifically about mediation and related practices it didn't make sense to have informal conversations outside of the context. Talking to someone in a lunchroom about mediation is probably not as relevant for this research since it focusses on the practitioners and not the perception of the citizens of the country on the practice.

Semi- Structured Interviews

To answer the first part of my first research question, the importance of asking questions to which the answers can be more easily compared is imperative. This because opinions from multiple countries across Europe are analyzed in the first part of my research. Therefore semi- structured interviews make sense here. As Bryman points out, in a semi- structured interview the interviewer has a list of questions to be covered but '… the interviewee has a great deal of leeway in how to reply (2008:438). The interviewer can pick up on interesting things said by the interviewee and ask further questions. Using semi-structured questions also make a more direct comparison possible.

Some of the semi- structured interviews for this section have taken place over Skype, this means a semi- structured interview also works better because of the usual break offs and

interruptions in the Skype connection. The respondents who have been interviewed over the phone or Skype are located in Sweden, Germany and Finland. In Italy, Sweden and The Netherlands these

(22)

interviews took place in person. Open questions were asked because closed questions would lead the interviewee too much. It is also important because the answers sought are grounded in their specific practice and how this practice enfolds cannot be predicted through a design of closed and detailed questions.

Semi Structured Interview Questions

Variations regarding the order of the questions below did occur. Some questions that were

irrelevant for certain respondents were left out, judged on a person to person basis. The questions and the structure are inspired by the website John Forester created with profiles of practitioners.1

Part one:

What’s your current position?

How long have you been in this position?

Can you give me a brief overview of what it is you do in your work? Part two

What are the challenges you encounter in your work? What difficulties do you have to deal with? How do you deal with these?

What’s the specific project you've been working on in ...? Give me a brief overview of it.

Why do you think this approach worked best to deal with this conflict? Why not solve conflicts in a different way?

Tell me about your specific role and contributions in this project. Were there any key turning points in this project?

Were there any surprises?

What were the key relationships that mattered most? What were the key sources of support or resistance you encountered?

What was most difficult or challenging? What did you do to deal with these challenges?

Did the work fail in some ways? How? What might you have done to prevent those areas of partial failure?

What was most rewarding?

Why do you think these kinds of processes are becoming more popular? Part three

What are the lessons for someone who might want to do the same kind of projects you have done? If you could do this project all over again, would you do anything differently? Why, and what would you do?

(23)

What did you learn from the people you worked with in this project?

Do you view your contributions as successful? In what ways? What specifically was accomplished? What were the skills you had to have to do the work you just told me about? Where and how did you learn those skills?

When you think of the future of the kind of work you’ve talked about here, what gives you a sense of hope? What makes you concerned or worried?

What’s next for you in your work? What are you looking forward to? Observations

Originally observations of mediations were part of my research plan, unfortunately this did not happen. The reasons for this were: planning, language restriction and privacy issues. I was able to see two masterclasses that were organized and the outcome of a tender being pronounced in Italy. Even though there was a language restriction it would have been good to see the mediators at work.

Unstructured Interviews

Interviews are the main instrument of data-collection in this study. At the beginning of each interview I tried to establish a good interviewing partnership (Weiss 1995: 61). To establish this partnership I'd begin by asking if it was okay for me to record the interview and that I would thus transcribe and analyze the interviews.

Unstructured interviewing has been chosen as the research method because the kind of information collected does not lend itself for questionnaires or more quantitative research methods. The reason for this is that, as stated in the introduction, this research is about uncovering the practical experience of individuals and comparing those. What I wanted to obtain in the interviews were concrete descriptions. These include '… both scenes and events external to the respondent and the respondent's own thoughts and feelings (Weiss 1995:66)'. At the beginning of the interviews I would make clear that this is what I was after. The interviews were conducted using an interview guide with certain possible topics to discuss but no set questions up front. This gave the respondent the freedom to express the important aspects of their practice without leading the respondent. The interviews take on a reconstructive form, by letting the practitioners narrate a reconstruction of their practice. My task was to help the practitioner talk about the episodes of their practice that wouldn't be possible without me there. As an interviewer, I thus introduced the topic to discuss and the respondent got to share their story (Ibid). I tried to let the story flow from the respondent and at the same time I tried to help the respondent develop information (Ibid: 74). In the interviews I asked specifying questions, follow-up questions, interpreting questions and left room for silence (Bryman 2008:446). I also tried to be attentive to markers, which is a passing reference (Weiss 1995: 77). I'd let the respondent finish his or her story and come back to this marker in a later stage of the

(24)

interview. This form of interviewing is used to answer my second research question because here I was looking for an unbiased account of their work live. I didn't want to prejudice their responses because I wanted to see if the topic of translation was something they talked about without me putting the emphasis on that concept. This is important because it makes the eventual outcomes more authentic.

As made clear in the introduction the interviews were conducted with public mediators and public officials in specific countries. Fieldwork was conducted in Italy and Sweden. These are very different countries within Europe and should provide an interesting comparison. In this research it is important to conduct a comparative study because this can show if and how translation is practiced in different countries and bring forward how important the social and cultural context is in which the translation is being conducted. '...we can understand social phenomena better when they are compared in relation to two or more meaningfully contrasting cases or situations (Bryman 2008: 58)'.

An additional method used is to let the mediators draw a map of their communities of practice, this services a dual purpose, it is a topic of interest, and by listing the people they work with, it might be easier for them to point to colleagues who would be interesting respondents for the research. The former took place at the end of each interview with public mediators.

So how do these methods add up to give a view of these communities of practice? It is important to start with practice, start with observing and asking questions about their practice. After this to let the practitioners reflect on the theory they use and then the connection to their current practice and context emerges. This shows me how the translation took place and how this is context related.

Fieldwork Locations

When looking into public mediation, the municipal level is the level of operandi in both Sweden and Italy when talking about public mediation. This is why the focus of the literature reviewed will not lie with national politics. Although, municipal policy can of course not be viewed completely separate from national politics.

Sweden

Sweden is a northern European country and has 9.7 million citizens (Sweden.se). A very important moment in the history of Europe but also certainly in that of Sweden was the second World War. After the war a purely Social Democratic government was installed, which guided Sweden into the manner of governing it is still known for today. In the 1940s and 50s important reforms took place, these laid the foundation of the Swedish Welfare state. Importantly on a regional level all over Sweden were the two boundary reforms since the 1950s, in 1952 and 1974 (Montin 2000:3). Which

(25)

reduced the number of municipalities from 2,500 in 1951 to 278 in 1974. Since that date some municipalities have been partitioned into two or more units. The current number is 289.

Municipalities in Sweden have a prominent position as responsible for carrying out the welfare policy (Ibid). Local government in Sweden '… enjoys both a strong constitutional status and relatively high degrees of policy making autonomy and financial independence (Ibid). In the early 1990's the national and local government were forced to become more efficient when it underwent a crisis. This made the municipal financial problems rise because of unemployment and reduced tax base (Ibid). So the expenditures were increasing and inflow was severely reduced. Several of these problems still remained to be solved in 2000. '… including high unemployment rate and social problems, and problems concerning quality of services and mistrust among the citizens regarding the democratic institutions (Ibid:4)'. Although according to The Economist Sweden got through the beginning of the last economic crisis comparatively well, '… in part because to clean-up efforts after a brutal crisis in the 1990s (The Economist)'. Unfortunately Sweden couldn't escape the crisis entirely, unemployment rates have gone up again. On a national scale in 2014 general elections were held to elect the Riksdag, all 21 county councils and 290 municipal assemblies. The centre right alliance for Sweden coalition sought a third term in government but the left wing parties outpolled the Alliance for Sweden (Ibid).

Italy

Italy is a southern European country inhabited by more than 61 million people. This makes it the 5ht most populated country in Europe. Italy as we know it today was only unified between 1859-66. National politics in Italy are based on a parliamentary government with a proportional voting system. Italy has a complicated regional devision. It is divided in 20 regions (regioni), 110

provinces (province) and 8102 municipalities (comuni) and several mountain communities. All the municipalities differ geographically and demographically (Fedele and Moini, 2007:118). 72 percent of the municipalities have a population of less than 5000. It then doesn't come as a surprise that 'A notable characteristic of Italy is, therefore, the highly fragmented nature of administration at a local level (Ibid)'. At the start of the 1990s an important change happened namely a new party appeared on the scene, Lega Nord. This party wanted to transform Italy from a republic into a federation of nine states and autonomous municipalities (Ibid:119). The most significant outcome of this, was law 127/1997, '… which imposed a requirement on the government to transfer new responsibilities and functions to the regions and local bodies (Ibid:120)'. A wide transfer of powers from the regions to local government was ensured by unvaried constitution laws of 1997/ 1998 on administrative federalism. So the new political prospective was that of federalism and the present day position of

(26)

this political and legislative process was eventually achieved in 2001 by a change in the Italian constitution part V, article 114 (Ibid). In which is stated that the Republic is composed of the state, regions, cities, provinces and municipalities. Added to this in article 118 it is stated that

administrative functions are the responsibility of the municipalities (Ibid). Local autonomy had never had such recognition but because of the size of most municipalities it is hard for them to meet the requirements the constitution demands of them. A small municipality is required to promote itself, deal with very powerful regional bodies with wide legislative and planning powers and has a constant shortage of economic resources (Ibid: 123). Besides this municipalities face other major problems as well:

...it has an aging population and sees influxes in migrants which gives rise to changing demand in the quantity and quality of services. At the same time, it has growing responsibility in the area of welfare provision within a network in which local administrators are no longer able to count on party influence to make collective decisions and obtain the political consensus necessary to govern (Ibid).

Implications Research

The best possible implications of my research would be, if practitioners learn something about their own work because of me being there with them. And to let other practitioners, in other parts of Europe or even outside of it, learn something about their community of practice and specifically how they communicate with each other and learn from each other.

(27)

Chapter 4 Analysis Part One: Interest in the Practice of Mediation

In this chapter an answer to the first research question is provided. This question is build on the premise that, even though public mediation and related practices have been used in Europe to solve different kinds of conflict for decades, the interest in the practice now seems to grow. But why now? What is the status of public mediation in Europe? Certainly the northern European countries have a long tradition of consensus building but why does there seem to be an growing interest in this practice now?

The use of the different mediation practices is nothing new in Europe. One of the

respondents in Sweden underwrote this: 'I certainly believe that it's not completely new, I mean they have been using mediation in public conflict for a long time in certain parts of the world (Bernard)'. This wonderment thus brought me to my first central question: Why is interest in public mediation growing in Europe? What problems and challenges do citizens and public officials see it as a response to?

As I demonstrated previously, there are large shifts in the institutional environment that have been taken place for a while now. These changes might generate interest in mediation as a practice that respond to five key shifts in: complexity, power, knowledge, networks/technology and

economic situation. Here I examine in more detail interest. The focus is on understanding the character of this interest rather than on assessing its breath. Metaphorically speaking, in this analysis I'm trying to understand/ diagnose the factors that cause/ contribute to 'the disease' rather then assessing how many people might be infected.

The practitioners interviewed for this part of the analysis come from a range of countries, Italy, Sweden, The Netherlands, Germany and Finland. However, as explained in the methodology chapter, fieldwork was conducted in Sweden and Italy which is why these two countries provide a more in depth look. The story of this chapter, will begin by explaining that the practice of public mediation is indeed growing. Following, an explanation is offered on why this is happening which is interrelated to the challenges faced in society anno 2015, both in general terms and in the work of local politicians. This is important since local politicians are often the ones hiring the mediators. The last part of the chapter goes into the manner of growth with which some respondents put question marks. The chapter closes with a short analysis that questions the extent and speed of growth.

Interest Growth

First of all it is thus important to note that almost all of the respondents see the practice growing. 'There is a growing interest and a growing realization among Swedish municipalities, and I think

(28)

that's more or less an established fact that there is a growing interest, yes (Alexander)'. None of the respondents see the practice growing at a surreal pace but do recognize that it is indeed growing. 'Its spreading too, I think. I think it will not be that common yet, it will take a few years, its not about to explode (Nils)'. Alexander is a public mediator and scholar, and Nils works for a municipality in Sweden. Both see the interest and usage of the practice growing on a municipal level. According to Marianella, a mediator from Italy, the practice there started coming up during a big political crisis at the beginning of the nineties and grew after that. Although the practice is still very small, she does see a growth in interest. More important then is not only if it's growing but why it's growing.

What then needs to be answered is: what challenges do the respondents see public mediation as a response to? So again, what is the problem for which this is the solution? Most public

mediation cases are contracted by regional politicians and often they are the ones looking for a way to tackle problems they run into on a daily basis. In the following section voices of politicians, public officials, project leaders and public mediators will come to the fore. Because not only local politicians can explain why they need the practice of mediation, mediators themselves know quite well why they are being hired to mediate in a conflict.

4.1 Power Shift

During the interviews I asked, 'what are some of the challenges that local politician face in their work that mediation might help with?' This question was put in front of the mediators and public officials who might have used mediation. In the next section, an explanation was put forward by Martin. Martin is a consultant and public mediator in Sweden, he works all over the country but is based in Gothenburg. He explained the situation in Sweden clearly without me ever needing to ask the direct question. The next section taken out of the interview with Martin shows us why,

according to him, there is an interest in public mediation in Sweden and this has everything to do with the societal and professional context local politicians find themselves in.

The work we are doing now comes from the realization that the issues that the municipalities and regions have to handle are getting more and more complex. The power structure in society has shifted quite dramatically from lets say just, oh lets go back like ten years ago where power was concentrated into a few, lets say a few political parties, a few societal bodies, like organizations and they did the conflict resolution in between them and that was it, and there was this big decision made in a parliament or in a local authority or whatever. So people were quite obedient to the decision and even if they resisted, their ability to coordinate the

(29)

resistance was quite low and it was quite expensive. But in the digital era that power has shifted from these given actors and has sort of emerged itself into society which makes it quite hard for politically controlled organizations to actually make and take really tough decisions that become legitimate. So coming from that view of what's going on, we have to start to look into how can we actually help politicians, civil servants to manage themselves in this conflict field situation because it's not going to get easier, it's just going to get worse. Hence we are looking into the area of complexity, trying to understand self organization, networking societies and networking people but also the dimensions of

co-creation and things around that so the work I'm exactly doing now is what we call prototyping, models, methodologies, in practice to actually address really complex issues (Martin).

The key words in the statement made by Martin are complexity and power. These are two of the main concepts when explaining why there is an interest in using public mediation as a conflict resolution tool because they form challenges to public officials and local politicians. What Martin brings to the fore is what many scholars say is the shift from government to governance. As

explained in the theoretical framework this shift means a change in the distribution of power. When talking about governance and a change in power relations it is important to state that the people interviewed referred to a specific change, namely a change in representation. As Martin explains in the above quote, power was concentrated within a few, let say a few political parties, a few societal bodies (Martin). Castiglione and Warren point out, in most countries democracy evolved into '...its familiar form based on elections of political representatives (2005:1)'. Two key characteristics of democratic representation are that: representation identifies a place for political power to be exercised responsibly and it invokes a principal- agent relationship (Ibid). What the concept of representation means needs to transform and this is exactly what many of the respondents in this research pointed out. If politicians on different levels want it or not, their role as representatives is going through a change. Martin points this out, power has shifted and emerged itself into society which makes it quite hard for politically controlled organizations to actually make and take really tough decisions that become legitimate.

This is also the point where complexity comes in, because why has power shifted and changed the meaning of representation? The key point of this change is complexity. Societies have become more complex and the social contract between citizen and government has become more intricate. There has been a functional differentiation and institutional fragmentation of governing

Public mediation in Europe : a comparative study

Table of contents

Abstract

Chapter 1

Introduction

Chapter 2

Theoretical framework

Chapter 3

Methodology

Chapter 4

Analysis Part One: Interest in the Practice of Mediation