Recently I shared some thoughts on telephonic mediation. To continue the discussion on “distance” mediation in this COVID era, we’ll consider text only mediation. 

A small number of mediators offer sessions using only email or online chat rooms. Email and chat rooms, of course, are text only communications, and as such, some information is lost: Since the parties cannot see one another, information from body language and emotional state, so one could infer from tone of voice, is lost. 

Studies comparing how people interpret emotions from emails have shown that there is very little agreement by the end of the process, even among trained data coders. In my university classes while observing the use of text only mediation, students reported two other significant, and possibly negative, factors. First, text only interaction is slow since it simply takes more time to type out a message than to say it. Second, my students felt it was “easier to misrepresent” on the computer than it would be face-to-face. That may have just been my students reaction because a survey of actual participants revealed that text only communication did not inhibit the participants from expressing themselves or from feeling understood. In fact, many reported that they were more comfortable online and felt they were more open and truthful. 

Compared to mediation using email, chat rooms have the advantage of being in real time. Typically, sessions are scheduled in advance with a login and an agreement to mediate. When all parties are participating, the mediator begins as they would face-to-face. Chat rooms also provides breakout rooms for caucuses and online reviewing of documents.

Between email and chat rooms are bulletin boards and threaded dialogue, which save messages on a confidential site. The bulletin boards allow parties to visit the website at their convenience and post messages as in a conversation. One notable example is Wikipedia’s Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN) where contributors who have a disagreement over content in Wikipedia can have a discussion with experienced editors in order to reach a compromise resolution. A good example occurred late in the Summer of 2020 over a disagreement as to who should be shown as the founders of Tesla in Wikipedia’s infobox section. While a lawsuit settlement over the founders of the company was discussed in the article, the dispute among the editors was over the summary listing. Wikipedia’s content dispute resolution bulletin board provided a forum for discussion as how best to handle. 

One concern is how one compensates for the lack of visual cues and tone of voice to “read” the other party’s emotions. One shouldn’t attempt to “read between the lines,” but rather ask questions, such as “I think what I just wrote may have upset you, is that right? That wasn’t my intention.” You, too, should make your important and relevant emotions known, such as by saying, “I’m feeling that my most important point is not being taken into account.” 

Text only and telephonic mediation demonstrate that the process is becoming flexible and successful in various modes when done properly.

Covid-19 has seen a rapid increase in the use of alternatives to face-to-face mediations and the oldest option, but still a very viable one, is conducted by telephone. 

Mediation by telephonic conference call is commonly used when the parties are separated by physical distance or other issues, such as transportation or scheduling difficulties, make face-to-face mediation less viable. In some cases, all parties are on the telephone; in others, the mediator is with one party and the other party connects by telephone. Telephonic mediation has also been used in cases when one party feels threatened by the physical presence of the other party, such as when one party has a restraining order in effect against the other.

Of course, the obvious difference is that the parties are not able to see one another and any information one might gather from nonverbal cues is missing. The mediator also has no control over the participants’ physical environment. For exmple, children and pets might interrupt; neighbors might knock on the door; someone might be using a hedge trimmer outside the window. On the other hand, parties calling from their own home or office are in a familiar, comfortable environment. Parties may feel less stress calling from home rather than being face-to-face in a court meeting room or mediation office. 

Additionally, sharing documents is not possible by telephone alone. This can be easily done, though, by email or fax, the same way drafts of an agreement can be shared. 

Mediators conducting telephonic mediations must be particularly skilled in listening to language use, at recognizing and dealing with silences and hesitations, and at encouraging participation with verbal acknowledgments. 

It’s reasonable to ask if telephonic mediations are any less effective than ones face-to-face. One study of family law mediations conducted by telephone demonstrated that 75% to 85% of the sessions reached agreements. This is comparable those done face-to-face, so it is reasonable to assume that being limited to voice only is not a significant factor. In fact, the approach may have unique advantages of its own. Some family law mediators feel that when there is emotional hostility between parties, the telephone creates a, “physical and psychological distance,” that both helps speed the process and increase the satisfaction with the outcome. In fact, the participants continued to communicate by telephone rather than face-to-face. 

Recommendations for participants in telephonic mediations include:

• Do what you can to control distractions in your own environment.

• Listen carefully and take notes.

• Ask questions to verify your understanding of what the mediator and other party say.