| This study researches an integral approach to alternative dispute resolution, and undertakes an examination of the different value systems, reference points and boundary judgments which drive alternative dispute resolution process and practice. The researcher examines, within the organizational context, the application of critical systems thinking as a framework for making explicit the boundary judgments which practitioners and others make before, during and after interventions and uses a methodology which takes a systemic, rather than "one-off" approach to conflict resolution. The research findings triangulate with the literature which indicates that appropriate, and successful, informal conflict resolution is a personal and social construct, and that within different worldviews a variety of options (besides the widely practiced interest based mediation) are considered legitimate. This study has major implications for the concept of ADR practitioner as designer and controller of process, indicating that the imposition of the practitioner's worldview and boundary judgment(s) regarding legitimate practice potentially marginalize and/or ignore the client's worldview and value system. This study shows the potential that integral theory and critical systems thinking, particularly boundary critique, has for raising the concept of reflective practice to new levels in which mutual exploration of boundary judgments regarding what constitutes legitimate process and successful outcome for all stakeholders is the foundation of ethical practice. |
