'Playing Devil's Advocate': Reality testing in the context of mediation in Australia

About the Project Project contributions to the field This research project, funded by the Mediator Standards Board (MSB), makes major contributions to what is known about mediation, to what is known about the use of reality testing in the context of mediation (and of conciliation), and to what is known about the practice of mediation (and conciliation) more generally. Through its innovative use of reflexive thematic analysis, it also makes a major contribution to the future design and conduct of research in this field. The information collected during this project clarifies that there is no consensus among mediators/conciliators about the nature of reality testing, although most see it as a key contributor to achieving a mediated/conciliated agreement, or as an important means of enhancing disputant engagement in the mediation/conciliation process. Responders use reality testing for various purposes throughout the mediation/conciliation process (though not when the disputants appear not to have the capacity or interest); and its use is observed to have both positive and negative effects on the disputants, on the final outcomes, and on the role of the mediator/conciliator in any given mediation/conciliation. The information from survey responders and focus group attendees has provided valuable insights into how mediators/conciliators perceive their role, and into the precarious balance they seek to maintain between their ethical responsibilities and their use of reality testing techniques. We have also gained valuable information about disputant self-determination, and the range of in-mediation/conciliation events that can affect how, and sometimes if, it is protected. Background It is clear from the relevant literature that there is no consensus on the meaning of “reality testing” in the context of mediation, or on the nature of reality testing interventions, when or how they are used, or on which methods, approaches and techniques could be said to typify “reality testing”. Even the Australian National Mediator Accreditation System (NMAS), which gives a regulatory context to the project, lacks clear guidance about reality testing, including its meaning, or use by mediators, or how a mediator might choose to use it in the context of, say, participant self-determination. This Project has sought to increase what is known about mediation and to improve its practice by gaining information and expertise that will assist in developing a theoretical, practical, and training framework for reality testing in the context of mediation, and in developing ethical guidelines around its practice.