Mediating Ethically: The Limits of Codes of Conduct and the Potential of a Reflective Practice Model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discussions regarding the appropriate ethical behaviours for mediators and the subsequent development of formal codes of conduct have focused on hallmark issues such as third party impartiality and party self-determination. However, in an informal process, ethical choices are inherent in every intervention made by a mediator. In adopting the standard-setting approach of an adjudicative model, mediator codes of conduct are a poor fit with the conceptual and structural characteristics of this fluid, uncertain, and essentially private process. Confining the substantive and conceptual debate over mediation ethics to formal codes dangerously underestimates both the scope and the significance of choices faced constantly by intervenors in their process management role. A disclosing and questioning dialogue among mediators and others, using Schönian principles of reflective practice, is proposed as a more candid and complete recognition of the ethical dilemmas that arise in mediation. Two real-life case studies drawn from the writer's experience are used to illustrate this approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it