The methods used in mediation processes directly influence how parties resolve their disputes. Traditional approaches often focus on resolving conflicts within an objective framework, keeping emotions and subjective values at bay. However, the Inclusive Model of Mediation (IMM) offers a more holistic approach by placing participants’ emotions and values at the center of the process.
Beth Myers’ article, “Feelings, Values, and Mediation: A Journey Through the Inclusive Model of Mediation (IMM),” published on Mediate.com, examines the core principles of IMM, its differences from other mediation approaches, and the advantages it offers (Myers, 2025). This article provides a summary for ADRIstanbul readers; the original link can be found at the end of the text.
What is the Inclusive Model of Mediation (IMM)?
IMM was developed in 1995 by Community Mediation Maryland and emphasizes the role of emotions in conflict resolution. This model encourages participants to openly express their feelings and values, aiming to uncover the root causes of disputes.
Unlike the traditional “separating people from the problem” approach, IMM directly incorporates the emotional processes of the parties into the mediation. One of the key foundations of IMM is Nonviolent Communication (NVC) and neuroscience, both of which assert that emotions play an active role in every decision-making process.
Differences Between IMM and Other Mediation Models
Beth Myers’ study compares IMM with other mediation models and highlights the following key differences (Myers, 2025):
- Emotion and Value Orientation:
- IMM helps participants recognize and articulate their feelings and core values. This fosters deeper understanding and empathy among the parties.
- Co-Mediation and Continuous Feedback:
- IMM adopts a co-mediation model, where mediators continuously provide feedback to one another. This structure enhances professional solidarity and supports continuous development.
- Limited Use of Caucus Sessions:
- In IMM, private meetings with individual parties (caucus sessions) are largely restricted. Mediators enter the process with only essential information and conduct the entire mediation in joint sessions.
- Absence of Strict Rules:
- IMM does not impose rigid rules on how parties should communicate or what they can discuss. Participants are free to use strong language or express their emotions openly. The mediator’s role is to facilitate the process rather than control its content.
- Training and Certification Process:
- IMM’s training is based on voluntary participation, requiring mediators to engage in community service. Those who complete the basic training must undergo an extensive period of observation and practice before obtaining full certification.
Advantages and Limitations of IMM
Beth Myers’ analysis highlights that while IMM excels in certain aspects compared to other models, it also presents some limitations (Myers, 2025).
Advantages
- Deeper Communication: Participants share not only their demands but also their emotions and core values, leading to a more profound resolution process.
- Strong Community Support: IMM’s training process fosters a sense of solidarity among mediators.
- Ongoing Development: The co-mediation model ensures that mediators continuously receive feedback, enhancing their professional growth.
Limitations
- Restricted Use of Caucus: The inability to hold private sessions with parties may make it more challenging to navigate complex disputes.
- Rigorous Training Requirements: The lengthy and demanding training process may hinder the widespread adoption of IMM.
- Process-Oriented Structure: IMM’s formulaic nature can sometimes limit participants’ ability to take the lead in crafting their own solutions.
IMM stands out as an innovative model that highlights the significance of emotions and values in mediation. By fostering deeper connections and increasing empathy between parties, it offers a distinctive approach. However, its divergence from traditional models may pose practical challenges in some settings.
As Beth Myers emphasizes in her study, no single mediation model is universally superior; rather, different models work best in different contexts (Myers, 2025). While IMM is particularly effective in community-based dispute resolution, traditional methods may still be preferable in more structured, legally driven cases.
To enhance the adoption and applicability of IMM across various settings, further research and the sharing of practical experiences are needed.
References
Myers, B. (2025). Feelings, Values, and Mediation: A Journey Through the Inclusive Model of Mediation (IMM). Mediate.com. Retrieved from Mediate.com
This article summarizes Beth Myers’ work published on Mediate.com and provides an overview of IMM.
