Mediators’ reframing as a constitutive element of a reconciliatory argumentative style

Abstract

This paper shows that reframing of conflict can be considered as a constitutive element of a “reconciliatory argumentative style” (van Eemeren, 2019), which is typical of dispute mediators, whose aim is to steer parties towards the resolution of their conflict. On the basis of a systematic empirical analysis of mediation cases, we first show that reframing encompasses a change of issue, which may or may not be justified by arguments. Then, we show how it is functional to the three aspects of mediators’ strategic manoeuvring, being used consistently by mediators in their effort to help parties solve their conflict on the basis of reasonable discussion.

Patients and psychotherapists using concessive counter‐argumentation: Co‐constructing new framings

“…Reframing is a potent method to overcome potential moments of impasse in the change process, and thus, it is a “motor of change” in psychotherapy (LaClave & Brack, 1989). In dispute mediation, reframing is an argumentative move to advance the discussion in a nonconflictual way (Greco & Soria, 2021). Reframing techniques have been used in a variety of therapeutic settings, including therapeutic community prisons.…”