Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation

Guest blogger, Iveta Studenkova, graduated from the Faculty of Law of Masaryk University in Brno (2009 M.A., 2011 J.D.). She has worked as a legal practitioner in the Office of the Public Defender of Rights, as a child advocate at the Office for the International Legal Protection of Children, and as an associate attorney in family law, which she has been practicing ever since. Since 2015, she has been conducting mediations in the transformative model in cross-border disputes, and since 2018 she has been working as a mediator with at least one family mediation per week at the Mediation and Education Centre in Brno and also runs her own private practice. In 2024, she became a Certified Transformative Mediator, so designated by the US Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation and became its consultant. She is also an active member of the Czech Institute for Conflict Transformation, which organizes educational events in transformative mediation for the general public.

Purpose of this essay 

The transformative mediation certification process means so much for me. For many years, I felt I wasn’t good enough to pass. However, after dozens of mediations and training sessions this year, I finally found the courage to fill out the application.

I believe that it might be important for the person assessing my mediation to understand my perspective, the challenges I’ve faced over the years, and the role of mediation in my life. Also, my experiences and my journey might inspire others on their transformative mediation road. That’s why I decided to write this essay as a reflection on my experiences, feelings, and understanding of transformative mediation, including its principles and practices.

My First Date with Transformative Mediation 

I began mediating in 2015 with my first training led by Robin Brzobohatý. During this training, I felt confused and thought transformative mediation wouldn’t work. It was very different from the negotiation style I used as a lawyer. There were only four interventions, and I wasn’t suggesting any steps to reach an agreement, which was something I usually relied on. Transformative mediation focused on changing interactions rather than simply reaching an agreement. I believed that without an agreement, communication would always suffer. As a lawyer, I thought my role was to guide people toward a plan that would help lower their emotions and lead to positive interactions.

However, I noticed in my lawyer practice, that agreements were often broken or made without real commitment, making participants reluctant to follow the rules even before they were established. I also observed that even after reaching an agreement, the conversation dynamic didn’t change; each party still felt unfairly treated, leading to further conflict. This made me suspicious that there was something deeper influencing whether people were kind or rude to one another.

Through transformative mediation, I learned that it is a process where a third party—like myself—helps conflicting parties improve their interactions from negative and destructive to positive and constructive. For the first time, I heard that the main problem in conflicts is not the issues (like money, children, or work) but the way people interact with each other. I was surprised to realize that even when parties were shouting and rude, they still wanted to escape the negative conflict spiral. It was a paradox that made me rethink my beliefs; I couldn’t believe that people in deep conflict wanted to reconnect as human beings—to communicate openly, make their own choices, respect each other, and maintain their individual autonomy and social connections.

I have also learned that in a negative conflict spiral, people become weaker and more self-absorbed. They lose control, feel confused, face uncertainty, and struggle to make decisions. Self-centered individuals focus on their own grievances, becoming more closed off and dominant in communication. This weakens their ability to trust each other and can lead to a breakdown in positive and constructive communication about existing problems. What parties truly want is for the mediator to identify opportunities for changing their interactions.

The purpose of mediation is not merely to settle an agreement—although that can be a side effect—but to address the destructive interactions between the parties and transform them back into positive, humanizing exchanges, even if no agreement is reached.

From these insights, the role of the mediator becomes clear: to help parties make positive interactional shifts—focusing on empowerment and recognition—by supporting their strength and responsiveness. As they explore and discuss issues, the mediator helps them communicate, deliberate, make decisions, and consider each other's perspectives. The goal is to help parties regain their inherent abilities for self-determination and empathy, which may have been disrupted by ongoing conflict, leading to positive changes in their interactions. This process can ultimately result in an agreement.

I learned that I don’t lead the mediation or frame the parties’ discussions. Instead, I support them and help facilitate shifts towards positive conflict communication. When I first heard that both parties need the desire and ability to make positive changes for themselves and that I should follow their lead, I doubted that this approach would work.

My Troubles with Previous Practice Targeted on Dispute Resolution

At law school, I was taught that every problem has its solution, and that people want to resolve conflicts through agreements. An agreement was seen as the best way to calm emotions and restore relationships. If no agreement was reached, a court order was necessary, and I believed a judge could enforce peaceful communication because there would be nothing left to resolve. However, in my experience as an attorney for both children and adults, I realized this concept was completely wrong.

I witnessed many parents ignoring court orders and engaging in disputes over what those orders meant. Many parents were desperate, relying on agreements or court orders that often failed to provide any real solutions. Initially, I thought parents needed to agree with the terms for them to respect the agreements. So, I focused on creating multiple ways to reach agreements, working hard to present two or three possible outcomes. I was convinced my intentions were good because I could see the bigger picture and the potential consequences. But I felt defeated when my suggestions were dismissed, and clients continued to argue. This shock made me rethink my approach.

I began to listen more carefully to my clients, paying attention to their feelings, doubts, and fears. I realized that emotions played a crucial role and that the content of any agreement had to be developed by the clients themselves. I started to become more sensitive to their needs, but after a few months, I felt close to burnout. I was overwhelmed by my clients' emotions and their daily struggles, which left both them and me feeling desperate. I understood that I needed to make some changes.

The key realization was that the problems my clients faced were not mine. They needed to take responsibility for their situations, and I had to empower them to find their own solutions. My role shifted to listening and understanding their perspectives while guiding them to consider their options. This change surprised me; my clients had to think about themselves, their ex-partners, and their surroundings. By giving them back their responsibilities, they began to explore solutions on their own. While some clients left, those who stayed learned to live by their own rules. They could affect their future and reach agreements that addressed their real needs, fears, and doubts in a practical way.

However, working as an attorney meant I still represented one party and had to advocate for their rights. Even if I aimed for negotiations in the best interest of the child or family, I felt limited. This led me to pursue mediation. I noticed that when I worked with people in conflict from a neutral position, they trusted me more, listened carefully, and communicated openly, creating a safer environment.

Starting with Mediation Practice 

My mediation practice began in 2017 and has continued with a break. Initially, I was heavily influenced by my attorney background and a solution-focused approach. When I started using transformative practices, I was unsure if they would be effective. However, during role-plays in my training, I experienced the depth of the interventions. Reflections validated my feelings and made me feel seen. I could identify with what I was expressing and correct myself if needed. Reflections helped calm my mind, while summaries made me feel that my viewpoints were heard and understood. I could see both differences and commonalities and track our progress during conversations. Summaries provided clarity and helped me feel ready to find solutions. The most impactful intervention was the check-in. It empowered me to decide how to lead the mediation, whether to continue or end it, what language style to use, and what topics I wanted to discuss. I felt in control, comfortable, and confident. Check-ins made me feel capable of changing the conflict, the style of interaction, and addressing the issues. Interestingly, I wanted to resolve the conflict. Feeling strong and understood, I didn’t need to dwell on my negative experiences or feelings; they faded away.

I didn’t realize what had happened. Even though the mediator didn’t guide us on what to talk about, he simply listened, reflected, summarized, and checked in. I didn’t know that this was the “stay-back” intervention, and I wasn’t aware that this would be a significant challenge for me to learn in my mediation practice.

How My Mediation Practice Develops

I began my mediation journey at the Mediation Centre in Brno under the guidance of Martina Cirbusová and Robin Brzobohatý. My cases primarily involve parental conflicts or disputes among relatives, with children often included in the process. The belief is that children have a right to participate in decision-making since they will live with the consequences of their parents' decisions. Currently, I handle about one mediation session per week focused on parental disputes, alongside my own practice targeting business or neighbor disputes, although these are less frequent.

As a mediator, I had to focus on three key activities:

Focus on Ongoing Interaction: Being present in the moment, detecting opportunities for positive shifts in the conflict.

Focus on Myself: Observing my own feelings, recognizing my directive impulses, and considering interventions related to the goals of transformative mediation.

Choice of Intervention: Selecting appropriate interventions such as reflection, summarization, check-ins, or staying back.

Before intervening, I had to step back and observe firstly the parties and their dispute, assess their emotional state, and identify the purpose of the planned intervention. I quickly learned that intervening effectively is not easy.

When I first started, I was taken aback by the destructive power of conflict interactions. I found myself in the middle of chaotic situations where parents shouted, cried, and expressed anger. I felt overwhelmed and struggled to maintain my focus. I needed time to process that the conflict wasn’t my fault and to learn how to intervene effectively. At times, I felt lost, and my hesitation led to missed opportunities for intervention, further fuelling the negative dynamics of the conflict. It took practice to recognize that the conflict wasn’t about me and to follow the parties effectively.

Initially, I was frustrated by the ongoing conflicts in front of me. I wanted quick resolutions and often found myself two or three steps ahead, focused on solutions. I began offering suggestions, but clients felt pressured and believed the solutions weren’t theirs. I started to be a very active mediator, just not to let the conflict to expand too far. 

I had to step back and change the aim of my interventions. I had to learn that I do not intervene for myself – and my better feelings – but to allow the parties to demonstrate their ability to make positive shifts towards empowerment and recognition. And it was on my clients, whether they would use these chances. 

My Greatest Struggles with Myself and My Clients at Transformative Mediation Practice 

During my mediations with various clients, I have passed through many challenges. Directive impulses are the common ground they all had. These are some of my greatest struggles I had to win. 

Counselling 

As a lawyer, I was trained to analyse my clients' situations and provide the best advice. I identified problems, analysed options, and presented solutions with empathy and rationality. However, in transformative mediation, I became impatient when parties seemed stuck, going around in circles without making progress. I grew frustrated, fearing we would spend hours without reaching any agreements.

In an effort to clarify the situation, I started using summaries and check-ins, along with suggestive questions like, "What would you say if we looked at…?" or "What do you think about what your partner just said?" I thought this would help parties see options for small agreements more clearly. Unfortunately, I was mistaken. Instead of helping, my interventions made the parents feel even more upset, as if they were being judged.

When I tried to give advice, such as, "Many parents in your situation do this or that," it came across as condescending. The parents felt belittled, as if I were treating them like children in a kindergarten setting. My counselling approach weakened their confidence and made them more self-absorbed. As a result, they became angry, perceiving me as trying to be cleverer than they were. They began asking me more about my feelings regarding their situations, which further complicated our interactions.

Interpretation and Leading the Conversation behind the Reality 

My next challenge was unintentionally creating different stories than the ones the participants had told. When summarizing or reflecting, I found myself altering the original narrative slightly with an effort to highlight key statements, emotions, or ideas, thinking this would help the parties express themselves more clearly. However, instead of achieving clarity, I often left the parties confused and disoriented. They would wonder what I was talking about, as the story I was reflecting back wasn’t quite what they had shared.

The problem was that I was inadvertently interpreting their words differently, infusing them with new meanings or emotions that weren’t there. This caused the participants to feel lost and suspicious of my interventions. While some of the confusion led to the parties correcting me and refining their own expressions, which was somewhat helpful, a deeper issue remained.

The real trouble was that my inaccurate interpretations didn’t fully disappear from the room. Even after the parties clarified their positions, the alternative "story" I had accidentally introduced lingered. My words became part of the conflict, sometimes being used by the parents as new points of contention or ammunition in their ongoing dispute. The distorted reality I had created, even unintentionally, left a lasting negative effect that I couldn’t fully undo. This outcome left me feeling frustrated and regretful, as it undercut the mediation process and contributed to further misunderstanding.

Questioning

Another significant issue I encountered was my way of questioning during mediation. Having been deeply influenced by the solution-finding approach, I often asked questions not to support interactional shifts between the parties, but to map out the terrain and explore the underlying causes of the conflict. My goal was to create options for resolving the dispute. 

However, this approach led to a disconnect between myself and my clients. Instead of responding to the opportunities that emerged in the present interaction, I was focused on future possibilities, which made me work harder than my clients. I often found myself thinking two steps ahead and discussing things that were not immediately relevant to the parties. This strategy failed because it diverted attention away from the actual moment-to-moment dynamics of the conversation and led to a misalignment between what I was doing and what the clients needed in that moment.

Sympathies

Another issue that arose early in my mediation practice was my tendency to develop sympathies for one of the parties. This was partly because of my background as a trained counsellor, which naturally inclined me to offer support, and partly because some of the situations mirrored personal experiences I had faced. 

As a result, I sometimes found myself feeling empathy for one party while perceiving the other as being less reasonable or even as an obstacle. This biased my focus during the mediation, leading me to support one party more than the other. This inclination to sympathize with one party came to a head when I received feedback that I was not being neutral and had formed an unspoken alliance. This was a wake-up call, and I knew I had to change my approach. 

What helped me shift my perspective was a pre-mediation talk, something we conduct before every mediation. In one session, I spoke with a couple whose stories diverged drastically. Both parties presented completely different versions of events, each trying to paint themselves in a better light. It became clear that I could never make an objective judgment about who was "right" or who was being more reasonable, especially in the emotionally charged atmosphere of mediation. I realized that developing sympathy for one party was not only unhelpful but also misleading. What became evident was that parties often play a strategic game, trying to present themselves in a favourable way to gain the mediator's favour or advance their position. 

Understanding this made me more aware of the importance of maintaining neutrality, even if my personal experiences or emotions resonated with one party more than the other. It taught me to acknowledge my feelings but not let them guide my interventions. Instead, I learned to focus on fostering balanced communication between both parties, giving each of them the space to express their perspectives without forming an emotional bias.

No Agreement

One of the biggest challenges I initially faced in mediation was the frustration that came with parties not reaching even a small agreement. I believed that leaving mediation with at least some tangible outcome—a short-term plan, rules of communication, or even the agreement to chat via WhatsApp—was necessary for progress. When this didn’t happen, I felt as though the mediation had failed.

However, over time, I came to understand that sometimes, parties don’t need to walk away with a plan or a formal agreement. In some cases, what they need is simply the space to share their thoughts, express emotions, and listen to each other. The act of venting frustrations, crying, or even shouting in a safe and controlled environment can, itself, be transformative. Sometimes, the mediation process plants some seeds that take time to grow. The parties may reach decisions together outside the mediation room, after processing what transpired during the session.

I experienced mediations where the first session was chaotic, filled with anger, tears, and accusations, but in the second session, there was a noticeable shift—parties were calmer, engaged in recognition, and started to discuss plans for their future. I couldn’t always explain this change, but I realized that mediation is only one part of the complex, ongoing interaction between the parties. What they need in the moment may not always be a concrete plan; sometimes they just need time to process, reflect, and move at their own pace.

Focus on Solution

Another pitfall I encountered was my tendency to gravitate toward the more rational party—the one who could articulate potential solutions or options more clearly. As someone who naturally appreciates problem-solving, it was easier to work with a party that seemed cooperative and solution-oriented. They presented options, listened, and engaged in a way that aligned with my own focus on resolution.

However, I quickly learned this was a trap. Focusing more on the rational party, who may have appeared more cooperative, made me neglect the emotional needs of the other party, who might not have been ready to think about solutions yet. The emotional party wasn’t uncooperative or unreasonable; they were simply in a different stage of processing their conflict. By giving more attention to the "easier" party, I was unconsciously reinforcing the imbalance in the room and potentially contributing to the alienation of the emotional party.

Mediation is not about rewarding the rational party or punishing the emotional one. It’s about creating a balanced space where both parties, regardless of their approach or emotional state, can engage with each other meaningfully. I had to learn to be patient, to acknowledge and validate emotions without rushing to solutions, and to resist the temptation to focus more on the party who seemed closer to reaching an agreement. By doing this, I helped create more space for the emotional party to express their feelings, which often led to deeper conversations and, eventually, solutions that worked for both sides.

Directive Impulses and Stay-Back Practices 

During my transformative mediation practice, mainly on family cases, I have realized that all the above challenges have a common ground: directive impulses. Temptation to guide the conversation, shaping the dialogue, or pushing the parties towards what I believed was the "right" direction.  

My usual directive impulses revolved around:

• Supporting the parties on what I perceived to be the "right" path, i.e., the one that might lead to an agreement.
  
• Pointing out common ground, aiming to show that agreement was possible.
  
• Filtering strong emotions in order to prevent further conflict escalation.
  
• Offering options for resolution, based on my understanding of the situation.
  
• Judging or Evaluating, even subtly, I tend to judge the parties' decisions, which can invalidate their autonomy.
  

Although my intentions were good—focused on helping the parties reach some form of agreement—I realized that this kind of mediation was about my agenda, not theirs. My work wasn’t about solving the conflict, but rather enabling the parties to engage in their conflict fully, go through their emotions, and come out with a clearer understanding of themselves and each other. Moreover, I have learnt that interventions made on the ground of my directive impulses weaken ability of my clients to fully engage in the conflict, process their emotions, and, most importantly, make their own decisions. By steering the dialogue, I was inadvertently taking away their capacity for empowerment and recognition, which are the cornerstones of transformative mediation.

Step-by-step, I learned the stay-back practice. I consider this as a core activity in transformative mediation, enabling the parties to engage in conversations about topics they deem important, at their own pace, and in a manner they find meaningful. The essence of staying back lies in creating an environment where parties have the freedom to control the conversation and its outcomes. Slowly I refrain from directing the conversation, allowing participants to determine the course of their discussion and future decisions. 

Firstly, I had to change my mindset from a lawyer/a person who guides people, to a listener and follower. I really had to realize for myself that the parties are capable for finding their own path, even if it diverges from what I might expect or desire. I had to learn mindful listening, to stay fully present in the conversation, without analysing or planning interventions based on their own perspective, that was followed by my focus on fostering a space where parties can openly discuss their views, without pushing them toward outcomes. Also, I had to learn to intervene only to support empowerment and recognition shifts, as I was a very active mediator in the beginning. Before each intervention, I asked myself: what I observe in the interaction, what is my intention for intervening (ensuring it aligns with supporting empowerment and recognition), and finally to find the most non-directive approach to achieve this.

Finally, I had to learn to allow parties to make their own decisions and then I had to respect those choices. I had to learn to accept that the parties decide the topics, tone, and progression of their conversation, including whether to continue forward or revisit past grievances), and I had to learn that parties – not I – are responsible for their choices, decisions and their lives.

The Battle Between Values and Personal Conflict

Some of the most challenging mediations for me were those where the parties were content with their lives, but their decisions went against my own values. These cases exposed the emotional tension that can arise when mediators must maintain neutrality in the face of actions or lifestyles they find troubling.

One particularly difficult case involved a mother who struggled with alcoholism, drinking in front of her three-year-old daughter, while the father, despite limited involvement, seemed to accept the situation because social services could step in if necessary. Throughout this mediation, I felt intense frustration, driven by my concern for the child and my belief that both parents were neglecting their responsibilities. In my mind, the child deserved more care, attention, and a better environment than what her parents were providing.

When I had a mediation with this couple, I couldn’t help myself and I repeatedly checked in with the parents, subtly questioning whether they were truly satisfied with their lives and if they really believed their daughter was well cared for. These interventions, however, stemmed from my own emotional response to the situation rather than the needs of the parents or the mediation process. I found myself struggling with the idea that I had to facilitate a conversation without imposing my own values about what a "good" life or proper parenting looked like.

In the debrief after this session, my colleague Robin provided a valuable insight. He reminded me that even in these difficult circumstances, the mediation offered something unique—a space for conversation that no other service could provide. Despite the frustration and conflict in the room, mediation allowed the parents to communicate in ways that might not have been possible otherwise.

Finally, I learned that neutrality doesn’t mean ignoring my personal values, but it does require recognizing that mediation is not about enforcing my sense of morality or imposing solutions that fit my worldview. It's about creating a space for the parties to engage in their conflict, no matter how uncomfortable or challenging their decisions may be for me personally. As a mediator, I had to step back, trust in the process, and let the parties work through their issues at their own pace, in their own way—even if it didn't align with my values. This is perhaps one of the most profound and difficult lessons I’ve learned in mediation.

Manipulation from Clients 

In transformative mediation, like in any profession where the core involves working with people, manipulation can often arise. I’ve encountered clients who have tried to engage me in ways that push beyond my role as a mediator. For example, I’ve heard comments like: “Look at him, isn’t his behaviour awful?” “Why don’t you do something about how she treats me?” “What would you recommend I do now?” “You’re the expert, why don’t you give us your advice?” or even “I feel like you should do more for us, otherwise I’m going to complain.”

At the start of my mediation practice, I often took these complaints or suggestions to heart. I felt compelled to do more for my clients—whether by giving legal advice or steering the conversation toward solutions. But that approach led to a hard lesson. Once I gave what I thought was a small, innocent piece of advice, clients started asking for more. It was like giving them a finger, and they wanted the whole arm. Moreover, when they were unhappy with the outcomes of mediation, they would place the blame on me, suggesting I should have done more as a professional.

That experience taught me that, despite my legal background, I needed to stay calm, avoid giving legal advice, and remain strictly in my role as a mediator. Offering advice often made one party feel validated and the other wrong, which escalated tension and undermined my neutrality.

Instead, I’ve learned to address manipulative statements by reflecting them back to the parties, focusing on highlighting their underlying emotions. This approach often surprises clients, but it works well. After hearing their own words reflected with the appropriate emotional tone, clients usually respond with something like, “Yes, exactly, that’s how I feel and what I meant to say,” and then continue with the dialogue.

I’ve come to understand that manipulative comments are often a sign of a party’s vulnerability or frustration with the situation. They are not meant as attacks on me but rather reflect a deeper struggle. As such, these moments create valuable opportunities for meaningful intervention.

My Journey Now

After years of practicing transformative mediation, I’ve changed not just as a mediator, but as a lawyer and as a person. My professional and personal attitudes have shifted as I’ve come to realize something fundamental: people are human beings who need to feel respected—both by others and by themselves. Feeling content with where we are and how we are treated by others is the foundation of a fulfilling life.

I’ve learned that people in conflict don’t need advice, pity, ultimatums, or threats. What they need is respect. They need to be heard—deeply, with full attention. They need to feel safe. They need the space to express their feelings, to revise them, if necessary, to share information, and to piece everything together. Most importantly, they need to make their own decisions about what is best for them, how it affects those around them, and how to navigate their situation. I no longer see people in conflict as angry or helpless. Instead, I see them as capable individuals who are simply struggling with themselves because of the conflict. My role is to follow their lead—tracking their emotions, reactions, and statements—and provide the space they need to make their own shifts.

This change has also transformed me on a deeper level, as a mother, as a woman, and as a professional. I now recognize when people around me are caught in the downward spiral of conflict, and I’ve gained the strength to intervene and break that cycle. I am happier, more satisfied, and I have a clearer sense of control over the situations I encounter daily—and by extension, over my own life. This personal growth is one of the most valuable outcomes of my practice in transformative mediation, and I’m deeply grateful for it.

I know that transformative mediation is now a permanent part of who I am. Whether consciously or unconsciously, I will carry it with me for the rest of my life. It’s become an integral part of my thinking, my actions, and my way of engaging with the world—and I’m truly happy to both practice and live it.

Tara West, J.D., Ph.D., and Dan Simon, M.A., J.D. have received the 2024 Della Noce prize for Self-Determination in Mediation: The Art and Science of Mirrors and Lights.

A jury of scholars evaluated the submissions received, and chose West and Simon for their book. The book identifies self-determination as the essential value underlying mediation and describes West’s and Simon’s efforts to live up to that value as fully as possible. It includes stories where they fell short and others where they rose to the occasion in the face of complications presented by lawyers, possible power imbalances and other challenges. They provide many anecdotes that show the techniques they use to actively enhance parties’ experience of making their own choices.

In 2021, the Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation (ISCT) established The Annual Dorothy J. Della Noce Writing Prize, for a written work that advances transformative theory or practice and that is published in a dispute resolution journal, book, or internet venue.  As many of you know, Dorothy was a brilliant researcher and scholar who made major contributions to the literature of the field before her untimely passing in 2020. She is sorely missed, and this prize honors her memory.

This is West’s second Della Noce prize. She also received it in 2022 for The Mediator’s Approach: Five (and a half)Paths Through Conflict

In addition to our prize winners, two submissions received Honorable Mentions.  Robin Brzobohatý for his article "The inclusion of children in divorce mediation: A continental ‘non-directive’ approach" published in Conflict Resolution Quarterly, and Jacqueline Housel, Colleen Saxen and Tom Wahlrab for their article "Experiencing intentional recognition: Welcoming immigrants in Dayton, Ohio" published in Urban Studies. 

The ISCT thanks all those who submitted their work for consideration. The Della Noce Prize is intended to inspire others to contribute to the written literature on the transformative approach to conflict. Submissions can be scholarly or practice-oriented, and should be aimed at advancing the transformative approach as developed and furthered by the ISCT.  The Biennial $500 prize is chosen from works submitted to the ISCT, and evaluated by a jury of scholars, practitioners and writers on the transformative approach.

Learn and Connect Virtually at the ISCT

By Dan Simon

You can learn about transformative mediation and connect with kindred spirits through the ISCT. Over the past 8 years the ISCT's virtual offerings have grown. As have our number of presenters and teachers. Everyone who offers something through the Virtual Institute is a professional transformative practitioner and trainer. We are so happy to have their wealth of knowledge and insight to share with our members, and anyone interested in transformative conflict work.

Whether you are new to transformative practice or an experienced professional, the Virtual Institute has something for you! Our offerings are highly interactive, with small participant groups that allow maximum engagement and practice.  We hope this sets us apart in creating the best experience for participants' learning.

In the next few months, we have Basic Mediation Training, Practice Groups, Ethics, Child-Inclusive Mediation, and More!

Basic Mediation Training (with Janet Mueller and Tara West). If you’ve never had training in transformative mediation, this is the place to start. If you’ve had mediation training that wasn’t transformative, or if you’ve had no mediation training, this course will get you on track. If you’ve had some transformative mediation training, this course might still provide you with new insights and a greater comfort level. Janet and Tara are both Fellows of the ISCT. Janet has trained mediators for the Dayton Mediation and the ISCT since the 90’s and she serves as the ISCT’s Coordinator. Tara is the noted author of The Mediator’s Approach and Self-Determination in Mediation.

Practice Groups. You really get to practice in these workshops. Participants play the roles of disputants and take turns mediating. Practice Groups are included in the Basic Mediation Training. Or you can sign up for practice groups as their own thing.

Inside Out Practice Group. For the first time this fall, we’re offering an Inside Out Practice Group, with ISCT Fellows Robin Brzobohatý and Martina Cirbusová. Would you like to analyze how mediation works without the pressure of being analyzed yourself?  This session will allow you to see how mediators work, ask questions about their intentions, and explore how they responded to opportunities the parties’ present. You should only take this course if you’ve had Basic Training in Transformative Mediation.

Mediation Ethics. Professor Sharon Press, ISCT Board Member, is a luminary in the mediation field. She will host an engaging discussion of the most interesting ethical dilemmas that confront mediators.

Child-Inclusive Mediation. Learn how to give children real voice and choice in family mediation, with ISCT Fellows Robin Brzobohatý and Martina Cirbusová.

We are happy to continue sharing the knowledge and experience to inspire transformative practitioners like you. If you have questions about ISCT's virtual offerings, or are interested in becoming a trainer for us, please get in touch with Lydia@transformativemediation.org