Attempts to prepare the participants with preparatory studies
On Monday, January 22nd, 2001, the Director of Center for Development and Peace Studies, Forum, Dr Olga Vorkunova, asked me to give a course in mediation in February 8-11 in Pskov, Russia.

The short time between her asking and the factual course start was due to a sudden cancellation from a lecturer who had been asked to guide seminars about a similar topic. Dr Vorkunova told that all the students have their own e-mail addresses and agreed to convey e-mail letters from me to them preparing my course with some assignments.

The day after Dr Vorkunova had made her invitation call I e-mailed to her my letter intended for the participants. She forwarded it to the students the next day. In my letter to them I had set a deadline for their answers.  That day I received one answer and two days later, i.e. one day before my flight to Russia, three additional ones. 

The pedagogical plan abbreviated
The course started on Thursday.  I began by giving those who had not answered by e-mail the same instructions they had got by e-mail: to write their description of their ideas of good mediation.  Then I distributed the following handouts 

1. How to bring about great effects with few words?  Answer: use archetypes. (15 pages.  Now in this home page.)
2. Three role drafts for playing mediation: (A) the therapist, (B) the employees -- the alleged bullies, (C) the victim -- the boss. 
3. "Tackling group bullying as a basis for training mediators" which described the steps in therapeutic mediation.  It also pointed out why I choose a case of group bullying for our training: "As group dynamics are involved,  training in anti-bullying methods is a step closer to peace education than conflict resolution methods and mediation just between two individuals." (A 4 page handout  Now in this home page.)

My reading of their essays discovered no decisive difference between the mediation ideals of the Russian students and the participants at my previous courses.  I started on Friday by telling this to the audience.  Then I conveyed my findings  "What makes it tick" in therapeutic mediation and commented upon the concept "archetype" described in handouts the students were asked to read.

The concepts of "arbitration" and "arbitrator" exist in the Russian language so it was easy to explain the difference between these concepts and the concepts of "mediation" and "mediator". We agreed to define as "mediator" for our course: a person who is trying to elicit shared solution from the shared concern the parties reveal about the conflict.

My knowledge in Russian is very limited; we used English as working language. The students’ knowledge of English varied from excellent to acceptable.  I had the ambition of being understood by all so I kept a slow rate in my lecturing and asked those who were proficient in English to translate the key words of my message into Russian. 

I believe that our mutual understanding was good; I consider that all the participants were intelligent people; their ambitions to follow the course varied from first class to acceptable.

Only one cultural difference discovered
Translation of the concepts "bullying" and "group bullying" consumed an unexpected time.  I had with me only a Swedish-Russian dictionary which did not contain the words bully and bullying.  (In Swedish "mobbning".)  Those students who were good in English offered different Russian words as translation. 

The discussion about the translation of the words "bully", "bullying" and ”group bullying” revealed that these concepts not yet become current in  Russian society. I referred to the public concern  in Northern and Middle Europe referring among other things to he Swedish Parliament last year a whole Morning of a day was spent on a discussion on bullying in schools. 

However, I do not consider this to be a kind of "backwardness" if the Russian public discussion does not deal with this topic because the American society (at present being considered by many people as the leader of the Western culture) has not either had such an extensive discussion of group bullying ("mobbning") as in Northern Europe.

The phenomenon on group bullying is, supposedly, happening everywhere. The question is only if it is a topic in the public discussion or not.

I choose a case of group bullying for role-plays in mediation because group dynamics is closer to the peace promoting the aims of the institute that arranged the course than inerindividual conflicts.

Three different students who were playing "the therapeutic mediator" had separate talks with individuals representing different parties.  According to the synopsis, two of these individuals were the alleged bullies and the third their bullied boss. 

The ultimate intention with the private talks -- to prepare for the group meetings --  should have been emphasized a bit stronger.

Less effective role-plays of  the mediator taking the chairperson's role in group meetings
The aim in all three Steps in the SCm is the same: to notice the tiniest signs of shared concern and shared solution the parties and to give it a well balanced reinforcement.  In Step 1, a communication intimacy prevails in the individual talks. In Steps 2 and 3 the mediator is more active. He or she takes the role of a jolly and charismatic chairperson bringing forward the concerns and solution elicited in the intimacy of the private talks to a group manifestation.  In order to facilitate the  leadership, the mediator introduces a pleasant group atmosphere by various devices, first of all  inviting the participants in the beginning to suitable beverages and snacks.

The first of these group meetings is  meeting with one party.  (Step 2 -- in our play the employees suspected of bullying). The aim is to  prepare the meeting with the other party (the victim). The first course participant  to play the mediator had himself expressed his wish to play the role.  However, he did not manage it successfully.  He was not reinforcing the positive contributions from the participants that, in fact, occurred. The meeting went on and on without coming close to a constructive result.  The "chairperson" and the group started joking.  I interrupted the role-play and pointed out what was wrong.

I chose an other mediator, a person who had made constructive and thoughtful contributions in our discussions.  To my astonishment she was not either clear in her reinforcing of contributions that could be joined to a shared proposition to be put forward to the victim at the planned summit meeting.  (After the session it became evident that she had a fever while playing the role.)

Apparently, the course participants needed a live demonstration how to run a meeting.  So I myself performed the mediator in his role as  chairperson. 

In a group that involves its members emotionally there is always a dynamic. It goes either in co-operative or in aggressive direction. As the last is most dominant in bully groups it is important to start by giving  the first a chance by a suggestive initiative. In accordance with my own instruction I started by introducing a good atmosphere by inviting the group to a glass of juice and made the following standard opening: 

"Well, I have been meeting you all (in individual talks) and have discussed the problems you have with your boss.  But I also heard  a lot of positive things about her... There came up some good suggestions on how to settle the conflict.  Can you remind me of the co-operative ideas?"

Certainly we cannot avoid that negative things crop up.  The mediator listens with an understanding manner without refuting them.  After more airing of accusations the mediator puts the  question again.  Again, he shows understanding of the negative elements but reinforces the constructive ways out of the conflict 

What I demonstrated was simply the guidelines I had explained earlier.

A simple explanation to the failing excellency of  the mediator taking the chairperson's role in group meetings 
The Russian students by no means failed in understanding in practical psychology.  Our emotional communication was, despite of some linguistic difficulties, very good.  In brief: we were friends. 

The Russian students were  good performing therapist in individual talks without any need of demonstration. But why did they need a demonstration of chairing a group before they made a good performance? The participants of my previous courses in Geneva and Uppsala did not need that. 

The Russian students were in the average younger than in the courses previously mentioned.  They simply lacked prototypes because they lacked experience from places of work beyond studies.
 

I formulated also some general questions: "Did you understand that our course was aiming at something beyond our role-plays of a conflict at a place of work? ... Did you, intuitively, put together some fragments forming a vision that could be realized in a better prepared course? ... Am I right in my belief that the Russian young generation has, right now, greater potentials to be more open for new ideas and, therefore, we may together show the West new approaches?

I got 10 answers of 12. Without exception, all were very kindly praising my contribution. Their length was considerably varying. Most of them  wrote that "right now, I am very busy with my studies but later on I will write more. This occasion never happened. 

The longest and most appreciative letters came from a group of three female students. 

"We have read attentively all the pages, you have sent and agree with most of the introduced points. .. we are really impressed by the way you presented your lectures. You really have an ability to get people interested in everything you are talking about.... As far as your course is concerned, it was, certainly, interesting and, what is more important, useful.... Only acting like this, we can achieve the best results that can be of great benefit to both sides, which are involved into conflicts. ... We consider, that as many people as possible should get to know about your method. We think, that this method can be of great benefit to the mankind while solving different problems: political, economical, social." 

I had written some speculative and slightly provocative explanations why the Russian students were not so good at playing the mediator as chairing the group meetings. Could this have something to do with  experiences of forced conformist in the Soviet society a decade ago? I asked. No, said these young people and explained emphatically:
 

"... now people in our country (especially, young generation) are not under the influence of this regime any longer. The bad experience from the past didn't effect the perception of your message on the Shared Concern method for finding group consensus at our Pskov course. There was another reason. It was the first time we took part in such a course. And you are right when saying that we lack experience from places of work beyond studies." 
 

Preparing short courses in the future
I have started talks with my friends in several places in the world to hold  courses in therapeutic mediation. There is a great interest for my conducting of role plays but I have begun to emphasize that these must be  well prepared and the participants hopefully well selected. The terminal goals  of the course have to be clearly defined. So far,  plans are stated with Dr. Olga Vorkunova, the director of the Institute of Peace and Development Studies Forum in Moscow.

Olga Vorkunova has agreed to my proposal to announce the next  Pskov course in February 2002 as a course where the admission is based on  qualifications the applicants demonstrate  in their correspondence with me before the course. 

Announcement for this will begin in September and will be carried out by Dr Vorkunova in co-operation with me.  The announcement makes known that the students who are interested will get from me on-line materials that prepare them for the course.  They are first asked to send me essays on their ideas on mediation. I will respond by sending my comments on the essay and instructions how to prepare the course by reading my home site. 

This preparatory correspondence includes reading of the roles we are going to play in exercises on mediation and  some rehearsal questions that control that all the applicants have reached a standard which enables them to participate effectively in the four course days in February. 

About 90 % of these intensive days will be spent on analyzing video films made at my previous courses, the participants' own performing role plays and analyzing them. The hours before noon will be guided by me. In the afternoon group works will be coached by students from my previous courses in therapeutic mediation in Uppsala and Pskov.

My aim is to provide all participants with the experience of playing the mediator's role. Hence, I will suggest to Dr. Vorkunova to accept only 12 qualified participants.

The course ends by an examination that is the prerequisite for a diploma describing in detail the work and the performances of the course. 

I will keep e-mail contact with the students also after the course.  If they do field work I will, with their permission, publish it on my Internet home page.

The English instruction materials on ACBM are available as a link at the present web site  That contains a 20 page long detailed description of the practical classroom know-how of the method.  Why I consider this to be the best program for peace education and conflict mediation in schools and, hence, of the future citizens is described in this link.