Is cross-cultural mediation a technique? Theoretical/methodological frameworks and empirical evidence from interaction

Most international studies indicate the kinds of actions which should be embodied in good practices of mediation. In these studies, mediation is supported and legitimised mainly as a technique, that is a predetermined selection of adequate kinds of action, and the guidelines for techniques of mediation seem to be essential for its legitimisation. Three important issues should be considered in this debate. Firstly, techniques do not have meaning and relevance without a methodology, that is a set of generalised meanings framing all the prescribed “technical” actions. Secondly, techniques do not have meaning and relevance without a theory explaining the function of mediation. Thirdly, the empirical observation of techniques is essential to support their prescription. This essay aims at providing a theory, a methodology and some empirical suggestions about what may be called “cross-cultural mediation”. Firstly, cross-cultural mediation lacks a primary function in society, as it is conceived as a support for other functions (e.g. medical, educational, juridical, etc.); however, it finds its function directly in the interaction, as a combination of promotion of active participation, and reflection on diversity, occasionally enhancing conflict management. Secondly, according to the literature, the methodology which frames the specific technical actions of mediation is a very controversial combination of person-centred psychology, “dialogic” approaches à la Bohm and Bachtin, and models of intercultural competence. Thirdly, recent research results in Italy highlight the relevance of this methodology in empirical interactions. These results are both disappointing for some relevant methodological aspects, and interesting for some possible developments of the methodology of cross-cultural mediation.