Log in
Research at the University of Edinburgh (2008 to 2012) has i) raised awareness of different types of dispute resolution (tribunal, adjudication, mediation) in Scotland and England; ii) promoted non-judicial forms of dispute resolution; iii) encouraged professionals to improve their communication with parents; and iv) enabled international comparisons to be made with regard to the rights and responsibilities of parents and professionals in different special/additional support needs systems. The significance of the impact is that it has informed changes in legislation and regulation and improvements in parental support, with key beneficiaries being education policy-makers, practitioners and parents. Reach of the impact extended to policy makers across the UK and Europe, local authorities in England and Scotland, providers of dispute resolution services, individual parents and voluntary sector organisations
Three studies by Trinder have helped shape national policy and informed practice on three related issues regarding arrangements for children after parental separation. The three issues are whether or not there should be a statutory presumption of shared time, the scope and shape of education programmes for separated parents and whether additional punitive sanctions would assist with the enforcement of court orders for contact. Trinder's three studies have built a strong evidence base and have had an impact by:
1) helping to shape national policy on shared care, parent education and enforcement;
2) informing professional decision-making on shared care, parent education and enforcement;
3) stimulating public debate about shared care.
Faced with pressures on the UK Employment Tribunal (ET) system, policymakers have turned to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a way of easing the strain. However, there is little robust evidence of a statistically significant cost-saving impact from ADR. The evaluation of Judicial Mediation (JM) in ETs was the first to use robust statistical evaluation techniques. The Ministry of Justice commissioned study found that JM did not provide good value for money. The results have been debated widely amongst policymakers, practitioners and across various media; impacting the activities, attitudes, awareness and practice of those involved in ADR within the UK.
Prof Hörnle's research into Online Dispute Resolution has had a clear impact in government policies and the drafting of legislation at international level (UNCITRAL, Organization of American States (OAS)), EU level and UK level. ODR is an extremely new field (only 10-12 years' old) and there is little expertise in the area among lawyers, government and other policymakers. The underpinning research in this case examines how cross-border commercial and consumer disputes can be solved using internet technology as an alternative to national courts. Building on existing research on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), the research examined how ADR can be applied specifically in an online context and has had a significant impact on legal practitioners, policy makers and governments. This is a new field of research, and the work has been used by the European Commission to draft the first European legislation on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) and has informed the approach taken by policy-makers in the UK to implementing this legislation. It has also critically shaped the discussion of ODR in international, regional and national organisations.
The growth of online purchasing, often across borders, is increasing in tandem with the number of disputes. With the aim of increasing trust in e-commerce, the EU and the UN have acknowledged the need to promote redress mechanisms that are suited for this forum. Through his work in this area, Dr Pablo Cortés has assisted in the drafting of EU legislation that strengthens the rights of half a billion consumers in the EU by guaranteeing the availability and online access of quality alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms for settling contractual disputes between consumers and traders. The legislation, approved in 2013, ensures the availability of quality ADR schemes, which will be accessible to European complainants through an Online Dispute Resolution platform.
A far-reaching restructuring of publicly-funded employment dispute resolution agencies and programmes in Ireland has resulted from a series of research studies on the structure, conduct and performance of such agencies, and on employment dispute resolution within organisations. In particular, the studies:
Over the last five years, researchers within the Institute for Research into Organisations, Work and Employment (iROWE) have worked closely with policy-makers at the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) to develop a programme of research that has provided new evidence in the areas of conflict management and downsizing. This has been central in re-shaping Acas's strategic priorities to include explicit reference to conflict management for the first time. It has also informed Acas's response to government over proposed employment reform and been used to develop new guidance in respect of redundancy handling, representation and workplace mediation. These impacts were sustained and maximised through the co-ordination of an ESRC funded seminar series, co-sponsored by Acas in 2012-13.
Research undertaken since 1999 by Professor Paul Latreille at Swansea University has examined workplace conflict and its resolution. Much of this research has been externally funded by the ESRC, government and other bodies, and published as reports and papers in internationally recognised academic journals. The research has delivered a range of impacts, including shaping policymaker and practitioner debate and providing confirmation of, and challenges to, policy and practice. Impact is evidenced, inter alia, by references to the research in government consultation documents and responses to such documents, Parliamentary debate and practitioner materials.
Masson's three linked studies of the operation of child protection proceedings led to changes in the ways in which the courts handle the 10,500 care proceedings annually concerning around 18,000 children in England and Wales. The findings from the research have directly impacted in three ways: on the Family Justice Review as well as the design and implementation of the 2013 reforms to care proceedings to reduce their cost and duration; through changes in local authority pre-proceedings practice; and on the better collation of statistics concerning care proceedings by court administrative staff. The research made an important contribution to the reduction in the average length of such proceedings from 55 weeks to 37 weeks between 2011 and 2013
Research undertaken at Cardiff University provided important evidence about unequal access to Learning Outside the Classroom (LOtC) between social groups as well as providing the foundation for campaigning for equal opportunities in this area. Learning Outside the Classroom covers those activities which children undertake beyond the confines of the school walls. These can range from residential trips to international destinations to short visits to local museums and parks. These kinds of activities are widely recognised as being beneficial for children's emotional, cognitive and social development.
The impact of this research can be traced through collaboration with voluntary sector organisations and the UK government to evidence given to various House of Commons Select Committee enquiries, to the raising of the debate in Parliament through an Early Day Motion and then to support for the establishment of the Council for Learning Outside the Classroom (CLOtC) — which provides a link to LOtC organisations and professionals.