Besaiso, H; Fenn, P and Emsley, M (2016) Alternative dispute resolution in Palestine: The myth and dilemma of construction mediation. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 8(3), pp. 269-286. ISSN 1756-1450
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to investigate the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques in the Palestinian construction industry. It also seeks to identify some of the drivers and barriers to the greater use of particular ADR techniques. Design/methodology/approach In this study, 12 semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with senior ADR practitioners comprising nine construction professionals, two eminent lawyers and a retired judge. Findings This research has explored the practices of mediation, adjudication and expert evaluation in the Palestinian construction industry and has identified deficiencies in implementation and the roles that the cultural and legal contexts play in this. The research findings cast some doubt on the results of previous studies asserting the widespread use of construction mediation. Originality/value This paper contributes to knowledge by bringing new insight into the practice of particular ADR techniques in the Palestinian construction industry and in identifying challenges to the more widespread adoption of these ADR techniques. This paper exposes the myth of the popularity of construction mediation and the dilemma to the use of mediation brought by the social construction and conceptualisation of the mediator’s role.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adjudication; construction disputes; dispute resolution; expert evaluation; mediation; Palestine |
| Index terms: | Palestine, adjudication, mediator, dispute, construction professional, social construction, construction dispute, resolution, implementation, construction industry, evaluation, mediation, interview, lawyer, practitioner, methodology, alternative dispute resolution |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, dispute resolution, practitioner, data collection methods, profession, industry analysis, conflict resolution, sociology, Geography, professional development, contract management, research methods |
| Topics: | Procurement, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Contract Administration, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here