Skip to main content

Paradoxes of Power: Towards a Status-Conscious Model of Dispute Resolution


By: Amber Vayo, graduate student, University of Massachusetts, Amherst



In a class, I proposed a study of dispute resolution among adjunct faculty members to explore the way status works in such a tenuous employment position. I'm going through my IRB protocols now, but I hope to get the adjunct study off the ground shortly. Below I justify studying status. I hope to use this blog post to get feedback.

A common thread of interpretivist work on dispute resolution is the interplay of power and procedure. However, I argue that using the specific lens of status, rather than a broader conception of power, provides a more comprehensive understanding of when and why informal dispute resolutions fail or succeed. Underlying both are relations of diffuse power and networking structures that contribute to understanding status—"where you stand in the social hierarchy."

A major theme underpinning much of dispute literature is that status—particularly in relation to one's social cohort—matters. Addressing the paradox of grievance claims among California prisoners, Kitty Calavita and Valerie Jenness, see this paradox of power because such a disempowered group are not likely to file grievances through formal procedure. The prisoners’ status— disempowered and completely under the law—should render them silent. Yet, Calavita and Jenness find that "almost three-quarters of the men in this study (74.2 percent)" have invoked formal procedures.

Likewise, Elizabeth Hoffmann examines a workers' cooperative where the flattening of the employment hierarchy should lead towards egalitarian attitudes and therefore, informal dispute process. But, Hoffmann exposes a wide chasm between how men and women view and access dispute resolution. The men rely on their social network and informal resolution to protect the familial atmosphere they feel, while women rely on formal procedure because they lack the same social network. The power-status relationship between the groups is roughly similar, but the social status reflected by the men's discomfort socializing with female employees outside of work, works against the women who feel they must either use formal procedures or "lump it"—ignore the dispute.

Similar status-related process occur in Robert Ellickson’s exploration of informal dispute resolution among cattle ranchers where the need to be "neighborly" trumps filing a formal complaint. Ellickson exposes the different informal procedures that arise through both status and networks when he discusses the use of public shaming and social mores as restraining "bad" behavior. The "norm of cooperation among neighbors" creates informal grievance structure that functions efficiently for and on those within the social cohort. It is only when outside cattle rustlers are culprits that townspeople turn to formal procedures, again linking the connection to networks and community status.

It is the status differences which drive the cattlemen towards informal resolution when possible, just as they drive the male coop workers Hoffmann studies to do the same. Men create social networks allowing them to negotiate from equivalent status.

In my study, I will address these two crucial elements of power: status and networks. Surveys and qualitative interviews with adjunct faculty at union and non-union colleges could elucidate how power and status work separately and together to shape professional interactions.

Pulling from the social epidemiology literature will contribute to understanding why some groups prefer formal procedures. Theodore Marmot's The Status Syndrome illustrates a startling social gradient via the social determinates of health. Using status to study dispute resolution as way to determine the social gradient of procedural preference would be beneficial way to uncover a more holistic theory of dispute resolution.

Popular posts from this blog

On writing

By Susan Sterett
Law & Society Review Co-Editor

One thing I know for sure after having co-edited Law and Society Review for almost three years is that just about every college and university would like more publications from faculty members. Many colleges and universities around the world want people to write for peer-reviewed journals, so like other journals, Law and Society Review has been getting an increasing number of submissions. Some journals have big backlogs. Some journals have stopped accepting submissions. Everyone is overwhelmed with content. How can you prepare your paper for LSR? This post will point to a few resources that could help, based in my experience from editing, conversations with other editors, and my conversations at the wonderful 2017 sociolegal studies early career workshop at the University of Cape Town. All have made me rethink how I submit to journals.

A few thoughts, most of which are readily found on the internet. Even so, many people may no…

Law & Society Review is pleased to announce two opportunities for scholars who are from or who write about the Global South. Both opportunities have early January deadlines.

The first opportunity is the Sociolegal Studies Early Career Writing Workshop, March 21-23, 2019, at the University of Cape Town. This intensive workshop, co-sponsored by Law & Society Review, is for a small group of early career scholars from any university in Africa to receive feedback on papers in progress and mentoring on writing/publishing processes. The goal is to help one another toward writing goals and publication. The Workshop will cover travel expenses and accommodation. Applications (including draft paper and letter of reference) are due January 14, 2019. For details, please visit the Early Career Workshop website here. For additional questions, contact pbl-cls@uct.ac.za.

Another opportunity is the Law and Society in Africa conference, April 1-3, 2019, organized by American University Cairo's Law & Society Research Unit. The first Law and Society in Africa Conference, held in South Africa in 2016, was a great success, with more than 100 attendees…

How do text messages complicate contemporary sexual assault adjudication?

By Heather Hlavka and Sameena Mulla 
Department of Social and Cultural Sciences, Marquette University


“There’s no video, no injury. It’s purely one hundred percent ‘he said, she said.’ They had a terrible relationship. They were nasty to each other and they don’t get along well, probably never will. But there is no evidence to support the state’s case, other than their words.” Our article, “’That’s How She Talks’: Animating Text Message Evidence in the Sexual Assault Trial,” begins with these familiar words offered by a defense attorney during a sexual assault trial in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The oft-invoked trope of “he said, she said” in cases of sexual violence suggests that without third-party eye witness testimony or material evidence, sexual assault allegations rest on conflicting reports provided by victims, the accused, and other witnesses. But how do trial attorneys reinvent this trope when the words of the witnesses are preserved as text messages?

Text messages are recorded co…