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

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…

Submit Your Papers to Law & Society Review!

Rebecca L. Sandefur

 The Law and Society Association and the whole field of law and society research owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Jeannine Bell, Susan Sterett, and Margot Young, for their work as Editors of Law & Society Review.As incoming Editor, I am grateful to them for their stewardship of the journal, their generous support of authors and aspiring authors, and their innovations to the Review, including this blog.
The incoming Editorial Board has begun receiving new manuscripts as they are submitted. Jon Gould, Robert Lawless, Elizabeth Mertz, Jennifer Robbennolt and Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve have generously agreed to serve in this role. Together with participation from the Editorial Advisory Board -- a group deeply appreciated and too numerous to list here -- these scholars’ contributions expand the expertise of the journal’s editorial office across disciplines, methods, theoretical traditions, and regions of the world. Danielle McClellan continues to steady the ship …

TASER Technology and Police Officers’ Understanding and Use of Force

Michael Sierra-Arévalo
Rutgers University-Newark

The TASER--a weapon that uses electric current to incapacitate a subject by causing complete neuromuscular incapacitation--is ubiquitous among U.S. police officers. Spurred by pressure to reduce the lethality of police force, this force technology it is now used by more than 17,000 U.S. law enforcement agencies.

Proponents of TASERs are quick to point out that research shows that most TASER deployments do not result in serious injury or death, and that TASERs provide officers with a useful, less-than-lethal alternative to their firearms. TASER critics, in turn, emphasize that even if TASERs are rarely lethal, 50,000 volts cause excruciating pain, fear, and psychological distress. They further emphasize that the TASER, like any weapon, can still be misused by police officers.

Though a large body of research examines police force, little is known about how officers make their use-of-force decisions in light of this new, less-than-lethal t…