skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 165555 Find in a Library
Title: Many Doors? Closing Doors? Alternative Dispute Resolution and Adjudication
Journal: Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution  Volume:10  Issue:2  Dated:(1995)  Pages:211-265
Author(s): J Resnik
Date Published: 1995
Page Count: 55
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This overview of the status of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in America considers both the changing attitudes toward ADR and the claims made on behalf of ADR, as well as changing attitudes toward adjudication and its attributes.
Abstract: Following an introductory discussion of the state's attitudes toward alternatives to adjudication, the author profiles Frank Sander's call for a "multi-doored" courthouse, which would match each dispute to an appropriate forum designed to achieve the effective and efficient processing of those types of disputes referred to it. A definition of ADR is followed by a discussion of the attitudes toward and claims made about the nature and quality of both alternative dispute resolution and traditional adjudication. The concluding section discusses the interrelationship between claims made for ADR and views of adjudication. The author notes that for those who envisioned ADR as a forum significantly different from traditional adjudication, they must be concerned about its institutionalization and its transformation into the very adversarial processes that they had hoped to avoid. As courts make ADR their own, this formalization may well undermine the very attributes of ADR that prompted its development. Further, as courts compel ADR, the relationship between ADR and volition weakens, pushing it ever closer to a state-imposed mode of resolution. The outcome of the institutionalization of ADR has modified it to become similar to a stream-lined or reformed version of adjudication. As this century draws to its end, ADR is melding into adjudication, and ADR has narrowed to become a tool to produce contractual agreements among disputants. The focus is shifting from adjudication to resolution. 217 footnotes
Main Term(s): Court procedures
Index Term(s): Alternative dispute settlement; Court-administered arbitration; Mediation
Note: A RAND Reprint
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.