Got a question? You've come to the right place! Scroll down to find the answers to our FAQs.
Don't worry, your survey responses are safe and sound! This usually means that at some point you have started two surveys, one via the weblink and one via your personal email invitation. Alternatively, you may have opted to use the general weblink instead of your personal email invitation. Survey Monkey doesn't automatically match the web-link and email responses, so it has sent you a reminder. Sorry if this caused any stress - we appreciate the time and effort you have put into participating in the NMAS Review Survey.
Definitely not! You can complete the survey in more than one sitting.
You can edit your answers at any time, even after you have completed the survey.
The NMAS Review Survey is the important final stage of our consultation process for the current review of the National Mediator Accreditation System (NMAS Review). The Mediator Standards Board (MSB) will conduct further consultation in response to the review's recommendations.
The NMAS Review Survey considers the current Approval and Practice Standards (the Standards), the technical and structural elements of the NMAS (the System), as well as other areas for further investigation that have arisen from consultation so far.
The survey was developed in response to the earlier consultation conducted via the reference groups and workshops. It is designed using a well-established methodology for developing standards. Analysis of the survey will inform recommendations made to the MSB in relation to the review of the current NMAS.
The survey is divided into two sections:
Part 1 (Professional Practice Standards)
Everyone who participates in the survey is asked to complete this section.
Part 2 (Approval Standards and the System)
We encourage everyone to complete this section. Those who offer NMAS training and/or NMAS accreditation hold specific responsibilities under the NMAS and will be automatically directed to complete both Parts 1 & 2. All other participants will be given the option to complete Part 2.
As part of the NMAS Review, the Review team has been asked to consider the inclusion of conciliation or other DR processes into the NMAS.
To do this, we need to ask questions that go beyond traditional facilitative mediation and into the context of other types of practice. Asking these questions will help us learn more about the similarities, differences and boundaries that distinguish different forms of non-determinative dispute resolution (NDDR).
These questions will have an option to indicate that the area is not relevant to you or your service.
The analysis needs to compare a range of practices so that we can make recommendations to the MSB about what might be included or left out of the NMAS. For example, this information will inform recommendations about whether conciliators might be adequately captured under the NMAS practice standards or if it may be more appropriate to develop a distinct set of standards as suggested in the ADRAC Conciliation Report — Conciliation: Connecting the dots.
When answering each multiple-choice question, start at the first option. If you can do the things stated at that level, then move to the second option and so on. Select the option that fits you best. Do not skip a level. (The answers are cumulative and presume that you can also do the previous levels.)
There are no right or wrong answers. Some attributes will be relevant to some practitioners and not others. Not every mediator/practitioner starts in the same place, and development is not strictly linear (i.e. the first level is not necessarily the ‘baseline’ and very few practitioners will sit at the highest level).
For this type of survey to work, it is vital that you choose the level closest to your actual skill or knowledge level rather than the level you think you should be.
If you are an NMAS accredited mediator, we have been advised by the MSB that you can collect one CPD point for completing Part 1 of the NMAS Review Survey under Section 3.5 of the NMAS. A certificate verifying your participation will be available once you have completed the survey. Please get in touch with your RMAB if you require further clarification.
The term 'ADR' includes a spectrum of processes including arbitration which is a determinative process. The NMAS Review Survey does not include arbitration . As such the term 'ADR' as an umbrella term is inappropriate in this case.
Members of the NMAS Review team have implemented this approach previously to develop Australia's Principal Standard Leadership Profiles and the design and analysis of questions asked at the Global Pound Conference (GPC) Series 2016–17.
Visit the IMI Website to download a copy of the GPC North America suite of reports as an example of profiles that can be developed using this methodology.
Visit the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) to learn more about AITSL's Principal Standard.
The NMAS Review Survey is a particular kind of questionnaire designed for the development of standards.
The questions use research-derived language and are structured to align with well-established developmental models (taxonomies/hierarchies). When analysed, they will provide an indication of the typical behaviours that mediators and other non-determinative dispute resolution practitioners may display at different stages of their professional development.
The taxonomies we have drawn on measure skills, knowledge and attitude/values. We have included links to the taxonomies below for anyone interested in learning more about this area of research.
Drawing on established theories about how skills and knowledge develop will help us capture data about different types of practice and see 'clusters' of behaviours for different practitioners.
By providing scope for these differences we will be able to provide evidence of how practice is the same or different for different types of practitioners (e.g. facilitative mediators, FDRPs, conciliators, restorative practitioners, commercial mediators etc.).
Links to research:
Attitudes/Values: Krathwohl's Taxonomy (Affective Domain)