Several methodologies are put into place to compare the role of intervention with other professions. The techniques include the interest-based methods, based on the profession of mediation, generalist intervention model utilized in the social work profession, and traditional adversarial model, employed in the law profession. Therefore, the paper will profoundly detail the change of roles based on this professional based on skills, techniques, and strategies when changing from one career to another in the intervention as a conflict ensues between different parties at large.
Three professions are compared, including mediation, social work, and law. To demonstrate these parallels, I utilize an interest-based model of mediation, a generalist model of social work, and a traditional adversarial law model. Noteworthy, other laws and social work professionals see mediation as a possible role for them to play. Significant differences appear when the three models’ orientations, values, and techniques comparison as defined by (Barsky 2017). A lawyer’s conventional role is that of an advocate who fights for the rights and interests of one party in a dispute. Most social workers are accustomed to campaigning for specific clients or causes. Lawyers or social professionals who want to play the position of a mediator must put their advocacy aside and become neutral facilitators. Clients can use mediators to negotiate on their behalf.
Furthermore, mediators support each party’s ability to negotiate, they do not support a particular situation or the solution. When advocacy-oriented helping professionals become mediators, one of the most challenging adjustments is to become neutral. Each of the three professions emphasizes the right of customers to make their own decisions in terms of values. They value individualism and everyone’s sense of self-worth. Because courts impose solutions on parties, some people believe that the law is anti-self-determination. Even for lawyers, though, the courtroom is the last resort. Disputes are best settled through party-to-party or lawyer-led talks (Barsky, 2017). Only when the parties cannot reach an agreement independently, do they turn to the courts for help.
However, for instance, when a conflict arises between two parties, for example, the employer and employee, based on the interest-based method based on mediation, as a mediator, the role would be listening to the information shared by both parties fully. In contrast, as a mediator, I would listen to both parties with sides, therefore, maintaining neutrality to maintain the professional code. When all the information is shared as the mediator, I would keenly check the matter at hand in all the ways and ensure that the parties understood the problem and did not reach an agreement (Barsky, 2017).
Therefore, a change of the model to be used is the generalist intervention model based on social work where the mutuality of the parties embraces and tissue at hand to understand by both parties at large have a solution to the problem in the long run. Hence, when both the techniques fail, I would employ the last method of the traditional adversarial model of law where every party would have to have representatives to represent them in the court where there is no mutual understanding on what to be decided by the court (Barsky, 2017). Additionally, the lawyer has to receive instructions from the person he represents and how to act and, more so, react to the matter at hand. Conversely, the intervention is directed towards purposed to have a relationship between the disputing parties with the conflicting issue at hand.