{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03099730458221024, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026954177897574125, 'mean_word_length': 5.517543859649122, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Mediation and Political Theory: A Critique of Bush and Folger

Recently the National Institute for Dispute Resolution (NIDR) released a report of its attempt to develop performance-based assessments of mediators.1 The report's understated and conciliatory language fails to conceal and in fact indicates the ferment, disagreement, and funding vulnerability that characterize American ADR.2 This assessment project, in the euphemistic words of its director Chris Honeyman, has had an "intricate career." It began as an informal, simple experiment. Then the Society of Practitioners of Dispute Resolution (SPIDR) got interested and there resulted a shift to developing more rigorous methods of assessment. "But as time went on," Honeyman wrote,