This article examines the influence of research on international mediation. It refutes claims that mediation research has not influenced policy and practice. On the contrary, it shows that the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and other policy-makers are not only receptive to mediation research but proactively commission and disseminate research. The article argues that the mediation policy research arena resembles an oligopsony, which is an imperfect competitive market with a small number of important buyers and a large number of sellers. Consequently, transaction power lies with the policymakers, and the policy research arena is geared to meeting their preferences. They have a utilitarian preference for problem-solving research that enhances the effectiveness of mediation. They have a methodological preference for comparative case-studies that include interviews with mediators, and do not regard quantitative analysis as useful. In terms of transmission processes, they favour commissioned research tailored to meet their needs. They expect commissioned research to conform to their norms, serve a specified purpose, reflect a deep understanding of mediation, and make proposals that are functionally sound, politically appropriate and financially viable. The bottom line for mediation researchers is that they are most likely to influence policy and practice if they meet the knowledge requirements of the intended recipients of their research.

中文翻译：

---

客户永远是对的：国际调解的政策研究领域

本文探讨了国际调解研究的影响。它驳斥了调解研究没有影响政策和实践的说法。相反，这表明联合国、政府间发展组织（IGAD）和其他决策者不仅愿意接受调解研究，而且积极委托和传播研究成果。文章认为，调解政策研究领域类似于寡头垄断，这是一个不完全竞争的市场，有少数重要的买家和大量的卖家。因此，交易权力掌握在政策制定者手中，而政策研究领域则旨在满足他们的偏好。他们对解决问题的研究抱有功利主义的偏好，以提高调解的有效性。他们在方法论上偏爱比较案例研究，包括对调解员的访谈，并且不认为定量分析有用。在传播过程方面，他们倾向于委托研究来满足他们的需求。他们希望委托的研究符合他们的规范，服务于特定目的，反映对调解的深刻理解，并提出功能合理、政治上适当和财务上可行的建议。调解研究人员的底线是，如果他们满足研究目标接受者的知识要求，他们最有可能影响政策和实践。他们喜欢委托研究来满足他们的需求。他们希望委托的研究符合他们的规范，服务于特定目的，反映对调解的深刻理解，并提出功能合理、政治上适当和财务上可行的建议。调解研究人员的底线是，如果他们满足研究目标接受者的知识要求，他们最有可能影响政策和实践。他们喜欢委托研究来满足他们的需求。他们希望委托的研究符合他们的规范，服务于特定目的，反映对调解的深刻理解，并提出功能合理、政治上适当和财务上可行的建议。调解研究人员的底线是，如果他们满足研究目标接受者的知识要求，他们最有可能影响政策和实践。