이 연구는 이론 생성을 목적으로 하는 근거이론 방법에 의해 자료의 수집과 분석이 진행되었다. 연구자는 노동위원회 조정위원 또는 교섭협력관으로서 노사분쟁 조정을 하고 있는 조정가(연구참여자) 11명에 대해 실제 조정 현장에서 조정가의 역할을 묻는 반구조화 질문방법을 통해 인터뷰를 하고 이를 녹취하여 전사한 자료를 분석하였으며, 실제 노동위원회 조정 과정을 관찰 분석하였다.
먼저 개방코딩을 통해 117개의 개념을 도출하였고 이를 지속적비교와 질문 방법을 활용하여 범주화한 결과 조정 과정에서 조정가 역할을 갈등의 실체 파악, 감정 다루기, 당사자 조정의지 평가, 당사자 협상 지원, 당사자들과 협상, 신뢰구축, 프로세스메니지먼트의 7개로 범주화하였다. 이를 다시 스트라우스와 코빈의 근거이론 방법에 따라 패러다임 모형(인과적 조건, 현상, 맥락적 조건, 중재적 조건, 작용ㆍ상호작용, 결과)을 활용하여 7개의 조정가 역할 범주의 하부 범주들간의 관계를 구축함으로써 각 역할이 어떻게 작동하는지를 구체적으로 설명하였다.
다음으로 조정가의 7역할 중 가장 중심적이고 분석적 힘을 가지고 있으면서 다른 모든 역할들을 통합할 수 있는 '신뢰구축'을 중심범주로 선택하고 이를 중심으로 신뢰유형에 따른 조정가 역할(조정유형)의 변이를 설명하는 이론적 가설을 구축하였다. 이 연구에서는 4가지 유형의 신뢰를 구축하는 과정에서의 조정가 역할과 신뢰를 구축한 이 후 효과적인 조정가 역할을 설명하기 위해 리스킨이 제시한 4차원(Facilitative-Narrow, Facilitative-Broad, Evaluative-Narrow, Evaluative-Broad)의 조정유형을 속성으로 활용하였다.
This study was conducted through data collection and analysis based on grounded theory which aims at generating theories. The researcher interviewed 11 mediators of labor disputes mediating as members of the National Labor Relations Committee using a semi-structured questionnaire, recorded their responses and analyzed them.
First, through open coding, a total of 117 concepts were identified. Using continued comparison and questioning, the concepts of the role of the mediator were categorized into the following seven: understanding the essence of the conflict, addressing emotions, evaluation of the other party's willingness to reach an mediation, support of the parties for negotiation, negotiation with parties, establishing trust and process management. Using the grounded theory methodology of Strauss and Corbin, a paradigm model (causal conditions, phenomenon, contextual conditions, arbitrary conditions, action and interaction, and results) the relation between the sub-categories of the seven roles of the mediator were established to elaborate on how each role operates.
Next, of the seven roles of the mediator, 'establishing trust' was selected as the core category as it is the most central and analytical and can encompass all other roles. A theoretical hypothesis was then established to explain the variation of the mediator's role (mediation styles) according to the type of trust. In this study, to explain the role of the mediator in the process of establishing these four types and the role of an effective mediator after establishing trust, the four dimensional mediation styles (Facilitative-Narrow, Facilitative-Broad, Evaluative-Narrow, Evaluative-Broad) presented by Riskin was used as the trait of mediation style. Of the seven roles of the mediator, six roles excluding the assessment of the other party's willingness to reach an mediation, was used to conclude 81 detailed roles. To each detailed role, an mediation style was assigned as a trait and was allocated a dimension according to the classification of Riskin. These data were converted into quantitative data using the frequency of statement by study participants and the percentage of responses, and used for analysis of the mediation style. The role of the mediator in the process of establishing the four types of trust was analyzed. Then, the most effective mediation type was logically inferred based on the four types of trust and Riskin's classification criteria.
The following theoretical hypotheses were identified based on the types of trust thus concluded.
1. The most effective mediation type once neutral trust is established is the facilitative narrow type.
2. The most effective mediation type once humane trust is established is the facilitative broad type.
3. The most effective mediation type once expert trust is established is the evaluative narrow type.
4. The most effective mediation type once identity trust is established is the evaluative broad type.
5. When neutral trust and aligned trust are established, facilitative narrow role is most predominant.
6. When neutral trust, identity trust and humane trust are established, the facilitative broad role is most predominant.
7. When neutral trust, identity trust and expert trust are established, the evaluative narrow role is most predominant.
8. When neutral trust, identity trust, humane trust and expert trust are simultaneously established,
8-1 When human trust is stronger, the facilitative broad role is more predominant.
8-2 When expert trust is stronger, the evaluative narrow role is more predominant.
In this study, the scene of one study participant actually serving as mediator in a dispute was observed and analyzed. In this observation, the seven roles of an mediator were all found too. The establishment of trust type and the subsequent mediation style became important grounds upon which the above hypotheses were set. These also show that the study results are valid.
The implications of this study are as follows: First, by converting qualitative data into quantitative data for analysis, the reality was more accurately delivered and validity was improved. Second, by going beyond concluding the role concept of an mediator but identifying how each role works, the basis for standard model development and competency development was laid. Third, a standard for selecting an mediation style or how to establish trust was presented. Fourth, the study went beyond conceptual description to establish a practical theory.