About Dr Olivia Rundle

Dr Rundle is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania. She has worked as a nationally accredited mediator and a Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner. Dr Rundle is especially interested in the role of lawyers in dispute resolution processes and the policy environment that positively encourages lawyers to engage with dispute resolution. She teaches and researches in broad areas of Dispute Resolution, Civil Procedure and Family Law.

OPPORTUNITY: Call for EOIs for ADRAC Council Membership

Network members are invited to apply for membership of The Australian Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (ADRAC). As ADRAC is not funded, Council members must have capacity to pay their own costs and volunteer their time for Council activity. This is an opportunity to contribute to the dispute resolution community. More about ADRAC can be seen at their website.

ADRAC Membership Expression of Interest (pdf call for expressions of interest)

AUSTRALIAN DISPUTE RESOLUTION ADVISORY COUNCIL (ADRAC)

COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP– EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST

2019 – 2021

Expressions of Interest

ADRAC seeks Expressions of Interest for appointment to its council. In all, seven new members from across Australia, are being sought. Four new members will replace retiring members, and three are sought to expand the Council from 11 to 14 members.

ADRAC

ADRAC is a national, not-for-profit, public interest, independent ADR policy body. It examines ADR techniques, education and standards, and promotes the use of ADR in all areas of dispute. It makes submissions to Governments, law reform and other interested entities, it conducts and publishes studies on aspects of dispute resolution and it promotes the work of those in the dispute resolution field. ADRAC’s existing membership, its Charter and its work may be viewed at http://www.ADRAC.org.au.

ADRAC is generously supported in executive and legal functions by the Australian Government Solicitor and in addition, is currently seeking sponsors.

Members

Members of ADRAC generally have dispute resolution expertise or represent a specific area of dispute management interest. Members are self-funding at present, unpaid and act in the public interest. Appointments are generally for two years but are extendable or reducible as needed.

Requirements currently include two full-day, face-to-face meetings and up to eight, electronic meetings of less than one hour, per year, and committee work that includes active contribution to ADRAC’s activities. ADRAC values diversity and runs on commitment, enthusiasm and creativity, both at meetings and in the work it does.

Applications

If you wish to be considered for appointment to ADRAC, please make a written submission (outlining your relevant experience/expertise and including a current CV) to office@ADRAC.org.au . To be considered, your expression of interest should be received by Friday 8 March 2019.

Final assessment of applications will be made by a group including external advisers.

Inquiries: Please ring Jeremy Gormly SC (Chair of ADRAC) on 0400190953 or 02 92646899.

Advertisements

Where’s the evidence? Service providers’ research activity in family dispute resolution and related services

One of my favourite researcher pastimes is musing how to find better evidence about the experiences, preferences and needs of potential clients of dispute resolution services. How do we know what people want from their dispute resolution experience? There is a great wealth of research data captured by dispute resolution service providers, and those data don’t necessarily always come to the attention of researchers when they conduct literature searches in their habitual ways. Our network has the potential to bring research findings to the attention of people who want to access research about dispute resolution.

evidence

Below are some examples of research projects, data and findings that are publicly available through service providers, specifically relating to family dispute resolution and related services. I hope readers might find some of these useful in their work.

Relationships Australia National Research Network

Relationships Australia is a national organisation that provides a plethora of services in relation to family and other relationships. They use their broad reach to work collaboratively between their various services to conduct research, through their National Research Network. A current project is a longitudinal Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) Outcomes Study, which promises to provide considerable insight into the quality of outcomes achieved in FDR. A brief summary of the findings from a 2012 study into the psychological distress levels in Relationship Australia family support services clients is also published on the website. Each month, Relationships Australia runs an online survey on a particular topic, and the findings of the survey are published. These surveys seek public opinion about various matters, and this might provide useful “snapshot” evidence about likely perceptions of particular processes, for example, child inclusive family dispute resolution.

Interrelate

Interrelate is a not for profit provider of relationship services that specialises in supporting parents and children. It has a healthy culture of research and a dedicated research and service development team, evaluating programmes in-house and in collaboration with research partners. In 2014 Interrelate presented its experiences of establishing a service-based research culture in a conference paper titled Creating a Research-Aware Workforce: Lessons from the Trenches. Publications are available on the Interrelate website. Some of the publications of particular interest to dispute resolution researchers include the 2017 Certifying Mediation: A Study of Section 60I Certificates, in collaboration with the Centre for Social Research & Methods at ANU and co-funded by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department. The 2011 Report on the Study to Improve Understanding of Non-Agreement in Family Dispute Resolution is also an interesting research report, which was conducted by The Australian Institute of Family Studies. Also available are evaluation studies of Interrelate programmes, including:

Legal Aid Services

Back in 2008 KPMG conducted, on behalf of the Commonwealth Attorney-General, an evaluation of Family dispute resolution services in legal aid commissions. Legal Aid Victoria includes research activity as a core part of its business. The following research project reports are available on the Legal Aid Victoria webpage:

Legal Aid NSW published reviews, evaluations and discussion papers that it conducted in-house or commissioned between 2008 and 2015. These include Felicity Bell’s Discussion Paper on Facilitating the participation of children in Family Law processes, and client satisfaction survey results.

Anglicare

Anglicare Sydney have a Social Policy and Research Unit that conducts research and publishes reports on the Anglicare website. These include the 2018 Going it Alone: A Study of Lone Person Households, Social Isolation and Disadvantage in Sydney.

Finding the evidence

Quality research work occurs within service provider organisations. Research supports the field in the evolution of both practice and theory.

For researchers, the impracticality of capturing all of the research findings relevant to their work is an ever present challenge. The dispute resolution field spans all organisations, fields, disciplines and professions. This post focused upon family dispute resolution and related services, only one aspect of the dispute resolution landscape. Future posts might draw together service based and publicly available research related to other topic areas. Please contact me if you would like to volunteer to put together a similar post in your area of specialty.

 

Conflict is fun (?!)… holiday season ideas

The holiday season provides opportunities to spend time with loved ones, to break the ordinary routine, and have some fun. It can also be a stressful time for many people – family conflict can bubble to the surface. It is well known that family law services experience their busiest time over the December/January/February period. Tensions might arise around who will spend time with who and when, unresolved relationship rifts can be brought to a head, people who feel an obligation to attend events together might find themselves facing off, expectations can vary between couples or extended family relationships, disappointments might be voiced in the melting pot of spending intensive time together. The purpose of exchanging gifts as an expression of love can be undermined by the stressful process of shopping and unclear expectations about how much to spend, what someone would like, and navigating the hordes of other people engaged in the same mad pre-Christmas rush. Rebecca Huntley recently observed that:

“Interestingly I haven’t done much research on how Australians feel about Christmas, because it’s often fruitless to conduct focus groups past December 1. Everyone is too busy and cranky to turn up anywhere that isn’t offering free alcohol.”

Without empirical evidence, holiday conflict can be explained through the foundational assumptions of the conflict resolution field. In essence, conflict is an ordinary part of human interaction, and intense periods of interaction inevitably bring conflict.

So why bring all of this up, am I being a Grinch ?grinch-1939350_1920

Hopefully not. One of the best ways to equip ourselves to be better conflict managers is to expect conflict and respond to it mindfully. If our ordinary way of dealing with conflict with someone we love, or to whom we are tied by family, is to avoid or accommodate, then perhaps reimagining whether that approach is sustainable over intense periods of sharing time together can help us to plan to respond differently and constructively. Many of us find it much easier to implement our conflict management training when dealing with colleagues, clients, other professionals, service providers, or authorities than we do with people for whom we care deeply. It is much easier to moderate our behaviour when supporting others to deal with their conflict than it is when dealing with our own. Investing extra effort in managing our conflict interactions with the people we are closest to is challenging and absolutely worthwhile. We talk the talk of “conflict is inevitable, normal, and should be expected”, so let’s walk the walk and expect it. Let’s hold ourselves to high standards, be kind to ourselves and others, and expect not to resolve conflict perfectly all the time. It’s just part of the messy, ordinary, inevitable, beautiful chaos of human interaction and community. As people committed to a better way of managing conflict, we have to accept imperfection and commit to doing better next time.

Here are a few gift ideas too, which may help spread some cheery conflict management competence and enthusiasm (disclaimer – I have not actually used or bought any of these yet):

  1. For children Kinder to grade 6 there is a book called Trouble at the Watering Hole 
  2. Sharon Sutherland’s Gift Ideas to Inspire Conflict Resolution include collaborative games and board games for mediators.
  3. Monique McKay has put together (back in 2011) a suggested playlist to give to the mediator in your life.

Happy holidays to you from the Australasian Dispute Resolution Research Network.

Invitation to participate in ILERA Study Group on Third Party Neutrals in Dispute Resolution

Third Party Neutrals in Dispute Resolution Study Group

International Labor and Employment Relations Association (ILERA)

World Congress 2018

July 23-27, 2018, Seoul, South Korea

This post has been contributed by Professor Johanna Macneil, ADR Research Network member and Assistant Dean, Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Business and Law at the University of Newcastle.

Image of Seoul for ILERA conference, no 3

We would like to invite your participation in the newly-established Third Party Neutral in Dispute Resolution Study Group of the International Labor and Employment Relations Association (ILERA). In particular, we would like to invite you to join us in our first session together at the ILERA World Congress in Seoul in July.

PARTICIPATION IN THE STUDY GROUP

The Third Party Neutrals in Dispute Resolution Study Group is open to everyone interested and involved in labour and employment dispute prevention, resolution, adjudication, arbitration, mediation-arbitration, conciliation and mediation. That includes third party neutrals, practitioners, policy makers and regulators as well as academics. Co-Chairs are Chris Albertyn, mediator and arbitrator, (see http://www.albertyn.ca) and Deputy President Anna Booth of Australia’s federal industrial tribunal, the Fair Work Commission (see http://www.fwc.gov.au).

A small, provisional Study Group Committee of academics and practitioners has been established, before its expansion and formal confirmation at the Seoul ILERA World Congress, 23-27 July 2018.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY GROUP

The Third Party Neutrals in Dispute Resolution Study Group invites everyone interested in how third parties are involved in the prevention and settlement of disputes in the labour and employment field to join us.

Participants in the Study Group may be interested in any or all of the following:

  • the study of labour and employment issues and disputes arising at different levels:
    • at international level (over employment standards, over labour agreements as part of trade agreements);
    • at a national level (between confederations of trade unions and employers);
    • at a regional or sectoral level (between trades, trade union federations and employer
      associations);
    • at an enterprise or plant level (between trade unions and particular employers); or
    • between individual employees and individual employers;
  • all methods used to prevent or resolve those disputes which involve assistance or intervention by a third party, either a court, a state agency or an agreed private resolution mechanism;
  • all types of resolution, that is, either binding and determinative, or advisory, or facilitative, including what are deemed alternative forms of dispute resolution (ADR);
  • remedies available across jurisdictions, and under what forms of labour law, especially when considered in comparative perspective;
  • all types of outcomes sought or achieved which, along with the resolution of a dispute, may include effects on relationships, individual, group, organisational, industry, or societal measures;
  • comparative study, looking at differences in the methods of dispute resolution, and in the varieties of institutions in different jurisdictions and countries used to prevent or settle labour and employment disputes; or
  • any other new or emerging issues in relation to the work of third parties in the labour and employment field.

ILERA WORLD CONGRESS

The initial opportunity to pursue these studies and discussions will be at the ILERA World Congress in Seoul July 23-27, 2018 

Session in the formal program, 24-27 July
We will have a session allocated in Seoul during the formal program, at which some papers will be presented on the role of the third party neutral. If you would like to present a paper in our organised session, please send an abstract, consistent with the guidelines on the conference website, by NO LATER than 25 January 2018, to our academic co-ordinator Professor Johanna Macneil at Johanna.macneil@newcastle.edu.au, copied to the co-ordinator of the study group,
Chris Albertyn at chrisalbertyn@icloud.com.

Meeting of the Third Party Neutrals in Dispute Resolution Study Group
We will also arrange an opportunity to discuss plans for future meetings of the Study Group, for continued interaction between practitioners and academics on areas of common comparative interest. Even if you don’t have a paper for this conference, we would warmly welcome your ideas about participation in the future. (Please note, this will be arranged at a convenient time during the formal program, not on 23 July when other study group meetings are held.)

More information
More information about the Seoul conference is provided via the ILERA 2018 website. If you have any questions about the study group activities, please email Chris Albertyn or Johanna Macneil.

Regards
ILERA Third Party Neutrals in Dispute Resolution Study Group

The importance of the intake process in workplace disputes

Pauline Roach.pngThis post was written by Pauline Roach and is part of our series of summaries of works in progress presented at the 6th ADRRN Roundtable held in Dunedin in December 2017. Pauline was involved closely in the development and implementation of the system at the Roads and Maritime Services of New South Wales described here.

 

 

This post provides an overview of the dispute resolution program developed and introduced at the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), formerly the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW. In 2003, a review of the organisations’ grievance policy was undertaken.  Following this review the organisation sought to develop a corporate culture where the principles of alternate dispute resolution (ADR) could succeed and were accepted by staff.  The aim was to assist in the early identification, management and resolution of workplace disputes.

The current literature supports the view that workplace dispute resolution is more effective when it is supported by the whole organisation rather than used in a one off context.  (Sourdin T. 2016; Astor H, Chinkin C 2002; McKenzie D 2015; Saundry R, Latreille p, Dickens l, Teague P, Urwin P & Wibberley G 2014). The RMS system was a good example of a whole of organisational dispute management strategy.

At RMS, a tailored dispute resolution strategy was developed for each dispute. The most appropriate dispute resolution intervention was applied after a preliminary assessment. Mediation was one of a package of ADR tools, policies and procedures which were integrated into a range of human resource policies. The available dispute management strategies included: the disputants, manager and/or workgroup participating in conflict coaching (pre and post mediation), dispute counselling, mediation, referral to human resources for advice, or referral for legal advice.

Prior to any dispute resolution intervention a detailed intake interview was conducted. The intake interview was conducted seven to ten days prior to the dispute resolution process to which the matter would be referred.  Intake was a critical component of the dispute resolution strategy. The intake interview was divided into two significant sections: one to gather information from the organisations’ perspective and the other to prepare the disputant to fully participate in the dispute resolution process.

  1. ORGANISATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

From the organisations’ perspective it was important to establish the following:

  • is dispute resolution appropriate?
  • are the issues a breach of policy or current legislation?
  • should the matter be referred to human resources for investigation and / or disciplinary action?
  • What previous action has the organisation taken to resolve the issue?

The intake process involved interviewing the disputants, the manager and possibly the union representative to obtain a history of the dispute.  This also provided an opportunity to begin considering the most appropriate dispute resolution practitioner for the matter.

  1. DISPUTANTS’ PERSPECTIVE

From the disputants’ perspective the intake process:

  • obtain a history of the dispute;
  • identify the people involved;
  • build a rapport with the disputants and reassure them that the ADR practioners do not take sides;
  • introduce the concepts of dispute resolution and ensure they understand the dispute resolution process;
  • assist the disputants to focus on outcomes;
  • reality check outcomes or do the disputants just want to punish the other person;
  • identify factors that may prevent resolution – power imbalance between the parties, is there a threat of violence?
  • Gain agreement on date, time and location for the session.

The intake process intended to increase the likelihood of the ADR intervention succeeding.  It aimed to ensure that the disputants understood the process, had the information they needed and that the right people were sitting around the table. It required an organisational commitment to allow participants the time to engage in a thorough intake process.

Over a nine year period RMS developed and implemented a holistic dispute resolution process, with a rigorous intake process. Mediation was part of a system of dispute resolution tools that were integrated into a wide range of the organisation’s policies. Resolution of workplace disputes requires a strategic and explicit cultural change rather than a piece meal approach. The intake process is a critical tool in achieving this.

Keeping up with change: No Alternative to teaching ADR in clinic. An Australian perspective

This post was written by Jacqueline Weinberg from Monash University and is part of our series of summaries of works in progress presented at the 6th ADRRN Roundtable held in Dunedin in December 2017

Jackie Weinberg

Over the last 30 years alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has become more prominent in Australian legal practice due to the need to reduce the cost of access to justice and to provide more expedient and informal alternatives to litigation. There is a shift away from adjudicative or determinative processes and towards more cooperative processes for dispute resolution.[1] The rigidity, complexity and cost of formal structures has meant that courts, tribunals and other rights-based structures are often inaccessible to all but a few in society.[2] The incapacity of these structures to resolve conflict, although they may determine rights, has been a relevant factor in the development of alternative options for dispute resolution.[3] Clearly, Australian legal practice is undergoing change. As legal educators, we need to ask: how should we be preparing law students entering practice for these changes? How can we ensure that once they become lawyers, our students will not rely entirely on litigious methods to assist their clients but instead look at alternatives for dispute resolution?

Richard Susskind in his book Tomorrow’s Lawyers [4] states that law schools cannot ignore future practice and law students should be provided with options, to study current and future trends in legal services and to learn some key 21st century legal skills that will support future law jobs.[5] ADR is a growing area of legal practice resulting in changes in models of client service and advocacy.[6] The issue then is how best to prepare the young lawyers for these changes. According to Sourdin, legal academics (and law schools) play an essential role in the training and education of lawyers and in interpreting these changes.[7] Sourdin sees legal education and training as ‘a continuum along which the skills and values of the competent lawyer are developed.’[8] There is a need to explore whether clinical legal education is taking these changes on board and moving away from teaching traditional adversarial models towards teaching a more ADR skills based curriculum. There is a need to look more closely at whether the ‘interconnect’ between the teaching and practice of ADR is in fact happening in clinics; if so, how this teaching is happening; including an examination of clinical curricula. If it is established that this teaching is taking place, then research needs to be done to determine in what ways this teaching can be enhanced in the clinical context and whether it is contributing to students’ knowledge of non-adversarial approaches towards conflict resolution.

According to Sourdin, ‘changes to the law school education environment supporting ADR in a realistic, rather than marginal way should mean that there is a greater chance that law school education in Australia into the future will be both relevant and supportive of respectful dispute resolution in its traditional and alternative forms.’[9] Clinical scholars view clinical legal education as a method of learning and teaching law.[10] It includes teaching about skills as well as the broader legal system.[11] ADR has become a part of the legal system both in Australia and internationally. If clinical legal education is to teach students about the skills needed for practice then it follows that a focus on the teaching and learning of ADR skills is needed. Extensive research has shown that ADR has an important role in legal education. It places emphasis on a non-adversarial process of resolving conflict and provides lawyers with the knowledge and skills to engage with legal problems in a holistic manner. Law students engaged in clinical practice who understand and adopt these processes will become lawyers who focus first on client’s needs and interests when problem solving and resort to adversarial practice only when necessary. In this way, clinical legal education can ensure that law students are well prepared for their roles as ‘new lawyers’ in 21st century legal practice.

My PhD research is focusing on whether ADR is being sufficiently taught to students in existing clinical legal education courses in Australia. My research explores whether and to what extent ADR is integrated into clinical legal education across Australia and how the teaching of ADR within clinics might be strengthened. Although this research is primarily undertaken at Australian clinics, it will assist with learning and teaching strategies in relation to clinical legal education as a whole and has relevance for all clinical legal education contexts. This research will assist with curriculum review in relation to clinical legal education in law schools.

 

[1] Tania Sourdin, Alternative Dispute Resolution  (LBC Thomsons, 5th ed, 2015) 13

[2] Ibid 12

[3] Ibid.

[4] Susskind R, Tomorrow’s Lawyers, 2013, Oxford University Press 135

[5] Ibid.

[6] Macfarlane, J The New Lawyer: How Settlement is Transforming the Practice of Law

(UBC Vancouver 2008 Macfarlane, 243

[7] Sourdin, above 1 5

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Evans, A, Cody, A, Copeland A, Giddings, J, Noone M.A & Rice S, Best Practices

Australian Clinical Legal Education Office of Teaching and Learning 2013 40

[11] Ibid 41

Challenges and opportunities identified through an attempt to systematically capture DR research reports

This post is part of our series of summaries of works in progress presented at the 6th ADRRN Roundtable held in Dunedin in December 2017.

word cloud my presentation notes

The aim of my project is to identify hidden knowledge about methods that do and don’t work in capturing data from end users (clients) of dispute resolution processes. If we are serious about measuring the quality, effect, and experience of DR, then we need to gather data from the people for whom these services are provided. There are, however, many challenges to gathering that data, which I explored in the earlier stage of my research project at the 2016 Roundtable. Some of these challenges are related to the DR process itself – an often stressful experience about which clients may be (a) unwilling to speak about for research purposes or (b) unable to reflect upon dispassionately. There are barriers of ethics, reliance upon third parties to gather data, and then for service providers who gather data routinely, there are often limited resources to actually systematically analyse that data.

At the 2017 ADRRN Roundtable I reported the next stage of my project. Since the 2016 Roundtable I have engaged a research assistant to conduct a systematic literature review, reworked my proposed interview questions, and conducted some pilot interviews with DR researchers about their experiences gathering data from end users / clients. This post will focus upon what I learnt through the attempt to conduct a systematic literature review.

An account of a systematic literature review

I set out to gather relevant literature through a systematic approach that was designed to capture research conducted in Australia that involved the gathering of data from end users/ clients of DR processes. I enlisted the assistance of my law librarian and met with her and my research assistant to design the systematic literature review. A variety of databases and search terms were used. I wanted to have confidence that this would identify all of the relevant research reports that already exist. The main problem that I have faced is that the “systematic” review simply hasn’t identified all of the relevant literature. I am aware of some resources that I identified earlier in the project (through non-systematic searching) and also reported in the appendix of Tania Sourdin’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (Thomsen Reuters, 5th ed, 2016), which were not captured. My research assistant found that the search terms that we had planned often failed to limit results to material that met our criteria of Australian research in the DR area that included data gathered from clients / end users. He spent a lot of time wading through material that did not meet our research criteria. The result of the review was that 43 relevant reports of research were identified.

On reflection, there are a number of possible reasons why the “systematic” review conducted in accordance with the conventions of traditional legal academic research has not achieved the result that I hoped to achieve.

  1. The database searches privileged peer reviewed journal articles. Not all DR research involving data from clients / end users is published in peer review journal articles. It is likely that most of the data gathered from DR clients / end users is not gathered or analysed by academics. Non-academics are unlikely to be motivated to publish in peer review journals, which mostly sit behind paywalls. Instead, open access self-publication, reports to funders, and internal reporting are likely to be frequent destinations for research. These kinds of publications were not captured by the systematic review.
  2. There is possibly a wealth of client / end user data being collected, but much of it is either not analysed at all or only analysed for confidential purposes. Most service providers conduct research to capture feedback from their clients. These data may never be systematically analysed and even when analysis occurs, there may be no public output from the research. “In house” evaluations may be conducted for purposes of quality assurance, reflective practice, and performance management. These purposes are not enhanced by making research results available publicly, and commercial interests may be compromised by publishing client feedback data.
  3. Even where DR research is published in peer review journals, there are few discipline specific publication destinations (particularly those considered by universities to be prestigious), resulting in a scattering of publications. It may be difficult to locate relevant literature because DR researchers publish across a broad spectrum of publications. Each journal has its own preferences in relation to reporting of research method, language and style. This could potentially have affected the ability of the systematic approach to capture all relevant literature.

The purpose of locating existing research reports was so that I could review the methods of recruitment of DR clients / end users and data capture that researchers have used. In the literature that I have identified so far, although relevant data were used as a foundation for the findings reported, the method of recruitment of participants and capturing of the data were not always explained. This possibly reflects the tradition in legal research of not reporting methods clearly, and the preferred style of some journals, which have strict word limits and may not value detailed accounts of research method. Often research reported in peer reviewed journal articles is reported in greater detail in non-peer reviewed reports. These were not always readily available when I tried to locate them.

Next steps

It is clear that there is a vast amount of grey literature available that is not necessarily captured through subscribed databases. My next steps will involve new search strategies that will capture a broader range of literature. My pilot interviews and interviews with DR researchers about their experiences capturing data from end users will also be an opportunity to identify research reports that may not have come to my attention through my searches.

My reflections on the data that remains hidden within organisations has caused me to wonder how those of us in academia can better engage with industry. DR service providers are often able to achieve very high response rates that are difficult for independent researchers to achieve. I believe that there are opportunities for academic researchers to build better working partnerships with industry, with all parties exploring the skills and resources that they can offer one another.

The experience has also highlighted a need for a comprehensive, well funded clearing house of DR research reports, which would provide a portal through which prior DR research can be more readily located. A significant initial investment would need to be followed by funding for ongoing maintenance, but there could be great benefits to clients, practitioners, organisations and researchers working the DR field. I am percolating ideas about how to pursue this idea and would welcome any offers of assistance.