Our services

We may arrange structured (yet informal) conversations between conflicting parties, ensuring that each person is heard and that the dialogue remains respectful and productive. The focus is more on the process of open communication and mutual understanding, rather than driven by the need for an immediately found solution. The ombuds role is to create a safe space for conversation and helping participants communicate effectively without directing the content of their discussion. We do not make any documentation of the dialogue.

Example: Imagine an undergraduate student, Karim (the visitor) approaches the university ombuds with concerns about another student, Étienne, and his perceived lack of participation and responsiveness in their group project. Karim is worried that Étienne’s slow progress and missed work meetings are affecting the overall quality and timeline of the project. With Karim’s written permission, the ombuds contacts Étienne, who agrees to participate in the ombuds-facilitated dialogue to address these issues, with the understanding that the process is entirely voluntary and aims to foster open communication.

Ombuds’ Facilitated Dialogue Approach

• Pre-Dialogue Preparation
  • The ombuds first meets separately with Karim to better understand his concerns and expectations. Karim expresses frustration with Étienne’s lack of communication and worries that his own grade may be impacted. The ombuds also encourages Karim to reflect on specific examples he’d like to share with Étienne to help ground the conversation in constructive feedback.
  • Similarly, the ombuds meets with Étienne to gain his perspective. Étienne shares that he’s been struggling to keep up with the workload due to other academic commitments and feels hesitant about asking for support. This meeting allows Étienne to prepare for the dialogue, understand Karim’s perspective, and reflect on his own needs or challenges.

• Setting Ground Rules for the Dialogue
  • The ombuds brings Karim and Étienne together in a neutral space, beginning the session by setting some ground rules: respectful listening, avoiding interrupting, and focusing on the issue rather than personal attacks. The ombuds emphasises that participation is voluntary and that there will be no written agreement at the end, only a verbal understanding to support collaboration.

• Guided Sharing
  • The ombuds invites Karim to start by sharing specific concerns. Karim might say, “I’ve noticed that it’s been hard to reach you for updates on the project, and I feel stressed when I don’t know if we’re on track.”
  • The ombuds then invites Étienne to respond. Étienne shares his experience balancing other responsibilities and acknowledges that he may not have been as proactive in communicating.

• Identifying Needs and Expectations
  • The ombuds helps both students identify their needs moving forward. Karim expresses the need for reliable updates and regular attendance at scheduled meetings. Étienne explains that he could benefit from some flexibility with deadlines if he communicates in advance when he’s struggling.
  • The ombuds encourages both students to explore solutions that meet their respective needs and support project success.

• Creating a Verbal Action Plan
  • Together, Karim and Étienne verbally agree on some concrete steps: setting weekly check-ins to discuss progress, sharing a timeline for individual tasks, and committing to notifying each other if adjustments are needed.
  • Since this is an informal process, no written agreement is made. Instead, the ombuds ensures both students have a clear, shared understanding of their commitments.

• Outcome
  • Through this facilitated dialogue, Karim and Étienne can move forward with clear expectations and a mutual understanding, reducing the impact of their initial conflict on the group project. The ombuds’ role helps ensure a fair, structured process, fostering collaboration and pen communication without the need for written agreements, involving the course professor, or formalising complaints.

Mediation is a more structured way to address concerns, improve communication, and work towards a resolution that everyone involved can agree upon. The Ombudsperson as mediator takes an active role in guiding the discussion and suggesting ways to resolve the conflict, following a structured process with specific stages (e.g., introduction, sharing perspectives, identifying issues, exploring solutions, reaching agreement). A mediation aims to conclude in a written mediated agreement that may be shared with human resources or a supervisor or strictly kept between the parties to the mediation. Parties who do not want a written mediated agreement may instead opt for a facilitated dialogue.

Example: Imagine a university professor and a postdoctoral researcher (postdoc) are in conflict about the order of authorship for a series of publications prepared for submission to different peer-reviewed journals. The professor, who secured the funding and oversaw the project, believes that as the principal investigator (PI) and primary contributor to the initial design and research direction, she should be listed as the first author on two of the three publications. The professor also contends that her role in revising and refining the third manuscript justifies second authorship position. Additionally, she argues that her standing in the academic community will lend credibility to the publications, benefiting both the research team and future funding prospects.

The postdoc, however, maintains that he has been the primary contributor in terms of data collection, analysis, and manuscript drafting. He argues that, according to disciplinary norms, his significant intellectual contributions and labour on the project merit first authorship on these three publications. The postdoc expresses concern that without first authorship, their contributions may be undervalued, potentially impacting their career advancement and future opportunities. He feels that this conflict reflects a lack of recognition for early-career researchers within the laboratory and are part of trend in a broader climate of under-appreciation.

The university ombuds, acting as a mediator, might help the two parties develop a fair and transparent authorship agreement that clarifies expectations and recognises both of their contributions. A mediated written agreement could include, but is not necessarily limited to:

• Authorship Order: Specific order of authorship for each paper, based on the unique contributions to each manuscript and following established disciplinary conventions.
• Contribution Statements: Acknowledgement of individual contributions, detailing roles in project design, data collection, analysis, and manuscript preparation, to support the agreed authorship order.
• Future Authorship Protocol: Guidelines for authorship determination in future collaborations, establishing mutual expectations and minimising potential disputes.
• Commitment to Acknowledgment: An agreement on the inclusion of appropriate acknowledgments for any unlisted contributors, if applicable.
• Revisions and Review: Clarification on how authorship order might be revisited should significant revisions alter each party’s contribution before final submission.

The mediated agreement aims to create a balanced resolution, giving both the professor and the postdoc a clear understanding of their roles and recognition in the authorship process, ideally reducing tension and fostering a collaborative environment.

The ombuds may convey concerns or perspectives between individuals when direct communication is difficult, helping each party understand the other’s viewpoint without the emotional strain of direct confrontation.

Example: Imagine a doctoral supervisor needs to address recurring issues in her supervisee’s (PhD candidate) research approach and time management, as these challenges are impacting the quality and progress of the candidate’s work. The supervisor feels stuck, but she wants to maintain the candidate’s confidence and motivation.

The ombuds could use the sandwich method to help the supervisor reframe feedback, which involves delivering feedback by surrounding critical points with positive, constructive comments to soften the impact. This can be applied to written or verbal communication.

• Positive Opening: The ombuds might suggest that the supervisor begins by acknowledging the supervisee’s strengths and recent improvements, such as commitment to learning complex methodologies or a good grasp of literature in their field. For example: “I’ve been really impressed with how well you’ve mastered some of the advanced methods. Your understanding of the literature is clearly reflected in our recent discussions.”
• Constructive Criticism: Next, the ombuds helps the supervisor focus on specific, actionable feedback related to the supervisee’s approach and time management, framing it as areas for growth rather than deficiencies: For example: “One thing that could really help your progress, though, is a more consistent approach to your experimental design and some adjustments to time management. I’ve noticed that a clearer plan for each phase of research might prevent delays and support better outcomes.”
• Positive Closing with Action Steps: Finally, the supervisor can close by encouraging the supervisee and offering support or resources, like more regular check-ins or templates for planning. For instance: “I know that adjusting these areas could make a big difference, and I’m here to support you. Let’s set up a bi-weekly check-in to track your progress and tackle any roadblocks together. I think with these small adjustments, you’ll get back on track and be in good shape for the next CET.”

When direct communication between parties is not feasible or productive, especially when emotions are high and in cases of power imbalance, the Ombuds can act as an impartial intermediary who moves back and forth between conflicting individuals or groups to facilitate dialogue and negotiation.

Example: Imagine two university administration employees are in conflict over shared responsibilities on a large project. Tensions have escalated due to misunderstandings around task ownership and perceived micromanagement. Both employees have become quite defensive, and prior attempts at direct conversation have led to heated arguments. Each employee feels uncomfortable being in the same room as the other, fearing further conflict and personal attacks.

In this case, a university ombuds might choose shuttle mediation—meeting separately with each party rather than bringing them together for an in-person mediation. This approach allows each employee to share their perspective and feelings freely without fear of confrontation. The ombuds can then relay messages, clarify intentions, and negotiate possible solutions between the parties. Shuttle mediation can be especially helpful here to lower emotional intensity, rebuild trust, and work toward a resolution without the added pressure of a face-to-face encounter.

This gradual approach can help both employees feel heard and validated, creating a foundation for potential future collaboration. It may be done in the form of a facilitated dialogue (no written agreement), or as a mediation (with a written mediated agreement between the parties in conflict).

Our aggregated understanding of cases can lead to informal (verbal) or formal (written, such as in the Annual Report recommendations to all levels of University administration for changes in University policies and procedures.

Presenting analyses of trends, anonymised statistical data, and policy recommendations, the Ombuds makes an annual summary presentation of the Annual Report to the Board of Governors. After receipt and presentation to the Board of Governors, the Annual Report is published on the webpage of the Ombuds.

We may conduct appreciative inquiries at all levels of University administration below the Board of Governors to make recommendations for policy and procedural changes.

• Example: An administrative employee, Ms. Fischer (pseudonym), approaches the faculty ombuds with concerns about perceived inequities in the approval process for telework exceptions within the faculty. Ms. Fischer feels that decisions regarding who can work remotely are inconsistent, with certain colleagues more frequently granted telework flexibility due to seniority or informal arrangements with supervisors. She worries that this lack of transparency creates unfair advantages for some employees while disadvantaging others, particularly those with caregiving responsibilities or health concerns. Ms. Fischer requests that the ombuds conduct an appreciative inquiry to explore this issue and provide a non-binding recommendation to faculty leadership.

In this case, the ombuds might:

• Gather information

  The ombuds meets with a diverse group of administrative employees and supervisors to understand how telework exceptions are currently decided within the faculty. They gather information on employee experiences with telework requests, reasons given for approvals or denials, and any perceived patterns in decision-making, including trends that may relate to seniority, caregiving status, or other factors

• Identify strengths and successes

  During the inquiry, the ombuds seeks examples of departments within the faculty where telework exceptions are seen as equitably granted. They explore what practices might contribute to this perception of fairness and whether similar strategies could be implemented across other departments within the faculty.

• Analyse themes and patterns

  After gathering feedback, the ombuds identifies recurring concerns, such as inconsistent criteria for telework approvals, perceived lack of adherence to telework policy, or reliance on informal agreements. They may discover that some departments apply clear criteria for telework requests, while others leave decisions entirely to supervisor discretion, leading to inconsistencies.

• Develop recommendations

  Based on the findings, the ombuds creates a non-binding report, summarising key insights and offering recommendations for faculty leadership. Suggestions might include developing a faculty-wide telework decision guidelines, providing clearer criteria for telework exceptions, establishing a review process for denials, or introducing regular reviews to ensure fair access to telework opportunities across all departments.

This appreciative inquiry allows the ombuds to offer constructive feedback focused on equity and transparency, encouraging leadership to implement a fairer, more consistent approach to telework exceptions that considers the diverse needs of all administrative employees

We inform and upskill the University community in effective communication and conflict mitigation strategies. Any university department or university-affiliated group can request ombuds presentations or workshops on topics related to appropriate dispute resolution or healthy workplace communication.

• Examples: In previous years, we have given workshops to new ADR holders, new student leaders, student groups, and at the request of faculties or departments.