Dr Olivia Rundle has two main areas of interest:

Conflict, particularly civil dispute resolution, and the way in which the law deals with the diversity of family relationships. The role of lawyers working in both of these arenas is a particular passion. She is part of the team who deliver the UTAS Law Practice Centric Learning Model. Dr Rundle welcomes inquiries from potential postgraduate research candidates who want to explore questions related to civil dispute resolution, family law, and/or the legal profession (see hot topics for some further ideas).

You can listen to a podcast of Dr Rundle in conversation with our Law School Reporter Grace Williams. She talks about some of her passions, including the origins of her co-authored book Sex, Gender, Sexuality and the Law, access to justice, wellbeing, feedback and creative conflict management.

Dr Rundle delivered a webinar for the Resolution Institute in 2018 called “Mediating with diversity of sex, gender and sexuality – taking “inclusion” from theory to practice” and it is available for purchase.

Conflict and civil dispute resolution

Dr Rundle focuses particularly on the role of lawyers in dispute resolution. Past publications include:

• Rundle OC, 'A spectrum of contributions that lawyers can make to mediation' (2009) 20(4) Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 220. ISSN 1441-7847;
• Hardy S, & Rundle OC, Mediation for Lawyers (2010, CCH Australia, Sydney) ISBN 9781921485695;
• Rundle OC, 'Lawyers' perspectives on 'what is court-connected mediation for?'' (2013) 20(1) International Journal of The Legal Profession 33. ISSN 0969-5958;
• Rundle, OC, ‘Lawyers’ participation in mediation and professional ethical disposition’ (2015) 18(1) Legal Ethics 46. ISSN 1460-728X.

Dr Rundle believes in fostering meaningful connections with academics who share her research and teaching interests. She is a founding and actively contributing member of the Australian Dispute Resolution Research Network and participates in annual gatherings of Civil Justice researchers and teachers. She has convened gatherings of both groups and plays a leadership role in supporting the development of quality research and teaching activity nationally.

‘I am proud of my part in creating a group culture of rigour, support, and willingness to be vulnerable. We also actively reach out to research higher degree candidates to offer them the benefits of our network. We support one another and reach out to the public through our website adrresearch.net. 

Dr Rundle also reflects that her 2015 article 'Lawyers' participation in mediation and professional ethical disposition' published in Legal Ethics benefitted from being workshopped at the 2014 ADRRN Roundtable and presented at the National Mediation Conference when it was a work in progress.

From 2019 Dr Rundle is the editor of the Australian Dispute Resolution Research Network’s blog, continuing her engagement with dispute resolution researchers worldwide.

Current research projects related to conflict and civil dispute resolution include:

• an investigation into conflict in supervision relationships between supervisors and research higher degree candidates (with Associate Professor Samantha Hardy (Adjunct at UTAS) and Professor Lisa Toohey (University of Newcastle));
• a research programme focused upon methodological approaches to gather data from end users of dispute resolution processes;
• an inquiry about the ways that lawyers collaborate and what it means in Threshold Learning Outcome 5(b) that graduates be able to ‘collaborate effectively’ (with Dr Brendan Gogarty).

The beautiful diversity of sex, gender and sexuality

Dr Rundle’s co-authored book Sex, Gender, Sexuality and the Law (published 2016 by Thomson Reuters, with Samantha Hardy and Damien W Riggs) helps to prepare lawyers for dealing with the diversity of modern relationships and effectively communicating this when advocating for their client.

'The book looks at the way the law applies to people who are trans or gender diverse, intersex and/or non-heterosexual, specifically focusing upon the individuals, couples and families within those groups,' she said.

'We still have an over-simplistic view in law and in common understanding about gender as only male or female, despite this binary idea being problematic from a biological and psychological point of view.’

'We recognise partnerships that are married or registered or de facto, but what is a 'recognised' relationship in law might not reflect how people actually experience and perceive their intimate personal relationships,' Dr Rundle said.

‘Furthermore, the idea that ‘family’ means one man and one woman with their 2.3 biologically related children does not reflect the enormous diversity of family forms and living arrangements, and inaccurately portrays ‘other’ families as deficient, when we know that children’s wellbeing is not related to the gender or sexuality of their parents or whether or not they are biologically related to their parents or siblings.’

The rapid pace of legal reform and the persistence of prejudice against people of diverse sex, gender and/or sexuality means that many people find themselves unlawfully discriminated against, or their legally recognisable relationship ignored, because officials or service providers have outdated and inappropriate understanding of the law. Lawyers need to maintain an up to date knowledge of gender, relationship and family recognition so that they can advocate for their clients in sometimes urgent circumstances.

'We're looking to encourage advocates/lawyers to explore and, if their client consents, to explain why their clients have arranged their lives in particular ways, when they are making submissions about legal provisions. It is quite common for people not to be 'out' in the workplace and to have blurred the perceptions of their living arrangements. They may be fearful of being open about their relationships, and this can cause difficulty and distress, particularly when their partner dies. They can then be pitted against extended family who may not recognise their relationship or their loss.'

Dr Rundle says that advocates should have a frank discussion with clients about what will be necessary to assert their legal entitlements, keeping in mind the consequences for visibility.