23 d.  Informed foundation for decision [76] Law reformers must do their utmost to ensure that decisions about ADR and civil justice system reforms are well-informed. We can seek out, or urge the collection of, relevant statistical data or other empirical information to assist our understanding of patterns of use of ADR services and the courts, gaps in service, user satisfaction, areas of frustration.⁹⁹ We can make use of knowledge gleaned from other disciplines (the behavioural sciences, organizational and managerial expertise, communications technology). Landerkin and Pirie speak of Roscoe Pound’s  “optimi stic outlook” on law “constant ly enriched through the wellspring of ideas and theories of other disciplines.”¹⁰⁰ For Pound:¹⁰¹ This multi-disciplinary weaving of knowledge, from fields such as economics, political science, philosophy, psychology, sociology and religion into the social fabric of the law, created a new synthesis whereby law adapted to a new, modern, complex world. We can familiarize ourselves with the experiences in other jurisdictions while keeping an eye on cultural differences that may pull differently on the strands of the civil justice web in our jurisdiction. e.  Communication [77] Law reformers may carry out a role in facilitating communication and promoting collaboration among the institutions (government, court) and sectors of the community (legal profession, ADR professionals, public interest groups) that share the goal of improving dispute resolution. We may also perform an educational function by drawing attention to questions that ought to be addressed. f.  Measured response [78] Law reformers should contribute a balanced judgment, a measured response, to the law reform conversation. Where the zeal for reform becomes unbounded, we can temper the passion with reality. Where the need for change is obscured by immediate demands, we can sow the seeds of change, nourish them and wait patiently for their growth. F.  Conclusion [79] The civil justice system is rapidly changing and ADR has exerted a major influence on the changes. The civil justice system, traditionally signifying a process of adversarial litigation leading to adjudication, is now comprised of a range of dispute