Online Facilitation Resources

Version: 0.2; 3.29.12

with help from Natasha Shrikant

This page available at bit.ly/onlinefacilitationres. This is a draft document, your comments are welcomed. (Google docs have a Comment button in the upper right.)

Differences between Face-to-Face and Online Facilitation

Difference	What it means for participants
Lack of physical communication cues	Ideas feel less accepted, deal with more “silences”, may not be as comfortable expressing self
Impersonality of medium	Because not f2f, people are more likely to break ground rules, be impolite, etc – the social norms are less clear
Asynchronicity	People have time to think about a message, so they may better put together their thoughts or get angrier over time Also, if people’s posts do not get a response (silence) they may feel uncomfortable
Public vs Private space	Some participants may see this space as public, while others may want privacy for the discussion and posts – boundaries are blurred with online spaces
Limitations of writing and reading	Not able to express themselves as clearly/intelligently through writing
Higher likelihood of misunderstanding	More tension, less productive discussion, etc

Generic Online Facilitation Strategies

Set ground-rules ahead of time. (Design choice: do participants co-design?)
Model good online behavior.
Curiosity before evaluation; ask participants what they see before concluding as facilitator.
Empathy or reflecting back (to check understanding or assumptions)
Skillful/strategic use of humor
Summarizations (process/where we are and have been; agreements and disagreements; our goals)
Instead of singling someone out publicly: (1) post to group: reminder of agreements; (2) private message to problem participant.
Before implying your conclusion that online process or behavior should change, invite participants to reflect on the quality of the conversation and come to their own conclusions
Suggest that participants can email facilitator directly if they don't feel safe about the process.
Model and train in good question-asking methods.

Common Problems in Online Facilitation

Common Problems	Possible Facilitator Actions (and see generic above)
General silence or lulls – when posts do not receive a response (participant’s feel uncomfortable, unsafe, waiting for others…?).	Set the tone, encourage, acknowledge, invite… Prompt with specific questions/curiosities; or noticing patterns, agreements, differences, etc. Post a poll
Someone posts too much (dominates the conversation with number or length of posts)	Set ground rules at beginning governing posts per day or length Make general post to all about sharing the space. Post to the individual, noting behavior and asking them to reflect on its consequences.
Someone is not posting enough	Suggest or require regular participation (per day or week) Respond (positively or inquisitively) to something that person has said. Directly ask the non-participator for their opinion/response
Inappropriate/disrespectful behavior	Make general announcement RE ground rules; note whether you have remove the post. Take it up with private messages
Too many off topic posts	Observation and general request to keep people on task Note resources to provide focus
Heated disagreements/high tension in the discussion (not necessarily bad!)	Encourage a break so participants can collect their thoughts Intervene with a post summarizing the discussion Make connections between participant responses
Too much agreement – not enough conflict and discussion; everyone is being too polite	Present conflicting opinions to spark discussion Bring in information that has not been considered
Violation of rules, e.g. privacy, non-commercial use…	Clearly establish that the online space for posts is public Participants can maintain privacy by using emails, private messages, etc
Lack of writing communication skills causes misunderstandings	Intervene with a post summarizing discussion Inquire about understanding (general to private message) Make connections between participant responses Actively listen (read) for information and for emotion Acknowledge other person’s perspective
Unfamiliar with software features	Provide email and/or phone contacts; user documentation

See the Dialogue and Deliberation literature for much more on general (F2F) issues and approaches to deliberation.

A Sample of Participant Ground Rules

Administrative & Legal

Cannot post materials anonymously or under false name
You are solely responsible for content
Do not hold our project liable for any harm that results from the post or its distribution
Must be 18 or over (or have parental consent)
Copyright restrictions – no plagiarism, only use material in public domain

Behavioral Ground Rules

Certain types of comments are prohibited: libelous, defamatory, false, obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic, violent, abusive, threatening, harassing, or violates law
Non-commercial use – no solicitation, advertising, etc.
If you can’t be polite, don’t say it
Respect people’s privacy

Process Ground rules

Stay on topic
Be concise (for longer posts, provide a summary at the top)
Cite sources for information
Limit to xx posts per day; and/or yy words per post.

Facilitator Roles

Organization

Require regular participation – participants log in/post at least twice a week
Use response activity – participants must respond to a question posed
Move misplaced content (if people post to the wrong area, etc)
Handle tangents – guide people back to original topic – use humor, or humorous graphic
Vary participation – ask people to wait for a few responses before participating again
Establish goals and expectations – how will they be graded? Monitor their participation and remind them of the expectations

Social

Reinforce good behaviors (say “thank you” online)
Point out poor discussant behaviors (publicly or privately)
Respond to participants with personal message -- Provide behind the scenes support
Request meta-comments? – how they feel about the process
Use informal tone and emoticons to relay friendliness
Model participation and discussion techniques – informal, respect, professional

Intellectual

Summarize discussion occasionally

Bring closure to each session – what have they discussed so far? What’s in store for the future?

Make connections between participant responses.
Highlight conflicting opinions

Technical help with software use.

Possible Pros and Cons of Online vs. F2F deliberation and dispute resolution

Potential CONS of Online

Potential PROS of Online

Less emotional info
Less body language, tone, gesture
More impersonal
Increases 'digital divide' for those without computer access or skills/literacy
Less accountability than F2F
In dialog with distance people, more chance of confusion or error from unfamiliar cultures or jurisdictional rules
Vulnerable to cyber attacks/ hacks

Lower emotional reactivity
More time to think about what you will say
Permanent record of conversation
More access, over distance
Lower cost (travel)
More people from more places can participate
Easy to configure different processes to meet needs
Efficiency--easy to get online and participate
Faster fuller access to links on web to reference and info
Easy and safer for participants to report problems and rule-breaking / manipulation

Social Deliberative Skills

Our project goal is to support “social deliberative skills” in online environments through subtle support tools and features. Below are some ways that we from SD-Skills, culled from the literature (literature overview paper is in progress). See the main project website for more on how we measure and describe these skills.

Simple SD-skill List:

Perspective taking & cognitive empathy
Perspective seeking (curiosity/inquiry)
Self-reflection: on one's biases, intentions, emotional state
Meta-dialog: Reflect on the quality of the dialog
Epistemic skill: e.g. treating facts/data differently from opinions/hypotheses
Tolerance for uncertainty, ambiguity, disagreement, paradox

Another Framing:

1. Social perspective taking (cognitive empathy, reciprocal role taking...)

2. Social perspective seeking (social inquiry, question asking skills...)

3. Social perspective monitoring (self-reflection, meta-dialogue...)

4. Social perspective weighing (reflective reasoning; comparing and contrasting views...)

Theoretical Framework:

Longer skill list:

Basic social deliberative skills

Ability to separate facts/observations from opinions/inferences;
Ability to form logical arguments explaining/justifying opinions or hypotheses, including citing sources; supporting inferences;
Ability to separate one's "position" or "held strategy" from one's underlying needs and interests;
Ability to open to and think creatively about alternative solutions and mutual gain;
Ability to frame requests, agreements, and outcomes in concrete measurable terms;
Ability to reframe differences and "no's" (objections or refusals) in positive terms.

Reflective & Epistemic social del. skills

Ability to identify bias, assumptions, and underlying motivations in self and inquire about them in others;
Ability to listen to another's narrative history and perspective, and put oneself in their shoes ("cognitive empathy");
Ability to reflect on and validate one's emotional state and reactions; and to accept the emotional realities of others as valid;
Ability to reflect upon the dialog and deliberation process itself—E.g. Is it working? Should the goals or method be modified?
Ability to deal with uncertainty and ambiguity in information and knowledge.

References used to prepare this document

Civic Initiative. (2007). Rules for online participation. Retrieved from http://groups.google.com/group/civicinitiative/web/ground-rules-for-online-participation?hl=en

EdTech Leaders (2008). Ten tips for effective online facilitation. Retrieved from http://www.edtechleaders.org/documents/opd/ETLO_Ten_Tips.htm

Moussou, M. & White, N. (2004). Avoiding online misunderstandings. Retrieved from http://www.fullcirc.com/community/avoidingconflict.htm.

NPR. (2011). Community discussion rules. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/help/discussionrules.html

NPR. (2000). Rules of the NPR discussion boards. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/yourturn/

Paulsen, M.F. (1995). Moderating educational computer conferences. In Z.L. Berge & M.P. Collins (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom in distance education. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Retrieved from: http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/morten.html

Post a comment. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004527.html

Settle-Murphy, N. (2007). Getting the best return on meeting time investment. Mass High Tech: The Journal of New England Technology. Retrieved from http://masshightech.bizjournals.com/masshightech/stories/2007/02/26/focus4.html

Additional Resources

National Coalition For Dialogue & Deliberation. ncdd.org, www.facebook.com/groups/ncddnetwork

ParticipateDB: A directory of online tools for participation that anyone can edit. ParticipateDB.com. (Links to many online deliberation and civic initiative projects, including, AmericaSpeaks, Ascentum, E-Democracy, MIxedInk, DebatePoint, Reason!Able, Compendium, Faciliatate.com)

National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution. www.odr.info.

Avoiding Online Misunderstandings: Avoiding Online Conflict, By Mihaela Moussou, with Nancy White. http://www.fullcirc.com/community/avoidingconflict.htm

Getting the best return on meeting time investment, By Nancy Settle-Murphy. http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2007/02/26/focus4-Getting-the-best-return-on-meeting-time-investment.html

Effective Online Facilitation. http://pre2005.flexiblelearning.net.au/guides/facilitation.html

Ten Tips for Effective Online Facilitation, by EdTech Leaders Online program at Education Development Center. http://www.edtechleaders.org/documents/opd/ETLO_Ten_Tips.htm

77 Tips for Planning and Running Exceptional Virtual Meetings. http://www.guidedinsights.com/remote-meeting-guides.asp

eMODERATION - Managing a New Language? Australian Flexible Learning Community. http://www.michaelcoghlan.net/nw2001/emod_newlang.htm

Online Community Toolkit. http://www.fullcirc.com/

All things in moderation. (2004). The 5 stage model. Retrieved from http://www.atimod.com/e-moderating/5stage.shtml. Interactive model with extra explanation http://www.atimod.com/e-moderating/fivestepflash.htm

Australian Flexible Learning Framework: What are the conditions for and characteristics of effective online learning communities? – http://pre2005.flexiblelearning.net.au/guides/community.pdf

Bressen, T. (2012). The top 10 most common mistakes in consensus process and how to avoid them. Retrieved from http://treegroup.info/topics/Top-10-Consensus-Mistakes.pdf

FaciliTips: Quick Tips for Online Facilitation. http://www.fullcirc.com/community/facilitips.htm.

Heierbacher, S. (2011). Virtual meetings: Design with the ‘distracted participant’ in mind. Retrieved from http://ncdd.org/rc/item/5086

Open2it forum. (2008). Open2it forum rules. Retrieved from http://open2it.com/open2it-forum.html?func=rules

Spillers, F. (n.d.) Deliberative questions: A quick guide for community conversations. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/state-federal-committees/sclegeff/community-politics-and-deliberative-dialogue-hando.aspx

Vogt, E., Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2003). The art of powerful questions: Catalyzing insight, innovation, and action. Retrieved from http://www.theworldcafe.com/pdfs/aopq.pdf

Walker, G. (2010). Communication competencies and conflict management: Skills for mediators and facilitators. Retrieved from http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/comm440-540/MedCommSkills.html

Page of