A look at Students' works in ODR

Welcome to the ODR Student Showcase forum. This year we are inviting students to share their creative and scholarly works related to Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) broadly defined. University students are invited to post or embed links to slideshows, presentations, video clips, working papers, journal articles, or other creative works that they have authored and have permission to share. The submissions should be related in some way to conflict and/or conflict resolution and networked communication technologies or online social spaces. 

 

When posting the work, please introduce yourself, let us know what college or university you are associated with and include some information on the context within which the work was created (ie was it created as a class project, as part of a research initiative, as a thesis, as part of an internship, as a contest submission, etc.). If it is a work in progress and you are looking for specific feedback on aspects of the project please let us know that as well. 

 

I'm looking forward to seeing what our up and coming scholars and creative artists have been working on, so I do hope you'll decide to share. 


Moderated by:

 

Bill Warters, Ph.D. is a faculty member in the Master of Arts in Dispute Resolution Program offered by Wayne State University's Department of Communication. This semester he is teaching an online course entitled Dispute Resolution and Communication Technology that explores many aspects of ODR. He is author of Mediation in the Campus Community: Designing and Managing Effective Programs (Jossey-Bass, 2000) and a member of the Editorial Board of Conflict Resolution Quarterly. He developed and maintains two major web clearinghouses, campus-adr.org (for Higher Ed ADR) and creducation.org (for K-12 Conflict Resolution Education). He is a former chair of the ACR Education Section and a past President of ACR's Michigan SE Chapter.  He is a member of the international Conflict Resolution Day planning committee that organizes the yearly October event promoting CR. Bill received the William J. Kreidler Award from the Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR) in 2008 for distinguished service in the Education sector.

 

______________________________________________

 
Return to Cyberweek 2011 Homepage

Views: 924

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think this is a wonderful, concise example of what mediation flow should be.  It defines the roles, and states the common issues that need to be overcome when dealing with online conflict - such as not sure which gender to assign to each person, mis-interperting tone when it is unintentional, and not fully understanding each other's point of view.  I think it would have been very productive for the team members to communicate more directly with each other to see what issues could have been uncovered before involving the professor.  But, I do believe that the role of the professor as mediator was an excellent example of mediator behavior.  She set and maintainted ground rules, restated the issues objectively, agreed to type up an agreement, and asked about what would happen if this situation occurred again - I thought that was a very important step that sometimes is missing from actual face to face mediations that I have been a part of.  Excellent example!

Bill Warters said:

To get the ball rolling, I'm posting this publicly available video produced as a student class project by Carla Cross, Karen Hamilton and Debbie Plested at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. They used a free tool called MovieStorm (moviestorm.co.uk) to animate the characters involved in a mock mediation conducted using avatars. I don't know how to reach them for comment, but I'd have to say I personally think it was a pretty nice student group project.

This morning we have another student contribution, this time from Daria Heinemann, a doctoral student at Wayne State University. Completing an assignment in a course on communication technology and conflict she produced this VoiceThread exploring ways to reduce conflict when using email to communicate. Click on the play button in the bottom center of the VoiceThread to start the auto-playing presentation.  While this piece shows her creativity, Daria also has written a paper on ODR for Airline Customer disputes that demonstrates the scholarly application of ODR system design concepts. We'll look forward to getting that posted here as well... Daria?

 


This is a nice presentation, thank you for sharing!  I consistently get caught up in the very first point that Daria makes about "Reasons for Heightened Conflict:" the loss of cues (Cues Filtered Out).  I noticed this seems to be a major source of discussion in the field (to which admittedly I am fairly new).  I have found some interesting debate within the thread by Professor Susan Exon titled "Maximizing Technology to Establish Trust in an Online, Nonvisual Mediation Setting" as well as more debate from listening to the streaming radio broadcast that just concluded (with Colin Rule, Noam Ebner and Dan Rainey), however I feel that there is still a lack in this particular area.  It may be my bias as a nonverbal/body language coach, but I cannot imagine a fully virtual world of communicating.  I think about it in terms of how I use skype to communicate with my sister and nephew (he's 2 years old) in Tennessee.  The technology is a blessing, because I can see them, listen, watch him play, and he can see me.  However, it still is not sophisticated enough to virtualize touch, as in a hug or kiss on the forehead. The technology helps, but I look forward to the face to face meeting.

Having said this, I am a firm believer in technology and the advantages that are inherent.  I also believe that some conflicts can be mediated via online technologies.  For me personally, I feel disadvantaged any time that I do not have the opportunity to meet someone face to face, shake their hand, analyze nonverbal cues from their body language, and allow them to receive cues from my body language.  Thoughts?

 

 

Bill Warters said:

This morning we have another student contribution, this time from Daria Heinemann, a doctoral student at Wayne State University. Completing an assignment in a course on communication technology and conflict she produced this VoiceThread exploring ways to reduce conflict when using email to communicate. Click on the play button in the bottom center of the VoiceThread to start the auto-playing presentation.  While this piece shows her creativity, Daria also has written a paper on ODR for Airline Customer disputes that demonstrates the scholarly application of ODR system design concepts. We'll look forward to getting that posted here as well... Daria?

 

hoo boy -- that NAME article was an oldie but a goodie!  I wish I had an old paper of yours to return the favor, Bill :)

That was really a snapshot in time for me... my college conflict resolution professor, Marc Ross, had seen my enthusiasm for conflict resolution and in response went about making me read all the critics of conflict resolution: Laura Nader, Richard Abel, Silbey and Merry... so just after graduation I was a self-appointed expert on the (largely Marxist) critiques of mediation, and was ready to tell everyone in the ADR field about them.  I even wrote an article in Peace Review on listening to the critics of ADR and learning from them in 1993.

Jeff, I much prefer your piece -- far more useful and constructive.  I especially like:

'It is the belief of this writer that a drawback and contributing reason ODR services are not used is because of labeling it with a term such as the “fourth party” which can have a polarizing effect on potential users since it can create the notion of another variable that must be dealt with in providing an ADR service.  Yes, video chat is another variable, but it is my belief that it is not as profound in which it requires a separate “party” status or label.  Referring to it as another platform and describing it, as attempted in this paper, as an option of providing ADR services makes it more practical and open to acceptance compared to distancing terminology such as “fourth party”.'

Now that's throwing down the gauntlet!  Let's get Ethan in here to defend himself. :)

I still think this criticism of ADR is valid in the ODR context -- that it can lead to the personalization of issues at the expense of systematic change.  eBay definitely wants to get resolutions on a personal level so that people don't feel the need to badger the administrators into more sweeping redesigns.  ICANN as well.  Let's just keep the systems working well, they think, so we can keep making money.

Anyway, I suggest we have more papers and presentations like Jeff's and Daria's in here and fewer golden oldies written before Windows 95.

rah

Hi Colin. Thanks for being a good sport about your old article. Content on the web has a lovely eternal quality, for better or worse. Your reading list of folks critiquing mediation is still relevant today in my opinion. And thanks for surfacing that juicy quote from Jeff's piece on the use of the term "the Fourth Party." I think he makes a good point about avoiding jargon as we present conflict resolution services to potential "clients." We at the same time shouldn't be shy about leveraging the extra power that computer networks and new channels of communication provide us in this work. 

Colin Rule said:

hoo boy -- that NAME article was an oldie but a goodie!  I wish I had an old paper of yours to return the favor, Bill :)

That was really a snapshot in time for me... my college conflict resolution professor, Marc Ross, had seen my enthusiasm for conflict resolution and in response went about making me read all the critics of conflict resolution: Laura Nader, Richard Abel, Silbey and Merry... so just after graduation I was a self-appointed expert on the (largely Marxist) critiques of mediation, and was ready to tell everyone in the ADR field about them.  I even wrote an article in Peace Review on listening to the critics of ADR and learning from them in 1993.

Jeff, I much prefer your piece -- far more useful and constructive.  I especially like:

'It is the belief of this writer that a drawback and contributing reason ODR services are not used is because of labeling it with a term such as the “fourth party” which can have a polarizing effect on potential users since it can create the notion of another variable that must be dealt with in providing an ADR service.  Yes, video chat is another variable, but it is my belief that it is not as profound in which it requires a separate “party” status or label.  Referring to it as another platform and describing it, as attempted in this paper, as an option of providing ADR services makes it more practical and open to acceptance compared to distancing terminology such as “fourth party”.'

Now that's throwing down the gauntlet!  Let's get Ethan in here to defend himself. :)

I still think this criticism of ADR is valid in the ODR context -- that it can lead to the personalization of issues at the expense of systematic change.  eBay definitely wants to get resolutions on a personal level so that people don't feel the need to badger the administrators into more sweeping redesigns.  ICANN as well.  Let's just keep the systems working well, they think, so we can keep making money.

Anyway, I suggest we have more papers and presentations like Jeff's and Daria's in here and fewer golden oldies written before Windows 95.

rah

While we are waiting for the next bold and creative student to share their work, I wanted to call attention to the exciting high school essay contest being run by the United States Institute for Peace this year. The theme is the Impact of New Media on Peacebuilding and Conflict Resolution. The 1,500 word essays are due by Feb 1 and the prizes are substantial. The study guide for the contest is also a good resource in and of itself.

Colin-

 

Firstly, thank you for reading the paper.

 

Lol, I am not really "calling" Ethan out on the "use of 4th party", however, admittedly I am interested in his thoughts on my reflection.  

One thing I think of now, reflecting back on that quote, is how we have to adjust our language to meet the parties needs.  I am not referring to 'dumbing down' things either, but would anyone, especially advocates of the term 4th party, actually ever use it, for example, outside of writing an academic or magazine/web article?  

If yes, it reminds of the transparent mediation model offered by Alan Gross (a good friend) and how perhaps being transparent is not necessarily the best option.  

Telling people, for example, "We will be using the 4th party option of Skype to conduct the mediation" similarly to "What I am about to do is validate your comments" might not really make the parties comfortable.

Again, I am not saying 4th party should not be used, I just wonder if it is appropriate for all audiences.

 

Jay, 

 

As far as body language and nonverbal communication, it is a subject I think is very important (my PhD thesis is on the subject- see here).  As you already said, many elements do not disappear when using technology such as Skype which is important.  As I mention in my paper, it actually can help put parties at ease by choosing to be in a place, such as their home or dorm room, while conducting the session.

 

-jeff

Just a couple of brief notes on Daria Heinemann's  voice thread presentation.  I couldn't agree more with her ways to reduce conflict - in particular, rereading a message, and/or even walking away from a message after you've composed it, before sending it.  It's important to get the emotion out of yourself at times, regardless of modality of communication.  So if it is an e-mail that is the trigger for an angry reply, I've done a couple of things to guard against sending a premature reply - first, I won't hit reply to start writing the e-mail, I'll put it in draft form with either my extra 'reader' or myself in the reply box - that way, I can't send it off mistakenly except to a safe place.  Then, I will walk away - just as Daria has suggested;  and let my emotions cool, and not reread it for a while (that depends on whether I'm upset greatly or not - it's a rare occasion (-; that I'll get very upset, but, when it happens, I'll wait hours to reread my reply.  It's almost 100 percent that either I will rewrite the entire e-mail, or make important edits;  usually, the edits follow Daria's "Sandwich" principle - opening and closing with positive statements - and getting my point across (now heavily edited) in between.

 

Nice job, Daria.

 

Jeff Aresty

Thanks for the link to the video Jeff, looks fascinating!

I can certainly understand how technology may assist some people in feeling comfortable, particularly in allowing them control over their environment (thus potentially reducing anxiety).  I think the bigger issue for me is in the role of mediating. I feel like I personally lose an edge in the discussions by not being able to connect with the correspondents, as well as see how they react to statements or engagement on issues.  I am not convinced that technology can resolve this issue.  Again, this does not mean that I do not value technology as a necessary and very helpful tool. I really do!  I am just not convinced that the loss of nonverbal communication in mediation is outweighed by the potential gains in many cases.

 

Jay

Hi Jay,

 

you make a great point about Cues Filtered Out. However, there are other schools of thoughts out there that say that with enough time and attention to detail there IS a way to develop relationships online. If you are interested, you may want to look into Joe Walther's Social Information Processing Theory. I really like his ideas of hyperpersonal relationships and I think that considering your questions about technology replacements of FtF contact oyu may be interested in that. I was lucky to jump in one research in relational maintenance in military families (deployed spouses) that my adviser has been involved with for years, and also found that sometimes technology is a blessing, and sometimes it is a curse. Some things they said were "it was like were connected, yet not connected at all" and that they fought more when using webcams and emails. I think it is fascinating. My stand is that technology is a tool or a weapon - just depends on how you use it :-) What do you think?

Daria

Hi Jeff,

 

thank you for your kind comments. I have to say that the sandwich response is AWESOME. I am sure we all can think of some examples when we received an email and just wanted to fire back. It is HARD to step away, but we just have to find strength to do it. In the end, you don't feel ggod about yourself if you react right away - it does not solve the problem, it just creates more. So...Sandwich away - it really works. I teach online, so my comments to students on their papers are always sandwiched too. Start with the positive, then offer constructive feedbcak, and close with something nice. It really helps alleviate conflicts.

Daria

Hi all,

 

I am presenting this at NCA, but any feedback would be greatly appreciated. I worked on this paper as a way to fight my demons with airlines lack of dispute resolution services. I am sure we all can relate in one way or another. Let me know what you think :-)

 

Daria

 

 

Bill Warters said:

This morning we have another student contribution, this time from Daria Heinemann, a doctoral student at Wayne State University. Completing an assignment in a course on communication technology and conflict she produced this VoiceThread exploring ways to reduce conflict when using email to communicate. Click on the play button in the bottom center of the VoiceThread to start the auto-playing presentation.  While this piece shows her creativity, Daria also has written a paper on ODR for Airline Customer disputes that demonstrates the scholarly application of ODR system design concepts. We'll look forward to getting that posted here as well... Daria?

 

Attachments:

RSS

@ADRHub Tweets

ADRHub is supported and maintained by the Negotiation & Conflict Resolution Program at Creighton University

Members

© 2024   Created by ADRhub.com - Creighton NCR.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service