31

STEVEN N. PYSER, J.D., AND MARC N. WEISS

Web Lab’s Small Group Dialogues on the Internet Commons

The bad news: there is no key to the universe.

The good news: it was never locked.

—Swami Beyondananda

Listening to the City—Online Dialogues

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the destruction of the World Trade Center, many people had strong feelings about how the site should be rebuilt and how those who died there should be remembered. Some, like relatives of those killed in the attacks, or people who lived, worked, or owned businesses in downtown Manhattan, had a direct, personal stake in the decisions that would eventually be made. However, millions of others, nationally and internationally, felt they had a stake as well.

Although there had been months of forums, hearings, editorials, and letters to the editor following 9/11, something else was needed: a process that would allow a cross-section of the population not just to express their feelings and their opinions, but to offer recommendations based on thoughtful dialogue while probing complex issues and the sometimes-competing ideas held by people of good will.

Two government agencies, The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, were responsible for deciding how the land should be used, what memorial ought to be created, and what the area’s mix of commercial, residential, retail, cultural, and other uses would be. These agencies recognized the historic nature of the task, and declared that they would seek public input in their decision making. They engaged AmericaSpeaks¹ to convene “live” meetings with thousands of New York–area residents, and AmericaSpeaks turned to Web Lab to convene Web-based discussions for people who could not attend the live meetings.

The project, called Listening to the City (LTC), drew international press coverage when more than 5,000 people gathered for a daylong consultation on July 20, 2002. The online dialogues began ten days later, picking up where the “live” meetings left off.

A two-week “asynchronous” discussion, LTC Online used Web Lab’s Small Group Dialogue (SGD) technique to allow 808 participants working in 26 parallel discussion groups (with about 40 members each) to log on at their convenience to read and post messages. Responding to discussion materials and questions provided by the planning agencies, participants posted more than 10,000 messages and responded to 32 polling questions. While participants in face-to-face dialogue sessions usually meet only for a short time, LTC Online participants had time to engage each other thoughtfully over an extended period.

Although the process was not designed to produce consensus, strong majority sentiment emerged on several key issues and had a direct effect on the next stage of planning and development. In fact, the guidelines for new designs, the invitation to world-class architects to participate in a design competition, and the final design of the site all reflect many of the citizen recommendations generated during the online dialogues.²

How SGD Works

Web Lab’s Small Group Dialogues (SGD) are a departure from the norms of online chat and bulletin boards. SGD fosters intimate, high-quality exchanges and a sense of community among participants (figure 1). It employs highly customized proprietary software available for license from Web Lab. By limiting group size and lifespan, SGD emphasizes each member’s value, increases accountability, and encourages a sense of belonging and an investment in frequent visits. The result is a structured experience needing little intervention and outcomes unmatched in conventional online dialogue models. These SGD methodologies help to limit the practice of “flaming”—messages that attack other participants—common in many other online conversations and forums.

The SGD tools and technique were developed and refined over several years, through a series of extraordinary discussions about a broad range of social, political, and personal issues. National media organizations, community leaders, activists, government agencies, corporations, consultants, and academics have successfully used SGD and benefited from archived conversations. The technique creates a structure that encourages thoughtful exchanges between people by creating groups of limited size that start together and continue for a set time (usually two weeks). It also encourages participants to start by introducing themselves before launching into discussion about the issues. SGD improves online exchange by making candor more comfortable and disagreement safer.

Figure 1. Dialogue Creation, Dialogue, Community Building, and Change

In the summer of 2005, Web Lab was engaged by electronics giant Motorola to develop The Seamless Exchange, a Small Group Dialogue designed to engage thousands of Motorola’s employees worldwide in discussions about their company’s vision, values, and strategy. During one week of each month between October and December 2005, Motorola employees worked in small groups, discussing the direction, performance, and future success of their company. Their postings were synthesized and best ideas from the groups were presented to Motorola’s senior leaders at their annual meeting in January 2006.

Table of Uses

About the Authors

Marc N. Weiss ([email protected]) is the founder and president of Web Lab (WebLab.org), an online laboratory that develops, supports, and champions innovative uses of the Web. A leader in the independent film community since the 1970s, Weiss created the celebrated public TV series P.O.V. in 1986 and was its executive producer until 1995, when he began P.O.V. Interactive. During his tenure at P.O.V., the series won six Peabody Awards, five duPont-Columbia Awards, and six Emmy Awards.

Steven N. Pyser, J.D. ([email protected]) provides dialogue, conflict management, and synergy services to corporations, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions. He has designed many deliberative forums and served Web Lab as an SGD Fellow, facilitator, dialogue monitor, and report manager/dialogue synthesizer for Motorola’s Seamless Exchange. He is Managing Editor of the Journal of Public Deliberation and Associate Editor for Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal. Mr. Pyser is a faculty member at the University of Phoenix, Philadelphia Campus.

Where to Go for More Information

REFERENCES

Evaluations of the Small Group Dialogue—www.weblab.org/sgd/evaluation.html.

The following references are just a few of the many articles about various dialogues and the technique (New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Release 1.0, EContent magazine, Washington Post, NPR, Wired News, etc.) available at www.weblab.org/press/sgd.html.

Pyser, S. N., and Figallo, C. “The Listening to the City Online Dialogues Experience: The Impact of a Full Value Contract.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 21, no. 3 (2004).

This case study co-authored by Steven N. Pyser explores how an intentional social agreement, called a “Full Value Contract,” can help relax skepticism while supporting trust in sustaining full and conscientious participation and community in a purposeful online dialogue.

Smith, Steve. “Keeping a Civil Tongue: Web Lab’s Plan to Extinguish Flame Wars.” EContent (July 2002), www.weblab.org/press/econtent.

Vox Populi. “Online and Downtown.” New York Times, September 26, 2002, www.weblab.org/press/092602nytimes.

ORGANIZATION

Web Lab—www.weblab.org

1. See chapter 41, “The 21st-Century Town Meeting.”

2. The final report, incorporating the results of the face-to-face and online discussions, is available online at www.listeningtothecity.org.