There is, without a doubt, a plethora of online tools out there today which are commonly used for e-participation projects of all kinds and sizes — from the off-the-shelf discussion forum to the custom-tailored e-consultation solution, from the simple wiki to complex argument mapping (to name just a few).
I have been tracking this space for quite some time now and I still discover new and interesting tools almost every week. So either I’ve been looking in the wrong places or my sample is too small (or maybe I haven’t been paying attention), but something important seems to be missing: Solid, built-in support for few-to-few interaction among the participants!
Without going into too much detail here, it seems that one core component of many large-group processes, at least in the face-to-face world, is… small-group processes. Whenever there is a need for conversation, dialogue or discussion (and I’m using these terms interchangeably here on purpose), i.e. people talking with and listening to each other, the group size of choice is anywhere between two and twelve people. Not many thousands or many hundreds or even several dozen, but only a few.
Below is a list of four well-established face-to-face methods for medium-sized, large or very large groups that make use of small-group interaction:
- Deliberative Polling uses both “small group discussions” and “plenary sessions” (see this 1-pager PDF by Stanford University’s Center for Deliberative Democracy for an illustration of their process model or watch the videos from their 2007 Tomorrow’s Europe project)
- AmericaSpeaks’ 21st Century Town Meetings use both round-table discussions of 10-12 people per table as well as plenary sessions (see my photos from their 2007 CaliforniaSpeaks project to get an idea what this looks like).
- Open Space Technology allows participants to break up into groups of various sizes (from two to about a few dozen) and has plenary sessions at the beginning and at the end of an event, as well as in between as needed.
- The World Cafe puts its participants through three rounds of small-group dialogue at tables of four (they skip the plenary part almost entirely except for instructions and debriefing, it seems).
Each of these four methods is designed for vastly different purposes, but they are all based on one fundamental insight: meaningful conversation is only possible up to a certain (small) group size.
The question is: why would this rule not apply to online environments as well? And if it does, where are the tools that support it?
In terms of process, the four methods share a few more commonalities:
- Providing instructions
- Splitting up a large group into smaller units (either by random or self selected)
- Defining specific tasks and deliverables for each round of small-group interaction (either assigned by the facilitator or chosen by the participants themselves)
- Setting specific time limits to each small-group interaction
- Iterating between phases of large-group and small-group interaction
Given that this kind of process support or workflow could well be modeled online it seems odd that this is not being done (or it probably is, and I just haven’t seen it yet).
No related posts.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Critical points, Tim; bravo on this post. I’ve only seen one online tool that emphasizes small groups — H2O, one of the first projects to emerge from the Berkman Center. That tool had another great component, which was limiting the number of posts to one a day.
There is also OpenSpace Online, which doesn’t impose small group organization, but it encourages it in the same way that the Open Space process does.
Looking forward to seeing how Intellitics incorporates this important pattern.
Hi Tim,
I commend you for re-exploring basic principles of D&D, which I think we need to do more. My PhD research is about what deliberation actually is and comes to mean for participants. Of course, it depends on the format, of which there are many. But I am finding that it is about norm-setting, introducing people to a new kind of conversation or problem-solving approach. You wrote earlier about the distinction between deliberation and debate. For many who come to Citizens’ Juries and our recently concluded Citizens Parliament in Australia, this comes as a revelation.
The challenge with the few-to-few level of interaction is in how to introduce that new norm-setting in a non-coercive manner. In other words, how to pull people away from old adversarial habits.
{ 1 trackback }