1 / 46

ODR mediator skills

Learn effective strategies for online mediation, including constant communication, leveraging outside resources, and keeping parties engaged. Overcome challenges such as lack of non-verbals and misinterpreting silence. Build rapport and memorialize progress to create an optimistic tone.

gparker
Télécharger la présentation

ODR mediator skills

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ODRmediator skills Multitasking Crafting language carefully When and how to caucus Constant communication / high touch Balancing power differentials Leveraging outside information and resources

  2. Online mediatorchallenges Establishing rapport Strategy: help the parties make time to build connection Lack of non-verbals Strategy: repeatedly do “temperature checks” with parties Misinterpreting silence Strategy: frequent short updates to minimize delays Keeping parties engaged Strategy: memorialize progress and set an optimistic tone

  3. OnlineActive Listening Using text vs. non-verbals Utilizing affirming language Providing quick responses Re-stating and re-framing Avoiding language that can be misinterpreted Constant communication / memorializing progress Leveraging caucusing to prove key points are heard

  4. Process means more online Opening statements / groundrules Participant responsibilities Up front disclosure / no surprises Representation Ensure the process doesn’t take over Make the parties feel they’re calling the shots Managing an Online Process

  5. Multiparty Public Online Dispute Resolution Colin Rule and Janet Martinez SCU Law June 23, 2019

  6. ODR and Conflict in Communities Citizens use tech in their everyday lives They expect to use it for civic engagement Especially theyounger generation

  7. A Spectrum of Engagement • Traditional face-to-face processes • Face-to-face plus: • Online working groups • Deliberative polling / Online voting • Web-based public participation • Fully online processes, where face-to-face meetings are inconvenient or impossible

  8. Utility of Technology Tool Types at Each Stage of Engagement & Consensus Building Processes

  9. Using media to help engagement YouTube and municipal TV as community engagement tools: • Overviewvideos shown at Community Forum Series, on municipal TV, on DVD, etc. • Live chat/SMS/voicemail inclusion in broadcast meetings (including Ustream) • Social Media/Facebook/Twitter as engagement channels

  10. eDemocracy and ODR • eCommerce vs. eGovernment • B2C, C2C, B2B • A2A, A2B, A2C • Citizen services (IRS) • Information dissemination (rulemaking.gov) • Public participation (listening to the city) • Grassroots mobilizing (land mine campaign) • International dialogues

  11. ODR and Multiparty Processes • Meeting Support • Projection / dynamic presentation systems • Real-time feedback • Brainstorming • Voting and rating tools • Electronic flip charts • Audio / Video conferencing • Online Data and Communications Management • Full-text searching • Document management systems • Online scheduling • Email broadcasts / email newsletters

  12. ADR Technology / Internet Tools (2) • Online Interactivity • Synchronous meetings (chat, instant messaging, whiteboards) • Threaded discussion environments • Polling • Joint document editing systems • Automated negotiation mechanisms • Fully Online Dispute Resolution Processes • Online Facilitation • Online Mediation • Online Arbitration • Online Expert Evaluation

  13. Strengths • Lightens administrative load on neutrals • Easy information dissemination • Document and information repository • Allows for both targeted and asynchronous communication • Supports in-meeting tasks • Enables participants to make progress between meetings • Can engage people across wide geographic areas where face-to-face meetings are impractical • Dynamic reframing • Concurrent caucusing

  14. Weaknesses • Some are threatened by technology • Things can go wrong • Facilitators can lose control • Parties are more able to communicate among themselves • Mediators can overreact and misuse online power • Discussions can end up focusing on the technology and not the issues that need to be addressed • Technology may advantage some parties over others • Those with fast internet connections • Those who are comfortable with technology • Those who type fast (especially in synchronous communications)

  15. Examples

  16. Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Process

  17. Australian Telecommunications Policy Dialogue

  18. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

  19. ODR Tool: Deliberation Engine

  20. Deliberation Engine Issue Landing Page

  21. Deliberation Engine Sign Up

  22. Visual Impacts

  23. Data Collection The process of Computer Generated Simulations starts with data collection. Photographs of the site are taken from representative viewpoints.

  24. Hyannis Existing Conditions

  25. Cotuit Existing Conditions

  26. Edgartown Existing Conditions

  27. The Modeling Process We know the exact locations of these surveyed points and one point out of this view.

  28. Cotuit - 50 mm Simulation of Proposed Wind Farm

  29. Hyannis – 50 mm Simulation

  30. Edgartown - 50 mm Simulation

  31. Example Turbines on 80 m towers with 100 m rotors

  32. Inform (e.g. Public Education) Consult (e.g. Public Input) Advise (e.g. Regulatory Negotiation) Decide (e.g. Multi-Stakeholder Process) Implement (e.g. Cleanup Monitoring) TYPES OF MULTIPARTY PROCESSES

  33. Misleading information spread to the public Undisclosed conflicts of interest Input selectively edited to favor a particular outcome Sponsorship of process/facilitator conflicts not disclosed Information gathered not acted upon/utilized/widely shared inform/consult ethical dilemmas

  34. Stakeholder group excludes key stakeholders Use of technology advantages some participants over others Confidential information shared with unauthorized parties Alternate communication channels opened without approval Final outcome unrepresentative of all participants Advise/decide ethical dilemmas

  35. Execution not in line with prior agreements from stakeholders Implementation plan changed without full disclosure No transparency around Key Performance Metrics (KPIs) Additional parties given authority to make changes Data collected not shared amongst all stakeholders implement ethical dilemmas

  36. Multiparty process to try to diagnose why so many honeybee colonies in Central CA are declining in population and productivity. SCENARIO: WHAT ABOUT THE BEES? Stakeholders: apiary owners, farmers, environmental groups, regulators, pesticide companies, community members

  37. Case 1: Public Outreach An advocacy group representing local farmers is suspected of “astroturfing” by using fake accounts to suggest that the data about declining populations is made up by environmentalists SCENARIO: WHAT ABOUT THE BEES?

  38. Case 2: Unequal Access Environmental groups and farmers say their bandwidth limitations disadvantage them in online meetings taking place over videoconferencing SCENARIO: WHAT ABOUT THE BEES?

  39. Case 3: Bad Data It is suspected that pesticide companies have been entering inaccurate data into online shared monitoring databases to minimize the scope of the problem and not trigger penalties SCENARIO: WHAT ABOUT THE BEES?

  40. Conclusions • Public Dispute Resolution sponsors, providers, and participants will come to use technology more extensively • The tools will become more sophisticated • More user friendly • Better integrated and tested for stability • Improved support materials (help files, user manuals) • Users will become more comfortable with technology • Parties will come to expect that online interactionoptions will be available to them • Funders will ask for online components in proposals • Technology decisions need to be well considered and thought out thoroughly in advance of implementation

More Related