About a year ago I had just finished developmental work on a set of energy possibilities that arose first out of an online discussion facilitated by a friend of long standing who is an excellent facilitator. She was able to apply the IF process of exploration and development without much difficulty in the online setting. Despite some heated exchanges, she kept diverse participants focused on providing discussion starting-points for others. Those starting-points for an energy discussion were subsequently further developed through public discussions that also included some fairly heated exchanges.

More recently I have developed a working paper on climate change possibilities that is the result of online discussion during the Copenhagen Conference, a further intensive three days of face-to-face developmental sessions of the prior online participants who were physically able to attend meetings held in Madison, Wisconsin, and two subsequent public discussion series that added both framing ideas for the possibilities and additional possibilities. The resulting working paper outlines how the possibilities were developed and hints at some of the entirely different tacks taken at various stages.

I have been asked a number of times what I hope to accomplish by tackling these difficult subjects through an approach meant for more dispassionate consideration of topics not yet so polarized. It is true that one set of responses I have gathered on these possibilities on energy and climate change goes something like: “I don’t like that possibility and won’t discuss it, it goes against my beliefs.” But it is also true that others have responded with something more like: “I haven’t thought about that aspect of the subject and I’m going to pay more attention to the issue.”

I have probably telegraphed where I am going with all this—the difference in response was the difference in dispositions of those who reviewed the possibilities. For some, the entire report was “damaged goods” because it included a possibility that they were vehemently opposed to. For others, their humility regarding the inherent uncertainties regarding implementations and the likelihood of unforeseen consequences allowed them to be open to each possibility, if only for discussion’s sake.

So what have I learned from dealing with rooms full of angry people and people who would not be caught dead in the same room?  I think it is something along these lines:

• In almost every divisive public debate there are still some people who are open to additional information and perspectives that come from further discussion.
• Those developing starting-points for discussions that will serve the open-minded in contentious times must work even harder to acknowledge the existence of the division of opinion (not gloss it over), work to understand the differences in beliefs and values behind the divisions, and identify the key disputes over “facts”.
• Those developing the starting-points must be prepared to engage in some “shuttle diplomacy” where it is initially difficult to get diverse views talking to each other and engage in some trust-building exercises where necessary.

We are fairly confident that IF process works well to deal with emerging areas of concern—before the issues hit the fan. But it is not always possible to get ahead of the curve on societal concerns. Yet there is benefit, even in stressful situations, in trying to promote thoughtful governance discussion. Speaking to the open minds in those public conversations requires that we proceed somewhat differently in both facilitative technique and preparation of materials.

IF has been fairly cautious about such adaptive uses of its process in its own projects, but has approved my use of online discussion for one of the panels in my current global security project. In addition it has encouraged me to follow and observe other technology-based discussions and report on lessons learned.

The first discussion online discussion that used adaptations of the IF process occurred in 2009 and was a six month-long development of energy policy possibilities. I served as coach to the list-serve moderator of the discussion involving participants in four upper Midwest states. This discussion utilized the basic IF process fairly faithfully in discussion, but deviated from its structural format in relying only on one panel. It ran fairly smoothly in this very bare bones online approach and was supplemented by several conference calls at its conclusion.

The second discussion was a climate change discussion conducted in the weeks before and during the Copenhagen conference.  The moderator of the energy discussion also moderated this conversation. Most discussions were “live”, although there were also considerable amounts of postings, distributed attachments, and web links utilized by widely dispersed participants (including one reporting in from Copenhagen).

This second discussion started with a warm up discussion of the previously developed energy possibilities in order to acquaint panelists with the nature of “possibilities” as IF describes them. The timeframe was extremely compressed and challenging. It would have been very difficult to develop coherent possibilities had it not been for the experience of the moderator in translating IF process tasks to this format and the dedication of the participants to log many more deliberative hours than we had a right to expect.

As one might suspect the results of these two discussions could be criticized by those who disapprove of the possibilities. It is not for me to defend those possibilities, but I do feel it is worth noting that the level of participant engagement was high and the level of facilitation was exemplary. It is much more difficult for a facilitator to use personal capital in such environments.

My third online experience in the global security project is ongoing and got off to a slow start owing to some missteps on my part as moderator. Lesson #1: the moderator I had mentored in the first two discussions made this look easier than it was for me.

With that modest reserve of experience under my belt at this time I can offer some observations about how IF process works in online and video discussion:

• The moderator/facilitator needs a comfort level with the technology and needs a toolkit of adaptive facilitative technique that relies more on anticipation of barriers to participation and less on “facilitative presence”.
• The participants also need to be adept in the chosen technology and platform. If not, expect to devote time to tutorials. Substantial unevenness in skill levels among participants can drive a wedge into your developmental discussions.
• There is some suggestion that these types of discussions work best where they are multi-layered: live online discussion, frequent postings and archival documents on a list-serve or website, and, perhaps, additional individual vehicles such as blogs.
• Online discussion works especially well in exploratory work where lists are compiled and ideas are produced in lightning rounds. Wherever and whenever brainstorming is called for online discussion shows great promise.
• Developmental work of fleshing out concepts seems more difficult online than face-to-face and requires greater facilitative support. Facilitators can help drive this with draft documents that attempt to capture the essence of discussion and create starting points for further development.
• Final editorial work of any possibilities developed also falls more on the facilitator and requires some sort of agreement with the participants about who “owns” the work product: the individual originating the concept, the group, the facilitator, the sponsoring organization? Better to get participants to sign off on the effort as a citizenship exercise as opposed to something akin to intellectual property.

You may still have questions about why anyone would undertake the fuss of such discussions. I asked myself the same things several years ago and since then I have discovered a multitude of answers. But two of those answers seal the deal for me. First, it allows you to tap widely dispersed talent and bring people into discussions who could not otherwise participate. Second, young tech-savvy people seem hungry for this sort of thing.