Soc comp slides_march_2012

34
Supporting Social Deliberative Skills in Online: Dialog, Deliberation, and Dispute Resolution Tom Murray Senior Research Fellow, Univ. of Massachusetts March 2012 1

description

 

Transcript of Soc comp slides_march_2012

Page 1: Soc comp slides_march_2012

1

Supporting Social Deliberative Skills

in Online: Dialog, Deliberation, and Dispute

Resolution

Tom MurraySenior Research Fellow, Univ. of Massachusetts

March 2012

Page 2: Soc comp slides_march_2012

2

“The Fourth Party: Improving Computer-Mediated Deliberation

through Cognitive, Social and Emotional Support”

3-Year NSF Social Computing grant, started Fall 2010

Description at www.tommurray.us/socialdeliberativeskills/

Page 3: Soc comp slides_march_2012

3

Project collaborators Beverly Woolf: CompSci, PI (intelligent and collaborative educational

systems)

Tom Murray: CompSci; project manager/co-PI, principal visionary and instigator (ed-tech, cog-psych & D&D)

Leah Wing (social justice and conflict resolution), Ethan Katsh (ODR), Legal Studies, co-PI’s

Lori Clark & Lee Osterweil, CompSci, co-PI’s (ODR, software engineering)

Linda Tropp, Psychology of Peace and Violence, advisor (intergroup relations/conflict)

Zan Goncalves, New England Center for Civic Life (“teaching, practice and study of deliberative democracy”)

Idealogue Inc.; iCohere. Inc. — Advanced dialogue software platforms.

Page 4: Soc comp slides_march_2012

4

Outside Collaborators (some budding)

National Mediation Board (management/labor disputes in transportation sector)

DemarsAssociates.com/PayPal/ebay (e-commerce)

Juripax.com (online workplace and divorce settlements)

Idealogue.com (depth-oriented online dialogue platform)

iCohere.com (online communities and work groups)

Mass Dept. of Dispute Resolution (civic engagement)

Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (civic engagement)

New England Center for Civic Life (“teaching, practice and study of deliberative democracy”)

Page 5: Soc comp slides_march_2012

Dialog/DeliberationDispute/Conflict Resolution

Civic engagement/public dialogue

International & inter-group conflict

Labor/management, consumer disputes alternative dispute resolution

Interpersonal disputes / mediation

Deliberative decision making (school, work, home)

Page 6: Soc comp slides_march_2012

Debate, Dialogue and Deliberation

Deliberation: “thoughtful, careful, or lengthy consideration by individuals; and formal discussion and debate in groups” (Davies & Chandler 2011)

Page 7: Soc comp slides_march_2012

7

Social Deliberative Skills:

Social/Emotional/Reflective

Perspective taking & cognitive empathy

Perspective seeking (curiosity/inquiry)

Self-reflection: on one's biases, intentions, emotional state

Meta-dialog: Reflect on the quality of the dialog

Epistemic skill: e.g. treating facts/data differently from opinions/hypotheses

Tolerance for uncertainty, ambiguity, disagreement, paradox

Page 8: Soc comp slides_march_2012

Social Deliberative Skills

Page 9: Soc comp slides_march_2012

9

Page 10: Soc comp slides_march_2012

Social Deliberative Skill:application of HOSs to

me/you/weHigher Order Skills • argumentation• critical thinking• explanation & clarification• inquiry/curiosity (question asking & investigation)• reflective judgment• meta-cognition• epistemic reasoning

Apply these skills, not to EXTERNAL REALITY (“IT”/problem domain) but to theINTERSUBJECTIVE domain

Higher Order Skills applied to:

SELFgoals; level of certainty; feelings, values, assumptions…

YOU goals, assumptions, feelings, values; perspective taking; "believing" & cognitive

empathy…WE

agreements, goals; quality of the discourse/collaboration; differences and similarities in values, beliefs, goals, power,

roles…

Page 11: Soc comp slides_march_2012

Skills & Issues in Transformative Conf. Res., Social Justice & Inter-group

relations

How mediators/facilitators assess and respond to differences: Race, ethnicity, culture Gender, sex Situational power (e.g. management vs. labor) In-group/out-group dynamics

Challenge assumptions of universality in predominant CR methods Orientation to individual vs. group (‘I statements’) Focusing on future vs. history (and ‘story’) Role of high-emotion language Independent vs. known & trusted facilitators Can’t assume all are free to speak

Page 12: Soc comp slides_march_2012

Support/Scaffolding vs.

“Education”

FacilitatedOnline

DELIBERATION

Outcomes:- Agreements/solutions

- Relationship, Trust (social capital)

- SKILL USE (and practice)

Existing

Skills

Adaptive Support(4th party)

Passive Support(interface)

FacilitatorSupport

(Dashboard)

Page 13: Soc comp slides_march_2012

Use technology to support deliberative skills in three

ways

1. Support participants through passive interventions (e.g., visualization tools, prompts, and process structures)—>Ideologue software;

2. Support facilitators or mediators to evaluate the situation and decide what to do—>Dashboard;

3. Provide automated adaptive support (e.g., coaching, guidance, or tutorials) that directly or indirectly teaches or builds these skills—> text analysis.

Page 14: Soc comp slides_march_2012

14

Idealogueinc.com

Mediem platform

Page 15: Soc comp slides_march_2012

15

Page 16: Soc comp slides_march_2012

16

Mediem

Opinion Sliders

Page 17: Soc comp slides_march_2012

(also supporting: appreciation, inquiry;

anonymous discussions)

iCohere example: Passive support for skills

Page 18: Soc comp slides_march_2012

18

Facilitator Dashboard (“Wizard of Oz” trials)

Page 19: Soc comp slides_march_2012

19

>> Data domains and analysis

1. Classroom online dialogues

2. ODR (online dispute resolution)

3. Online civic engagement

Page 20: Soc comp slides_march_2012

Text Analysis Domains College classroom dialogs (UMx3x3, FP x1x4)

Experimental & Control groups

ODR E-Commerce (e-bay auto disputes; x 3000) Juripax – divorce settlement & workplace dispute (x 2)

Civic Deliberation E-Democracy.com (Minnesota neighborhood) (x 3) Mass Dept of Dispute Resolution —Forest Futures process (x

2)

Misc GovTeen.com (Philosophy & Ethics forum) (x 2) Bi-community faculty deliberation on conference venue

Page 21: Soc comp slides_march_2012

21

Samples from online dialogs

EBay (e-commerce):

“This seller is fraudulent and should be removed from eBay. Why should a eBay buyer have to be put through this.”

“…my good feedback be tarnished by these bottom feeders. That lay and cheat honest people out for there hard earned money.”

Page 22: Soc comp slides_march_2012

22

e-democracy: Minneapolis Powderhorn Neighbors Forum

51 posts — by 31 authors, Dec. 2010

 Post #1: …while I still love my neighborhood for all its arty, community garden, Fair Trade goodness, I am disappointed -- and yes, angry.… these past few weeks [by what] feels disturbingly like [racial] targeting. This, coupled with the [documented] surveillance of parents of color… Post #2: I'm so sorry that you are having this experience, especially in aneighborhood that prides itself on diversity. Thank you for sharing here sopeople can be more aware that this is still happening. …Post #6: …The whites in Powderhorn pride themselves on diversity, but few actually mingle with their neighbors of color. They tend to reach out to the other liberal artsy gardening whites…

Page 23: Soc comp slides_march_2012

Workplace dispute:Intake summary

Boss (Grieta) Moderator

  “Ryker has created a situation in which a continuation of the work relationship is no longer possible. What I am concerned,

we are talking about terminating the work relationship. I will of course cooperate fully with a constructive mediation and hope for the best. It is unlikely that I myself can come to a solution with Ryke.r”

Employee (Ryker) Moderator

“Since late last year it has been a mess in the company. Management is unclear and inconsistent. The work relationship is disrupted. They want to get rid of me. I am literally "sick" of it. My confidence in the company has been shaken to such a point that I am not sure if I want to stay.”

Page 24: Soc comp slides_march_2012

24

Codoole – coding tools

Page 25: Soc comp slides_march_2012

Contingency Analysis Mosaic Plot

Page 26: Soc comp slides_march_2012

Automated Text Analysis

LIWC (Pennebaker et al.) – Dictionary-based 4,500 words/STEMS; 80 word categories we focus on 19 of them 80 >> 4 general descriptor categories (word count, words per

sentence, % of words captured, and % of words >6 letters), 22 standard linguistic dimensions (e.g., % pronouns, articles, auxiliary verbs, etc.), 32 psychological constructs (e.g., affect, cognition, biological processes), 7 personal concern categories (e.g., work, home, leisure activities), 3 paralinguistic dimensions (assents, fillers, nonfluencies), and 12 punctuation categories (periods, commas, etc).

Coh-Metrix (Graesser et al.) syntax, referential cohesion, semantic cohesion, rhetorical

composition… 100 measurements output We focus on 4 composite measurements (or major factors):

Narrativty, Referential Cohesion, Syntactic Simplicity, and Word Concreteness

Page 27: Soc comp slides_march_2012

Deliberative properties for several domains

Page 28: Soc comp slides_march_2012

Automatic Text Analysis

• Dialogue characteristics:• Compare: dialogues/domains;

participants; roles; experimental groups

• Domain #1) eBay Data 100 posts, 10 sessions 3-way exchanges Roles are identifiable (neutral, seller,

buyer)

Page 29: Soc comp slides_march_2012

E-commerce: LIWC Automated Text Analysis

Self-refer-ences (I, me,

my)

Social words Positive emotions

Negative emotions

Overall cognitive

words

Articles (a, an, the)

Big words (> 6 letters)

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

NeurtalSellerBuyer

Page 30: Soc comp slides_march_2012

LIWC Analysis

  Mediator (neutral) vs.+ less self-reference+ less negative emotion+ less cognitive words+ more articles (precise)+ more big-word use

(i.e., abstract)

  Negotiator (Seller, Buyer)+ more self-reference+ more negative emotion+ more cognitive words+ less article use+ less big-word use

Page 31: Soc comp slides_march_2012

Faculty Dialogue: Analysis Across Phases Coh-Metrix

Page 32: Soc comp slides_march_2012

Overview and Discussion Phases: + highly used negative connection + high lexical co-reference+ less negation use + low similarity in meaning+ simple syntax Impasse and (non-)Resolution Phases: + less used negative connection + low lexical co-reference+ more negation use+ high similarity in meaning+ complex syntax

Faculty Dialogue: Analysis Across Phases

Coh-Metrix

Page 33: Soc comp slides_march_2012

33

End

Page 34: Soc comp slides_march_2012

34

Extra slides…