CITATION AND COPYRIGHT INFORMATION:
Cite as: Schaefer, D. (1999, May). Sense-Making design for web sites: Cyber-possibilities for an electronic public sphere. Paper presented at a non-divisional workshop held at the meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco.
© David Schaefer (1999).

ESSENCE OF PROJECT:
The idea behind this project is to explore possibilities for the application of Sense-Making theory to the design of on-line, web-based electronic discussion groups (EDGs). The project draws on three key bodies of literature: a) recent communication metatheory advanced by *Dervin (1983-4, 1994-1, 1998-2), Habermas (1984, 1987, 1989), Giddens (1984), Mansell and Silverstone (1996), and others; b) recent scholarship examining the practice and potential of on-line community creation and maintenance (e.g., the writings of Davis and Brewer, 1997; Jones, 1995 and 1998; Negroponte, 1995; Rheingold, 1993; and Sudweeks, McLaughlin, and Rafaeli, 1998), and c) web site design theory and practice (including a plethora of “how to” manuals and web site design guides). My goal is to develop Sense-Making-based interfaces that can be applied within a variety of online contexts. To date, two EDGs have been created, both within pedagogical settings: a) a “general assembly” designed for an international communications course and b) a “dialogic public sphere” used in a research methods course. In addition, I’m currently developing hybrid (qualitative-quantitative) methods for data coding and analysis - based upon Sense-Making principles - that are integrated into the design of EDGs.

THE REASONS I TOOK THIS ROAD:
I have been utilizing online communities in my courses for the past four years and have become concerned about the received wisdom found in much of the design literature, particularly because it appears that we are reproducing many problematic communicative structures (e.g., destructive practices related to authority, gender) through our design assumptions. Despite rhetoric espousing the communicative freedom inherent in new, digital technologies, the structures of online communities often encourage and reinforce a variety of non-dialogic communicative patterns (e.g., flaming, hijacking/monopolizing, monologuing, etc.). In particular, I have been led to this topic by student feedback I have received over the past several years. For example, while some have found EDGs to be entertaining or helpful, others have reported a paralyzing fear of online participation after being “flamed” in a newsgroup. Others have complained that, at best, such communities are a waste of time or, at worst, a source of confusion, oppression, or potential humiliation. If we are to utilize these technologies to improve the processes of online community-building, it seems clear that some form of design intervention is necessary (see Schudson, 1997). As I see it, the challenge is to harness the positive aspects of online communities - the ability for users near and far to create public spheres for the discussion of a wide range of topics of interest - while alleviating aspects that hinder involvement and participation. Having researched a variety of the approaches typically cited within the design literature (e.g., Habermas, 1984, 1987, 1989; Hiltz and Turoff, 1993; Laurel; 1993; Norman, 1988; Schneiderman, 1993; Schuler, 1994; and Winograd and Flores, 1988), I have concluded that Dervin’s Sense-Making approach offers a conceptually coherent set of theoretical principles that could be effectively utilized for the design of online communities.

THE BEST OF WHAT I HAVE ACHIEVED:
I have been involved in the development of “traditional” dialogic communities during the past several years, mainly for use within a pedagogical environment. However, beginning in the fall of 1998, I shifted the conceptualization of these sites away from a standard EDG design structure towards one based upon Sense-Making principles. To date, two such sites have been developed: a) a simulated “general assembly” for students in an international communication course and b) a research methods discussion database for use in a qualitative methods course. Although analysis of the messages generated in these EDGs is by no means complete, I have already begun to see the benefit of utilizing Sense-Making as the basis for design. For example, by utilizing an abbreviated situation-gap-use triangle for the message-entry process, the system helps users explore their own step-takings while they post their messages. In the case of the research methods course EDG, this has led to the emergence of fairly robust discussions and debates that have not decayed into destructive practices. Also, the database structure itself seems to produce a “living, breathing, interactive” model of Sense-Making that has helped me better understand dialogic processes spread across time and space.

WHAT HAS BEEN HELPFUL:
Most helpful have been recent writings by Dervin and colleagues in which they call for the application of Sense-Making theory for praxis within various communicative contexts. I have gleaned many ideas from examples offered in these articles (in particular, Dervin and Clark, 1993-10; Vakkari, Savolainen, and Dervin, 1997-1; Bruce, 1997, etc.). They have been an important source of inspiration, particularly at the beginning of the design process. Also helpful have been several Sense-Making design workshops held this past fall by Dervin and colleagues. And I owe a conceptual debt to researchers who have explored the theory and practice of EDGs (e.g., Menou, 1993; Frederick, 1993). I’ve also found numerous web design books and online “knowledge bases” helpful as I have sought to incorporate non-standard interactive functions into the EDGs (e.g., providing users with a variety of Sense-Making “Doors” for posting their messages rather than a standard, generic message/response form [like those found in USENET newsgroups]; allowing users to sort messages in a variety of ways to facilitate “circling” the postings). In particular, I have found the Lotus NOTES programming environment to be especially useful for building customized discussion groups.

WHAT I HAVE STRUGGLED WITH:
Probably the biggest gap I have faced to date is the movement from metatheory to practice (as discussed in the recent knowledge management article by Dervin, 1998-8). Given the lack of practical examples to follow when designing a Sense-Making-based ENG, I’ve had to tease the design particulars out of the literature. I often found that it was easier to look at other designs and critique their “non-dialogic” components than to determine what I might do differently to create a new, dialogic approach. I continue to struggle with this, often asking myself what a Sense-Making-based website ought to look like. I’ve been able to gain some clarity through the testing of recent designs, but I’ve still got a lot more work to do.

WHAT WOULD HELP NOW:
A greater variety of online environments within which to test out revised versions of the EDG - particularly an international, multicultural one. Also helpful would be an ongoing dialogue with web site designers and users regarding their preferences for web-based newsgroups, LISTSERVs, and chat rooms. Further, consulting with others who are struggling to implement new communication systems based on Sense-Making principles would be immensely helpful.

PROJECT ABSTRACT:
As the popularity of the web continues to explode, little attention is being paid to the utilization of dialogic communication theory for the improvement of user interactions in online discussion groups. My intent in this project is to critique current designs for web-based EDGs, then propose and test alternative designs that utilize elements of the Sense-Making approach to improve the quality of online dialogue. To date, two web-based EDGs have been created utilizing Sense-Making principles. The most recent version allows users to create messages by moving through one of eight Sense-Making “Doors”: a) praising others; b) relating similar experiences; c) seeing connections; d) seeing contests; e) sharing pleasure, insight, ideas; f) sharing struggles, barriers; g) asking for help; and h) asking questions. Once through each door, the user responds to three questions, one for each “point” in the Sense-Making triangle: a) bridge/gap - what praise, pleasure, barrier, etc. do you wish to share?; b) situation - what led you to want to offer/share this?; c) use - how has this helped?/hindered?/would help? Users also may attach their real name or a pen name to their posts, select a particular focus for their message (e.g., “about the web site”; “about class readings”), and offer a short phrase that summarizes their intentions. To sift through the postings, users can select from a variety of customized listings: a) “by author,” which alphabetizes messages under each author’s name; b) “by doorway, ” which places each posting under its chosen doorway); and c) “full view,” which offers a summarized version of each post in reverse/chronological order, among others. Further, the menu for selecting these views is arranged in a circle to help users visualize “circling” the postings as they make sense of the differing perspectives. The database allows for both qualitative and quantitative analysis through tools like full-text searching, criteria-based selecting, etc. These tools can be used to help identify and study emergent themes, Sense-Making processes, and other variables (e.g., message frequencies, selection of doors, choice of foci, etc.). It is my hope that the development of online, web-based EDGs informed by Sense-Making principles will improve both the quality and process of interactions within electronic public spaces.

REFERENCES:
(For references to works by Dervin and colleagues, see Dervin’s writings: Chronological listing.)

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 1 - Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 2 - Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Hiltz, S. & Turoff, M. (1993). The network nation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jones, S. (1995). Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sudweeks, F., McLaughlin, M. & Rafaeli, S. (1998). Network and netplay: Virtual groups on the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

OTHER MATERIALS BY THIS AUTHOR ON THIS WEB SITE:
See: http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/AAauthors/authorlistschaefer.html