The best way to hold a discussion online

best way to hold a discussion online

What’s the best way to hold a discussion online?

For years I’ve been successfully facilitating in-person group discussions at meetings, using the simple fishbowl and fishbowl sandwich processes. These techniques work because at any moment, only a small, clearly defined, (but constantly changing) group of people are involved in the discussion. As a result you can moderate an interesting, orderly discussion with hundreds of people, any of who have an equal opportunity to speak.

Online group discussions bring a new set of challenges.

We have all experienced poorly facilitated online meetings, where people unilaterally turn on their microphones and speak away, colliding aurally with others and monopolizing the conversation. An experienced moderator can minimize this behavior with a starting set of clear agreements that participants will follow during the discussion.

But however good the facilitation, there is far less environmental and body language information available online than in-person. The subtle cues we’ve all learned for moving between listening and speaking in a conversation are largely absent. (Stephen Mugford and Pamela Kinnear go into more detail here.) This makes creating a useful, flowing discussion harder.

Existing solutions and their limitations

Some of the fancier online meeting platforms provide functionality that can support simple fishbowl process quite well. Typically they use the “panel on a stage” model. A moderator moves audience members who raise their hand in some fashion into a panel (speaking) seat. When people have finished speaking, they leave the stage and the moderator can fill their seat with someone else.

Currently, though, such platforms don’t make it easy to move people in and out of pair or trio share groups: a requirement for the “bread” portions of the fishbowl sandwich.

One of the reasons I like to use Zoom for online meetings is its reliable and easy ability to quickly move people into breakout room groups for sharing. Zoom is a great tool for a discussion session’s opening and closing small-group fishbowl sandwich sharing. But how can we moderate discussion amongst a sea of faces during the fishbowl itself?

How to effectively hold a discussion online in Zoom

I’m indebted to Stephen Mugford for suggesting a simple and effective way of moderating fishbowl in Zoom.

In-person fishbowls use “people sitting in the 3 – 5 chairs up front, facing the group” to indicate who can speak at any moment. For a Zoom discussion, the same delineation can be made. Simply ask everyone except the facilitator/moderator to turn off their camera and microphone at the start.

When someone wants to speak, they turn on their camera and microphone. A nice feature of Zoom is that their picture will then jump to the top of Zoom’s speaker or gallery view. This makes them easy to spot.

The moderator guides the order of speaking and discussion with those who are “live” in the usual way. When people have finished sharing for the moment, they turn off their video/microphone and return to listening.

A variation

Sometimes when I run a fishbowl in person there are many who want to speak. I have them queue up in a short line at the side of the chairs. That provides feedback to the folks in the chairs that maybe it’s time to give someone else a turn!

Similarly, you can use Zoom’s text chat to queue up people who wish to enter the fishbowl. This allows:

  • those who are calling in by phone to signal they want to speak; and
  • the facilitator and group to see how many people are waiting to speak.

In practice, I’ve found the suggested live/listening camera/microphone protocol works very well. I only add using text chat as a signaling channel when there are participants who are calling in by phone.

Simple!

This is a simple and successful way to implement fishbowl and fishbowl sandwich discussion process in Zoom. I recommend you try it! And if you have used other platforms to run these processes successfully, please share in the comments below!

Any questions? Rethinking traditional Q&A

Any questions? Rethinking traditional Q&AHow often have you heard “Any questions?” at the end of a conference session?

Hands rise, and the presenter picks an audience member who asks a question. The presenter answers the question and picks another questioner. The process continues for a few minutes.

Simple enough. We’ve been using this Q&A format for centuries.

But can we improve it?

Yes!

Read the rest of this entry »

How a fishbowl sandwich can really get your attendees talking

fishbowl_sandwichTen minutes after I’d finished facilitating a large national association meeting hour-long fishbowl sandwich discussion on solutions for a persistent industry problem, the conference education director walked in. His jaw dropped. “The attendees are still here talking to each other! That never happens!” he exclaimed.

Well it happened this time. Many small groups had formed and people were chatting energetically. Business cards were being swapped. When I left to catch my flight home twenty minutes later, conversations were still going on all around the room.

How did I build and support this level of interaction and engagement?

I used a fishbowl sandwich. What’s that? Read on!

The components of a fishbowl sandwich

A fishbowl sandwich, like any good sandwich, has a filling surrounded by bread and spread (or accompaniment). The filling is the fishbowl technique, the surrounding bread is comprised of pair-shares at the start and end, and the accompaniment is the facilitative language that segues between the bread and the filling.

How I began the fishbowl sandwich

As people trickled into the room I asked them to pair up by sitting next to someone, preferably someone they didn’t know. I lightly repeated the request several times before the session started.

For the first piece of sandwich “bread” I asked everyone to think of something they had done, small or large, which was a (probably partial) solution to the challenges the industry faced. After about 30 seconds I asked one of each pair’s members to spend 30 seconds sharing what they had done with their partner. A final 30-second share from the second partner to the first wrapped up the opening pair-share.

As usual, it was hard to get everyone to turn back to the front of the room for the next bite of the sandwich!

At this point, everyone had switched, at least for a while from “listening” to “participation” brain mode—they were ready to engage.

Time for the fishbowl

I was sitting on a low stage with three empty chairs besides me, wearing a headset mike, with a couple of wireless stick mikes at hand, and took a minute to share the rules of fishbowl:

  • You can only talk if you’re sitting in one of these chairs.
  • If you have something to say, come and sit in an empty chair. You don’t have to wait for someone else to finish talking.
  • When you’ve finished what you have to say (for the moment, you can always return) vacate your chair.
  • If all chairs are full, when someone new walks up, the person who’s been talking longest should leave.

And we were off. For the next fifty minutes a constant stream of people came up and shared their ideas and experiences. Sometimes they shared with the audience; sometimes they spoke with each other while the audience listened. No one “hogged the mike”.

A woman wearing a large backpack shared a novel approach that could be implemented regionally. I ran a hand poll to see how many people had done something similar—only about 20% of the audience. I asked those who hadn’t how many would be willing to do the same. Most hands went up, and people looked thoughtful. An industry leader told the woman he wanted to interview her for the association’s national magazine.

After about 40 minutes I said that we had heard an incredible amount of good ideas and advice and it was clear that there was a tremendous amount of expertise and experience in the room. I asked if anyone wanted help with specific problems. Two brave souls came up and shared their individual frustrations. Sure enough, several folks came up and supplied helpful suggestions.

Finishing the fishbowl sandwich

It was time for the final pair-share slice of bread. To conclude, I asked each pair member to share with their partner their single best takeaway from the session. Once again, a buzz of conversation arose, and after a couple of minutes I announced that the session was over.

[Want to learn more? Find detailed information on fishbowl (there are two kinds) and pair-share in The Power of Participation.]

That’s the fishbowl sandwich. Have you used one, or something similar, at your events? Share in the comments below!

Image adapted from a MacDonalds ad. Hope that’s OK, Giant Corporation.

How to explore opposing viewpoints in a group

explore opposing viewpoints Argument Over a Card Game, c.1665 5947376126_ceff512e1b_bIn a recent post I described using a standard fishbowl to focus group discussion. There’s a less common fishbowl variant, which I call the two sides fishbowl. You can use a two sides fish bowl to explore opposing viewpoints in a group. A two sides fishbowl allows representatives of a point of view to listen to and question representatives of an opposing viewpoint for a period of time, after which the two sides switch roles.

You can use a two sides fishbowl to explore introverts’ experience of extraverts and vice versa, to examine two alternative proposals for solving a business problem, or to go deeper into divergent views on a social issue, etc.

A two sides fishbowl uses a chair layout of two concentric circles as shown below. In general, you won’t know the number of people on each side in advance. So this layout will need to be set up on the fly once the sizes of the two groups are known. If the groups are not approximately the same size, participants will need to reposition chairs appropriately when the two sides swap places.

Two sides fishbowl

Use a single facilitator for both sides. Or, chose a facilitator from each group to lead the inner circle discussion.

Running a two sides fishbowl

Once the groups for the two sides fishbowl have been established (a one-dimensional human spectrogram can be used for this), decide which group will go first and have them sit in the inner circle of chairs. The other group sits in the outer circle.

The rules for a two sides fishbowl are simple. The inner circle does most of the talking. Inner circle members, guided by a facilitator, discuss, explain, or champion their viewpoint for the benefit of the outer circle group. Outer circle members are not allowed to respond to what they hear with one exception. They can ask questions that clarify the inner circle discussion.

After holding a useful discussion, the groups change places. Give an approximately equal amount of time to the new inner group to repeat the above process.

Questions or suggestions on how to explore opposing viewpoints in a group? Share them in the comments below!

Photo of Jan Steen’s “Argument Over a Card Game”: Flickr user johnmcnab