4.5.4 Discussion List: Dialogues

In the course of the discussion which ran for a period of ten months, it was often necessary or useful to contact certain participants individually i.e., without posting to the entire list. Such was the case, for example, when clarification was required on a point or when the researcher wanted to probe more deeply or even when the researcher wanted to encourage greater participation from a member of the group. As well, it was not uncommon for some participants of CREDO or CREO to send an individual e-mail to the researcher to request information on a topic, to express an opinion which, for participants’ own reasons, they chose not to express to the entire group. This type of exchange is referred to in this study as dialoguing as opposed to the multiloguing exchanges which took place between all members of the group in the context of the discussion lists.

Besides the informal dialoguing that took place as described in the above section, a more formalized system of dialoguing was also incorporated into the discussion list. The purpose of the formalized dialoguing, like that of the informal dialoguing, was to probe more deeply into beliefs of some of the discussion list participants, to seek further clarification on comments made in the context of the list, to encourage participation and exchange and flow of "conversation". The primary difference between the informal versus the formal dialoguing was that the latter involved the same question sent out approximately once per week to each participant in the dialogue. The question served as a catalyst for further questioning or dialoguing with the participant (see Appendix J for sample dialogue questions).

In terms of the participation in the dialoguing, 22 members of CREDO and 14 members of CREO each received an individual e-mail from the researcher inviting them to participate in dialogues (see Appendix K for the invitation). These 36 individuals were invited to participate based on a variety of factors. The majority were invited to participate because of what the researcher perceived as an ability on the participants’ part to articulate their beliefs and experiences. Others were chosen with an aim to increase participation from a wider range of experience in terms of geographic location or programs. Whereas 16 of the 22 individuals invited from the CREDO list agreed to participate, no members of the CREO list agreed to join in the dialogues. We can speculate that as to why no CREO members agreed to participate. The general degree of participation on CREDO was greater than on CREO for the discussion list as a whole. As such, the researcher was more easily able to create a rapport with the participants of CREDO than with those of CREO. Although it cannot be determined conclusively that the rapport contributed to the willingness of participants to dialogue, it may have been a contributing factor in their decision.

For those who did agree to participate, their involvement amounted to responding to approximately one question every one or two weeks. The questions were determined by the researcher. In terms of the number of postings by individual dialogue participants, these were irregular. There were some weeks when certain individuals did not respond because they were unavailable for various reasons ( see Appendix L for an example of a dialogue posting or message). It is possible as well that they did not respond because the question was not meaningful for them or simply because they were too busy to find the time to respond.

The number of postings for the dialogue as well as the multilogue were irregular. Their length also varied considerably. While some may have been more than two pages in length, others were no more than a few lines. Certain threads of discussion for the multilogue or questions for the dialogue might prompt numerous responses during a week-long period. Other threads, or questions raised by the researcher elicited few, if any, responses (see Appendix M for an individualized summary of the postings of the multilogue and dialogue participants). For certain participants, their multilogue and dialogue postings combined exceeded 20. Others exceeded 10 or 15 which represented a large amount of in-depth data (see Appendix N for a numerical comparison of the participation in the multilogue and dialogue). Those participants who posted little nonetheless provided an important peripheral contribution in the sense that their messages/postings often served to stimulate discussion in other participants.