Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kaitlyn Mulligan on October 29, 2010 at 12:07pm

Hi Lanni,
I completely agree, and think that you have done an excellent job of outlining some of the primary issues and scenarios involved with apologies via ODR. I can see how oftentimes an apology via text or audio can sometimes be misinterpreted, but I agree with you that video may be the best method for communicating in the most sincerest fashion. Having a "live" apology like would be the most likely situation where the participants wouldn't misinterpret the other party.

lanni marchant said:

Sam Edwards said:

Given the scenario what online platforms offer the best system to help facilitate an apology? Would text only offer a "safe" way to get the apology across? Would a pre-recorded voice message be better? Would live video work best?

The use of technology throughout the dispute resolution process itself requires those involved to choose their means of communication carefully. Depending on the forum chosen, parties have to choose their words and phrases with caution, especially during instances where communication is solely text based, but also during telephone or recorded voice message communications and live video. During text- based ODR, it can be difficult to create trust between the parties, and there is the risk that something typed will be misinterpreted. These issues are present, and perhaps more compounded, in an apology setting, where it is possible that one party may doubt the sincerity of the other side’s apology, or there is the potential for an apology to come across crass or incomplete. A pre-recorded voice message would also run the risk of sounding insincere and rehearsed. Like a written apology, a recorded voice message may be received poorly, and cause the receiving party to feel as though his or her issues were not completely resolved. A live video apology may work best, as it would enable both parties to see each other’s body language and facial expressions. It would also allow for more of a dialogue during the apology. A live video apology has the feeling of a real face to face meeting, and helps create a more satisfying apology for the receiving party, as there is not the appearance that the apologizing party is hiding behind closed doors.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Huong Vo on October 29, 2010 at 7:11pm

Hello! My name is Huong Vo and I am a student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I really enjoy reading the responses to this discussion and have learned a great deal. I had a few points I wanted to ask about the need for apology/forgiveness in an online context however.Please excuse me ahead of time if I seem way off topic.

While apology and forgiveness may be appropriate in some disputes, I also wonder if it is applicable to the vast majority of the online world. For instance on an international level, wouldn't the players involved be limited to corporations, government officials, and the likes? If so, apologetic gestures by these organizations are often done publically and as a natural process of maintaining public relations. Therefore would an apology in the online arena really apply/be necessary? If then on a local level, the disputes revolves around commerce and each participant is simply hoping for a refund or exchange, would an apology warrant more than the situation is asking for?

Although I believe there are many cases where an apology should be made and forgiveness should be considered (such as an accident), I would first question whether these cases should even be brought into the online world for resolution in the first place...

Ultimately if the dispute is centered around one corporation and its employee (as an example),I believe a face-to-face apology is not only the most sincere, but also the best way to reach out to the person who has been hurt by the events - even if the dispute was resolved with online mediation. The parties in this situation are conveniently accessible and to video chat, text, or write and apology and send it online seem to me, to be a bit silly. Again asking the question of where apologies in the online context really fit?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephanie Vicent on October 29, 2010 at 8:05pm

I agree that in most situations, an apology given in “real-time” can capture a sense of sincerity that most words may be incapable to convey. However, I believe that there are circumstances where an apology delivered via text can be just as, if not, more powerful to establish authenticity of regret and reestablish the requisite trust for businesses, such as those in the Ecotourism case, to move forward. For instance, a well-written apology crafted with the details of the dispute, where the wrongdoer went wrong, and an acknowledged understanding of how the wronged party feels, can go much farther than a seemingly disingenuous apology delivered face-to-face. Even a mere smirk or a misinterpretation of one’s eyes can convey an apathetic apology that may simply be the result of someone’s rapid blinking or a blurry camera. This is a unique issue that may arise where business crosses not only geographical but cultural boundaries as well-a region of communication that is ripe for misinterpretation. In contrast, when an apology is delivered in standard English, free of eye contact, but also free of idioms, it may actually work to avoid unnecessary misinterpretation while giving the aggrieved party the solace of knowing such ownership of wrongdoing is committed to a permanent record.


Kaitlyn Mulligan said:

Hi Lanni,
I completely agree, and think that you have done an excellent job of outlining some of the primary issues and scenarios involved with apologies via ODR. I can see how oftentimes an apology via text or audio can sometimes be misinterpreted, but I agree with you that video may be the best method for communicating in the most sincerest fashion. Having a "live" apology like would be the most likely situation where the participants wouldn't misinterpret the other party.

lanni marchant said:

Sam Edwards said:

Given the scenario what online platforms offer the best system to help facilitate an apology? Would text only offer a "safe" way to get the apology across? Would a pre-recorded voice message be better? Would live video work best?

The use of technology throughout the dispute resolution process itself requires those involved to choose their means of communication carefully. Depending on the forum chosen, parties have to choose their words and phrases with caution, especially during instances where communication is solely text based, but also during telephone or recorded voice message communications and live video. During text- based ODR, it can be difficult to create trust between the parties, and there is the risk that something typed will be misinterpreted. These issues are present, and perhaps more compounded, in an apology setting, where it is possible that one party may doubt the sincerity of the other side’s apology, or there is the potential for an apology to come across crass or incomplete. A pre-recorded voice message would also run the risk of sounding insincere and rehearsed. Like a written apology, a recorded voice message may be received poorly, and cause the receiving party to feel as though his or her issues were not completely resolved. A live video apology may work best, as it would enable both parties to see each other’s body language and facial expressions. It would also allow for more of a dialogue during the apology. A live video apology has the feeling of a real face to face meeting, and helps create a more satisfying apology for the receiving party, as there is not the appearance that the apologizing party is hiding behind closed doors.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Biehl on October 28, 2011 at 10:19am

I may be stating the obvious, but the best "means" by which to make an apology seems highly situational.  There are probably some instances in which an apologizer may want to explain the situation from his or her perspective, including any complex facts or circumstances that led them to act in a regrettable way.  When this is the case, I think a written document provides the best medium for laying out one's "case" and stating that, with hindsight, one would have acted differently.  However, there are other situations in which no explanation of the backstory is needed, and in those cases a blunt, face-to-face (or via video conference) "I'm sorry" is probably the best means way for the healing process to begin.  In any event, online media allows for both these contingencies, although there may be situations in which it is desirable to get the parties in the same room to facilitate the apology. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page