Oopsies Online
Online discussion lists are a terrific place
to gather resources and network with other professionals. I am a member of several of these online communities including one for Counselor Educators and Supervisors called CESNET-L that is hosted by Dr. Marty Jencius.
While hanging out on CESNET-L this week I was reminded once again about the importance of balancing the needs of your online community with your own perceived right to free speech. Here’s snapshot of one unfortunate exchange this week . . . .
Person A writes in with a nod to Memorial Day asking that veterans be honored. Several other folks join in with similar tributes to veterans and their families i.e. “Thank you for your sacrifice . . .” and “I’ve seen your sacrifice for our freedoms . . . ” and ” . . . we must honor those who paid the highest price . . . ” It seems so nice and innocent, doesn’t it?
Then Person B writes in to share his way of honoring veterans. It is a different way of acknowledging veterans’ service from those mentioned above and some of the list members take offense.
The email exchanges on this list turned personal. Some of the list members started calling out Person B by name and chastising him. Others called out people from the first group to publicly thank them for their positions under the guise of “moving beyond all the negativity.”
I suppose if this were a singular occurrence, I wouldn’t be writing about this incident at all. However, unfortunately, it happens all too often – on CESNET-L and every other online list I know of, too.
Guidelines for Online Discussion Groups
For mental health professionals who are supposed to be knowledgeable in the art and skills of prevention and problem solving . . . and who are also responsible for training and supervising other mental health professionals . . . , exchanges such as this only serve to besmirch the names of those involved. And, while it is likely that your personal sympathies may clearly side with Person A or B, it’s important to note that diving into this type of exchange in a professional online discussion list is . . . well . . . it’s unprofessional.
For those of you that don’t know . . . most discussion lists have rules / guidelines concerning how members are expected to conduct themselves when participating there. Here are some basic guidelines for online etiquette . . . .
Professional online discussion lists are typically theme-specific for the purpose of exchanging professional information and experiences. Contributions to any online discussion group should be directly related to the purpose of the list. For example, the purpose of CESNET-L is described as being for professional counselor educators, counselors, and supervisors to “provide an open forum for discussion of issues and sharing of resources related to the [counseling] profession.” It is not appropriate on CESNTE-L to share holiday greetings, political statements, garage sale announcements, or photos of your new puppy unless these relate directly to the counseling profession.
Neither is it appropriate to send comments to an online discussion group that are aimed at a single individual. That includes “thank you, ” congratulatory comments, and invitations to lunch. Likewise, it is not appropriate to engage in name-calling or otherwise calling someone out on the list. Only comments that are of general interest to the members of the list should be sent to the list. My general rule of thumb is that if the email does not increase the knowledge base of list members, a private email should be sent to the member(s) concerned.
So What about You?
Online etiquette really shouldn’t be this difficult. It harkens back to those things we learned in kindergarten i.e. play by the rules and don’t hit or hurt anybody. Regardless of how strongly you feel about a particular issue or individual, . . . remember your digital footprint, your professional reputation, and how you want to be seen in this world.
Whether I’m writing a private email . . . or commenting on someone’s Facebook page . . . or involved in a discussion on LinkedIn . . . or blogging right here on Private Practice from the Inside Out, I’m conscious about the words I choose. It’s important to me that the impression I leave you with is more in line with “generous of spirit,” “kind-hearted,” and “able to see multiple points of view.”
So what about you? I’m guessing that “mean-spirited,” “catty,” and “small” are not what you are going for, either. Care to share the ideal digital footprint that you want to leave behind?
I used to belong to several professional message boards. It got to the point that I was distressed to see emails in my inbox from these message boards. I agonized over writing posts/responses that could trigger misunderstandings. I was dwelling on tet-a-tets between other members while doing other things. I found my emotional responses were not worth the benefit on national level boards – unsubscribing left me with more free time, feeling better, more mental energy – and my inbox didn’t feel like an angry place anymore.
I stay with local ones where people have interactions outside of the message boards. On those boards people assume other’s best intentions when they post, interactions are polite, and responses are less often defensive. The local boards even have more benefit by suggesting local resources, meetings/CEU’s, and referrals.
J. Kipp! I’ve missed your voice here!
Good for you making those choices that were / are in your own best interest! I find some of the national and international boards to be of more use to me that some of the local ones. The cross-pollination of disciplines and resources as well as the networking have been invaluable to me. However, I do know what you mean about intentions and motivations. I end up drawing conclusions about others from their online interactions just as I do in face-to-face conversations. Those assumptions – accurate or not – carry weight for sure!
Tamara, thanks for the reminder of CESNET-L. I have forgotten about it and wanted to join. I will do that.
To answer the questions, I have seen poor etiquette on other listserves. Most of those I am on have rules. Some have no moderation while others lots. I do like less moderation as it allows one to think prior to hitting send and being a professional. I saw one such exchange several weeks ago. Several misinterpretations were done by several parties with few listening to the true issues. It took a few days to settle out and for understanding of each other to happen.
How often do we misunderstand each other? Or our clients? My problem is that I am very direct and it can come across as rude and disrespectful. That is not the intent but to move one off their point. I relate it to the king of the hill game as a child mixed with an object in motion tends to stay in motion from physics. People standing their ground are unlikely to see different points of view and if not moving will never be able see this.
Hi, Bryan! Thanks so much for pointing out that part of the perceived problem of poor online etiquette is often a lack of just listening. I think that’s true. Most of us were trained to listen to our clients’ meta-stories rather than just the words that come out of their mouths. Somehow, online it’s easy to forget to listen to the story underneath the words that come flying across our screens.
I do find you to be very direct and not afraid to stir the pot or stand your ground. I love your physics analogy of keeping an idea in motion. I don’t have much tolerance for mental health professionals who are only able to see from their own viewpoint.
That’s interesting . . . . Just now realizing that I don’t hold that standard for many professions except for mental health . . . . It seems like a no-brainer . . . . I literally stereotype mental health professionals who cannot see a situation from different points of view as being not very competent or smart. Ha! Guess I need to go take a look at my own judgments here!
Bryan, I hope you will join CESNET-L. The resources and networking there are rich and your presence there would add a dose of rationality. It’s a great group in spite of my nudging here for a little civility:).
Tamara,
I joined right after I posted. and am getting the messages: a whole bunch. I have even found some ideas and inspiration for my dissertation (clearer focus).
I have found that perspective is important. Given my qualitative bent, I hold to the idea that we create our own reality or at least understanding of it. In typical Funk fashion, I also believe in some strong absolutes. I work to ask myself when I notice conflict: is this an absolute or a perception problem? Not easy to do and I do not do it all the time.
Oh, yes, Bryan! CESNET-L is very active!
By the way . . . I so love that qualitative focus on your research! And, as for that “Is it absolute?” question of yours . . . . I tend to ask “Is it absolute for me or is it absolute for everyone.” Usually, it’s just an absolute for me. And, clarifies a whole lot:)!
Bryan,
I hope you enjoy the resources and ideas exchanged on CESNET. While there are at times some conversations that leave me shaking my head, the large majority of the information is useful – or at least interesting. I subscribe to the list in a digest form, so I get one (or maybe two) messages per day. It does take some time to get used to the way that is put together, but you may find your inbox slightly more manageable.
Good luck with your research!
Hey, Lauren, thanks so much for reminding Bryan and everyone else about the digest form of CESNET-L. Many other online discussion lists also have digest forms that allow multiple messages to be sent once daily or weekly rather than receiving lots of individual emails.
Here, here! I am often amazed at what folks will publicly put on Facebook. Even though I have the privatest of settings, I seldom post anything that isn’t cute.. I do post the occasional inspirational quote or link to thought provoking article… And I might shout out to my family for accomplishments. Facebook is a social network where we can be more personal, not a professional forum where we need be even more diligent with thinking of the word choices and what we post. Interesting post and a good reminder for us all. I must say….not a fan of the photo =0)
Hi, Jamie! Welcome back! No, I’m not a fan of the photo OR the behaviors that led to this post either. But, of course, that was the point!:)
And, I’m so glad you brought up Facebook. I feel like I need to differentiate between a therapist’s personal page on FB that is locked down tight and available only to family and friends (No clients!) and a therapist’s business page on FB that is open for the world to see. Although neither is 100% under your control, you do have more leeway on that personal page to tell off-colored jokes, share your political rants, and chastise your siblings, too. Just be sure it’s locked down as tightly as you can!
On that business page though, it is a professional forum and word choice does matter. I don’t think that you were referencing business pages, Jamie, in your comments above. However, I’ve seen way too many therapists disregarding the newer standards of practice by not locking down those personal pages and continuing to use them for business purposes rather than taking the time to put up a professional business page on FB.
Blurring those boundaries will cost you in the long run! If you’re reading this . . . you need to get that business page up and quit doing “business as usual” on your personal page!
I am in the midst of reading this book about online therapy: http://www.amazon.com/Therapy-Online-US-ONLY-Practical/dp/184920473X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1338504393&sr=1-2 . It speaks to this idea of netiquette in great detail. While I consider myself quite Internet savvy and I think I know a lot of the “lingo,” this book has a lot of information about perception of what is typed when both vocal inflection and body language must be gleaned from written words. The book is designed for individuals who are interested in distance counseling, and this book, in combination with a training course through ReadyMinds, is reinforcing a great deal of what I already knew, but also leaving me with quite a few “I never thought of that…” moments. The most recent “lightbulb moment” was a statement about how a website for distance counseling must include international crisis numbers in case the site is accessed by someone in another country. I wonder how many idiosyncrasies we are overlooking in our everyday online communications.
Hi, Lauren! It’s good to find your voice here!
Thanks so much for mentioning this book and also RedayMinds’ training on distance counseling! I’ll definitely check it out! I know what you mean about overlooking things in our online communications. I experience that when I’m reading an email that includes a lot of “He said this . . . ” and then “He replied . . . . ” I find I need to use the actual names of individuals more often than pronouns just to keep the stories straight!
And, concerning this thread on CESNET-L that I referenced . . . it’s also true that while I may have made assumptions about individual’s political leanings based on their comments, I don’t know anything about any of those individuals really. That, too, has implications for distance counseling, too, doesn’t it?
I have not yet started offering distance counseling so I am intrigued by what you are learning and hope you’ll share more with us.
Tamara, It is so good to see your post. I have little patience for exchanges where people don’t try to understand the others’ perspectives as they express their own views, and very little patience for name calling and the putting down that I have seen. I expect better from mental health professionals as you do. I don’t think it is a judgment. I think it reflects poorly on the profession. It is also true that we all choose this profession because we have things to learn from it, so perhaps what you point out is an aspect of what some of us in this profession have to learn.
In situations as you describe I often find myself needing to choose whether I need to get involved or not. When I choose to get involved, I choose to explain what I find was misunderstood or ask questions.
Another aspect of this discussion is how people consider their position rational or scientific when, they simply judge a position without trying to test it for themselves or experience it first.
At any rate I appreciate your bringing this out!
Blessings,
Luc
Luc! I’ve missed you here! Thanks for dropping in!
Like you, it’s always a judgement call for me – whether and how to get involved. I think it’s really important to choose your battles. But, I also believe as Patty Murray said, ” . . . you can choose to be silent or you can choose to make a difference.” Obviously, I didn’t address this on CESNET-L. In part, that was because it’s not a practice that is unique to CESNET-L. It’s just one of many online spaces where this _____________ (you fill in the blank) takes place.
lol yes!