Many dispute resolution practitioners would answer that question with a simple “no.”
Until recently, I would have answered the question the same way.
When I thought about online dispute resolution (ODR), I thought about specialized online platforms like eBay. ODR seemed like a distinct corner of the dispute resolution field that was completely disconnected from my own work.
In researching a profile of Colin Rule, I read his 2016 article, Is ODR ADR?: A Response to Carrie Menkel-Meadow. He wrote that ODR is “the use of information and communications technologies to help parties resolve their disputes.” He said that it is not limited to the use of the internet; it includes email, calendaring apps, telephones, LCD projectors, spreadsheets, word processors, and videoconferencing. He wrote:
These technologies have become such a part of our lives that we do not even notice when we make use of them. That many mediators and arbitrators use these technologies every day goes unmentioned because technology has become the new normal.
Ten years later, his observation seems more accurate than ever.
Technology has become so thoroughly integrated into dispute resolution practice that many of us no longer notice it. We simply experience these technologies as part of normal work and life.
In my new article, Revisiting “Is ODR ADR?” Understanding ODR Through a Real Practice Systems Lens, I argue that modern practitioners routinely engage in technology-assisted dispute resolution, whether they recognize it as ODR or not.
Technology is woven throughout contemporary dispute resolution education just as it is in dispute resolution practice. These days, faculty use technology throughout their work. They communicate with students through learning management systems and email. They post course materials online. They create digital simulations and exercises. They use video to record role plays. Some even use AI – gasp! – in course development, educational exercises, and assignments.
Despite the fact that technology is deeply infused into dispute resolution practice, probably most faculty don’t discuss it much, if at all, in their courses.
The point is not that everything should be called ODR. The more interesting question is why we generally are not conscious of how much technology affects our work.
My article suggests that one answer lies in how we think about dispute resolution. We rely heavily on simple, vague, and confusing jargon. This includes ADR, positional and interest-based negotiation, facilitative and evaluative mediation, and – IMHO, the worst offender – BATNA. (Anyone remember Andrea Schneider’s impulse to say that our “Labels Suck”?)
The technological dimensions of dispute resolution are much easier to see if we focus on what people actually do – the tasks, routines, techniques, technologies, and decisions in our work. Real Practice Systems Theory is designed to help us see these realities more clearly.
Colin’s most important observation is not that ODR is ADR. It’s that technology has become so normalized in our work that we don’t even notice it.
Take a look at my piece – and Colin’s.
