Research Note Building Dialogue on Complex Conservation Issues in a Conference Setting JENNY ROCK, ∗ †§ ANDREW SPARROW, ∗ ROB WASS,† AND HENRIK MOLLER‡ ∗ Centre for Science Communication, Department of Zoology, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand †Department of Zoology, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand ‡Centre for Sustainability: Agriculture, Food, Energy Environment, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand Abstract: Dialogue about complex science and society issues is important for contemporary conservation agendas. Conferences provide an appropriate space for such dialogue, but despite its recognized worth, best practices for facilitating active dialogue are still being explored. Face-to-face (FTF) and computer-mediated communication (CMC) are two approaches to facilitating dialogue that have different strengths. We assessed the use of these approaches to create dialogue on cultural perspectives of conservation and biodiversity at a national ecology conference. In particular, we aimed to evaluate their potential to enhance dialogue through their integrated application. We used an interactive blog to generate CMC on participant-sourced issues and to prime subsequent discussion in an FTF conference workshop. The quantity and quality of both CMC and FTF discussion indicated that both approaches were effective in building dialogue. Prior to the conference the blog averaged 126 views per day, and 44 different authors contributed a total of 127 comments. Twenty-five participants subsequently participated in active FTF discussion during a 3-h workshop. Postconference surveys confirmed that CMC had developed participants’ thinking and deepened FTF dialogue; 88% indicated specifically that CMC helped facilitate the FTF discussion. A further 83% of respondents concluded that preliminary blog discussion would be useful for facilitating dialogue at future conferences. Keywords: computer-mediated communication, dialogue, face-to-face communication, open-space technology, science conference Construcci´ on del Di´ alogo sobre Problemas Complejos de Conservaci´ on en un Escenario de Conferencia Resumen: El di´ alogo sobre problemas complejos de ciencia y sociedad es importante para las agendas contempor´ aneas de conservaci´ on. Las conferencias proporcionan un espacio apropiado para dicho di´ alogo, pero a pesar de su valor reconocido, las mejores pr´ acticas para facilitar el di´ alogo activo todav´ ıa se est´ an explo- rando. La comunicaci´ on cara a cara (FTF, en ingl´es) y la mediada por computadora (CMC, en ingl´es) son dos estrategias para facilitar el di´ alogo que tienen fuerzas diferentes. Evaluamos el uso de estas estrategias para crear un di´ alogo sobre las perspectivas culturales de la conservaci´ on y la biodiversidad en una conferencia nacional sobre ecolog´ ıa. En particular, buscamos evaluar su potencial para mejorar el di´ alogo a trav´es de su aplicaci´ on integrada. Usamos un blog interactivo para generar CMC de problemas surgidos de participantes y para originar discusiones subsecuentes en un taller de conferencia FTF. La cantidad y la calidad de la discusi´ on CMC y la FTF indican que ambas estrategias fueron efectivas para en la construcci´ on de di´ alogo. Previo a la conferencia, el blog promediaba 126 visitas por d´ ıa, y 44 autores diferentes contribuyeron a un total de 127 comentarios. Veinticinco participantes se involucraron subsecuentemente en una discusi´ on FTF activa durante un taller de 3 horas. Las encuestas post-conferencia confirmaron que la CMC hab´ ıa desarrollado el pensar de los participantes y profundizado el di´ alogo FTF; el 88% indic´ o espec´ ıficamente que el CMC ayud´ oa facilitar la discusi´ on FTF. Un 83% m´ as de los respondientes concluy´ o que la discusi´ on preliminar en el blog ser´ ıa ´ util para facilitar el di´ alogo en conferencias futuras. Palabras Clave: Comunicaci´ on cara a cara, comunicaci´ on mediada por computadora, conferencia cient´ ıfica, di´ alogo, tecnolog´ ıa de espacio abierto §email jennifer.rock@otago.ac.nz Paper submitted November 22, 2012; revised manuscript accepted March 28, 2014. 1 Conservation Biology, Volume 00, No. 0, 1–6 C ⃝ 2014 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12339