An analysis of interaction structure in the discussion of a ranking task

Stech, Ernest L.

doi:10.1080/03637757009375674

Cited by 28 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Symbols function as tools to: (a) represent and/or share information (Berg, 1972;Borman, 1972;Delia, 1972;Mortensen & Sereno, 1970), (b) identify problems and solutions (Burgoon, 1971;Fisher, 1970;Gouran & Baird, 1972;Stech, 1970;Wilder & Harvey, 1971), (c) manage conflicts (Buchi & Pearce, 1975;Hawes & Smith, 1973;Ruben, 1977;Scott & Smith, 1969), and (d) regulate behaviors (Andrews, 1970;Pearce & Brommel, 1972;Rosenthal, 1971;Simons, 1971). While an argument could be made for additional or contrary tool functions of symbols, these represent major dimensions of communication activities suggested by past research and an important beginning point for the integration of previous communication studies Lewis, et al, 1979).…”

Section: Journal Of Applied Communication Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing communication behavior: An application within the public relations profession

Long

Hazelton

1984

Journal of Applied Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Journal Of Applied Communication Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing communication behavior: An application within the public relations profession

Long

Hazelton

1984

Journal of Applied Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Heyns and Zander (1965) have also argued that it is often theoretically important to use context as a frame of reference in making inferences. Context may refer to the setting of the interaction (e.g., classrooms, Miller and Hylton, 1974; medical settings, Hawes and Foley, 1973; therapeutic settings, Yalom, 1975;organizations, Goldhaber, 1974: 209-239) the type and purpose of the group (e.g., discussion groups, Hare, 1976: 405; task groups, Stech, 1970; consciousness-raising groups, Drecksel and Fisher, 1977;Ellis, 1976; T-groups, Fisher and Werbel, 1978; creativity groups, Gordon, 1961) the types of individuals forming the groups (e.g., marital pairs, Parks et al, 1975; families, peers, Lumsden et al, 1974) the number of individuals observed (e.g., dyad, small group, large group the group member characteristics (e.g., sex, age, personality, status) the type of subject matter discussed (e.g., real or fictional tasks, topics)…”

Section: Observer Inferencementioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a Taxonomy of Small Group Interaction-Coding Systems

Trujillo

1986

Small Group Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents an exploratory taxonomy of small group interaction-coding systems. Six dimensions that characterize interaction-coding schemes are presented in a hierarchical order rangingfrom abstract conceptual issues to specific methodological ones. Recommendations for future research are offered.Although more than three decades old (Bales, 1950), interaction analysis is one of the most popular methods employed in contemporary small group research. The method has enjoyed widespread use in recent years due to the impetus provided by the &dquo;pragmatic perspective&dquo; with its focus on the behavioral aspects of communication (Watzlawick et al., 1967). In fact, according to the metatheoretical framework that underlies the pragmatic perspective, communication is behavior. Accordingly, the method of interaction analysis is employed to provide an assessment of communication behaviors.The worth of any study employing interaction analysis is, of course, dependent upon the coding system used to describe the communication behaviors. Coding schemes are translation devices that allow researchers to assign behaviors into functional categories. And, as Fisher (1978) has noted, those categories are the variables or concepts of the research. As units of interaction are classified and placed within categories, they are SMALL GROUP

show abstract

“…Such descriptive data, however, yields only a modicum of information about procedural communication in small groups. Investigations of message patterns that precede and follow procedural acts emend the problems incurred from reliance on simple frequency counts, but these studies continue to use a single category of procedural activity-a practice that hampers the explanatory power of this research (see, for example, Stech, 1970;Saine and Bock, 1973).…”

Section: The Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Small Group Work Climates

Putnam

1983

Small Group Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines procedural messages and group work habits of 20 three-person groups, 10 who preferred a tightly-structured work climate and 10 who preferred a free-associative work routine. The groups interacted for 15 minutes on a partyplanning task and then prepared a written report. Group talk was coded into nine categories and analyzed with a lag-sequential procedure. Results of the study reveal that tightly structured groups followed procedural messages with abstract headings that organized group talk, while free-associative groups followed procedural statements with specific details on a content-related issue. Moreover, group members elaborated upon procedural issues, particularly at lag 1 occurrences, and embellished digressions for the entire 25 lags. These findings suggest that practitioners who aim to help groups improve their work habits should focus upon the sequences of talk in addition to the inputs or outcomes of a group.The small group is a popular and essential unit of most organizations. In an age of matrix structures and specialization of task functions, small groups serve as project teams, coordinating agents, clearinghouses, and decision-making bodies for a wide array of tasks and organizational functions. In order to work efficiently and satisfactorily on a project, group members must concur on the modus operandi for planning and organizing their tasks and endeavors (Bormann, 1975 : 161). To this end, participants frequently barter and negotiate their

show abstract

An analysis of interaction structure in the discussion of a ranking task

Cited by 28 publications

References 4 publications

Assessing communication behavior: An application within the public relations profession

Assessing communication behavior: An application within the public relations profession

Toward a Taxonomy of Small Group Interaction-Coding Systems

Small Group Work Climates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About