Idea development in small discussion groups

Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops

“…One feature of these models is the regular cycling of socio-emotional activity within the group, which reflects the alternation of attention between task and social aspects of group functioning (Bales, 1951;Scheidel & Crowell, 1964). For example, Poole's (1983b) continuous model depicts decision development as a series of intertwining threads of activity that evolve simultaneously and interweave in different patterns over time.…”

“…For example, Scheidel and Crowell (1964) posit that groups develop ideas through a "'reach-test' type of motion" in which one member advances an idea and then the group elaborates on it at length and expresses approval before going on to the next idea. They propose that this cycle of introduction, discussion and anchoring of group positions is important to building commitment to the group's decision.…”

Who owns a group's proposals: The initiator or the group as a whole?

“…One specific means for making this distinction is through examining group "spiraling." Spirals were first identified by Scheidel and Crowell (1964) in their pioneering work on the process by which groups discuss proposals. They discovered a tendency for groups to discuss a proposal for awhile, drop it and turn to other proposals, and then, if that first proposal was favorably evaluated, return to it at a later time (see also Fisher, 1970;Pavitt & Johnson, 2002, for empirical support).…”

The judicial dialogue

“…Specifically, (1) court interaction will be characterized in general by a spiral pattern with activity focused around anchor points of clearly established doctrine with periodic reach-tests that may become new anchors and contribute to a spiral evolution of the court's position (Scheidel and Crowell, 1964); (2) when the court faces particularly difficult cases in which its rationale is unclear, there will be evidence of increased searching through precedents and efforts to define the problem according to a different perspective or to delay the problem through denial of certiorari, remanding on technical grounds, or calling for reargument; (3) if there are sharp divisions among the justices, opinions will reflect more dissent and apparent bargaining in which the majority has clearly been modified to achieve consensus, and there will be an increase in opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part, or merely not concurring in full with the majority, much of the discussion being oriented toward trying to find acceptable criteria for deciding such cases.…”