Functional Theory and Communication in Decision-Making
                    and Problem-Solving Groups: An Expanded View

Gouran, Dennis S.; Hirokawa, Randy Y.

doi:10.4135/9781452243764.n3

Cited by 84 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Hirokawa and colleagues (Gouran & Hirokawa, 1996;Hirokawa, 1982aHirokawa, , 1982bHirokawa & Pace, 1983) laid out a set of decision-making functions that groups should pursue to make quality decisions. One might argue that in their set of functional codes, disagreement-based features of discussion likely are examples of group-centric speech because, in principle, it takes two (or more) to argue and to reach consensus, whereas other types of functional contributions, for example, orientation (depending on the coding scheme used) do not require the same type of interdependence, and may be more egocentric in nature.…”

Section: Functional Approaches To Group Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Functional Communication as Egocentric or Group-Centric: Application of a Latent Group Model

Bonito¹,

Meyers

2011

Communication Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional communication in small groups is generally treated as a medium (i.e., reflecting and explained by individual proclivities) or as constitutive (i.e., interaction has independent effects on outcomes). Rather than approach the problem as either/or, we assume that functional communication consists of both processes. To explore this assumption, we applied two models that offer contrasting views on this debate*Hewes's (1986, 1996, 2009) socio-egocentric model and Gonzalez and Griffin's (2002) latent group model*to four published group interaction datasets to examine the extent to which communication has individual-and group-level characteristics. Analyzed individually, the data exhibited a large proportion of egocentricity but very little grouplevel connections. An analysis of the combined and recoded data, however, revealed that discussion consists of both egocentric and group speech, but that the patterns differ. We then discuss the theoretical implications for observed patterns at different levels of analysis in the data.

show abstract

Section: Functional Approaches To Group Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Functional Communication as Egocentric or Group-Centric: Application of a Latent Group Model

Bonito¹,

Meyers

2011

Communication Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Functional theory suggests that effective communication for group problem solving relies on appropriate member interaction (Gouran & Hirokawa, 1996) but does not reveal what that interaction looks like. Cost-benefit analysis is also recognized as an essential element (Bazerman & Neale, 1992).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

An experiment-based methodology to understand the dynamics of group decision making

Mason

Holley

Wells

et al. 2016

Socio-Economic Planning Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dr. Thomas Wuerzer holds a Ph.D. in Regional Development Planning with particular emphasis on mixed-use developments and their economic optimization. His applied research focuses on investigating complex spatial issues with geographic information systems (GIS). Recent projects include research on wildfires in Idaho, economic impacts of parks, and novel GIS approaches to cycling infrastructure (bike share systems) and cyclists' behavior. where he works on data visualization projects for improved neurosurgical planning and treatment. His research focuses on developing and evaluating the ability of novel visualization techniques to communicate information for effective decision making and discovery. He received his PhD from the University of Maryland Baltimore County and his postdoctoral training at Yale University. AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank the student researchers Paul Morrow, Remington Buyer, Kyle Brookman, Steven Shofner, Michelle Wilson, and Kyle Prewitt for their excellent research assistance, and everyone who generously agreed to participate in the group decision-making pilot project.A version of this paper was presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Urban Affairs in San Antonio, TX. Funding Acknowledgements

show abstract

“…Consideration of participant and contextual variations, akin to Gouran and Hirokawa's (1996) ''functional constraints,'' might shed light on which factors obstruct democratic deliberation.…”

Section: Ideas For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The analytic aspect of deliberation involves four steps: creating a solid information base, identifying and prioritizing key values, identifying a broad range of solutions, and weighing the pros and cons of decisions (Gouran & Hirokawa, 1996). This entails processing both factual information and the vantage points of affected parties with often conflicting values and viewpoints (Benhabib, 1996).…”

Section: Criteria For Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Did They Deliberate? Applying an Evaluative Model of Democratic Deliberation to the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review

Knobloch¹,

Gastil

Reedy

et al. 2013

Journal of Applied Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional Theory and Communication in Decision-Making and Problem-Solving Groups: An Expanded View

Cited by 84 publications

References 0 publications

Examining Functional Communication as Egocentric or Group-Centric: Application of a Latent Group Model

Examining Functional Communication as Egocentric or Group-Centric: Application of a Latent Group Model

An experiment-based methodology to understand the dynamics of group decision making

Did They Deliberate? Applying an Evaluative Model of Democratic Deliberation to the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About