Toward a Taxonomy of Small Group Interaction-Coding Systems

Abstract

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

Multidisciplinary group performance – measuring integration intensity in the context of the North West London Integrated Care Pilot

“…With this method, we are not assuming that our coding accurately represents that which the speaker him or herself intended to mean [ 30 ]. Our coding is simply a way to classify utterances against predetermined categories that are theoretically meaningful from the researcher’s perspective.…”

“…Our coding is simply a way to classify utterances against predetermined categories that are theoretically meaningful from the researcher’s perspective. Furthermore, we cannot comment on the intentionality behind MDG communication patterns [ 30 ]. If Case Discussions appeared to be integrative we are assuming that participants intended them to be so.…”

“…Finally, we do not deliver an exhaustive conversation analysis, rather a pragmatic coding scheme of potential practical and empirical value. Coding schemes can be developed to tap into one or several theoretical concepts or communicative behaviors; utterances can be multidimensional even though by methodological convention they tend to be mutually exclusive with each behavior being classified into one and only one category [ 30 ]. There is always a trade-off between the number of categories and inter-observer reliability; our categories are relatively simple and require a low level of inferential coding judgment, which provides considerable operational convenience [ 30 ].…”

Argumentation and Emotional Processes in Group Decision-Making: Illustration of a Multilevel Interaction Process Analysis Approach

“…In general, it is not possible to catch these situations on videotape. Trujillo (1986) proposed a taxonomy of six dimensions for small group interaction-coding systems. Within this taxomony, the CCS can be considered similar to the IPA: concerning the dimension 'philosophical perspective', the observer takes an 'experiencing view' trying to code the behavior on how it is perceived by the interaction partners.…”

Team design communication patterns in e-learning design and development

“…Even though reliability is considered one of the main validation techniques for coding methods (Trujillo, 1986), it is hardly ever reported by design researchers (Goldschmidt, 1996), mainly because in general it is difficult to obtain a satisfying TEAM DESIGN COMMUNICATION PATTERNS IN E-LEARNING measure due to subjectivity of inferences. Regardless this general tendency, our proposed coding scheme obtained highly satisfying results.…”