Research Theory in Communication Institution Affiliated Date

Thoughtful advice for those who know they are right Using skepticism to remain skeptic about personal opinions identify and dismiss any intuitions that are not supported by facts stay on course based on facts and available evidence Do not deviate from the rational course due to pressure from self-assertive members Intuitions that are not supported by facts are a cause for untrustworthiness communication involves talking to several people who are bound (and justifiably so) to have varying opinions. Some of these stances and opinions from group members could well be off the point but because of communication etiquette they still have to be accommodated. One of the best strategies to use in group communication is to remain skeptic about personal opinions and staying on course based on facts and available evidence. In group communication more often than not members will deviate from the rational path or focus because of the effect self-assured members have in airing out their views and opinions. If you know for certain that you are right, use skepticism to scan any assertions made contrary. Also, skepticism will enable you identify and dismiss any intuitions that are not supported by facts as mere rumors and hence the cause for untrustworthiness.

Dewey’s steps for reflective thinking John Dewey (1997) outlined six steps through which people should organize their thoughts in reflective thinking The steps imitate triage discussions with a doctor The steps help to assess the situation and fix wrong information Dewey’s steps can be applied with Hirokawa and Gouran’s four requisite functions (Hirokawa, 1985). The first step is to recognize the presence of wrong information based on personal understanding of the topic of discussion. This can be done by paying attention to the signs that information is based on personal opinion. The next thing is to find the cause, determine a way to correct the information all through to implementing the solution (Carol, 2002)

Ethical reflection Jürgen Habermas (1996) outlined aways through which groups can distinguish right from wrong in a public discourse ethics Ethics is all about being accountable for what you say or do Ethical reflection enables people to develop similar goals Having similar goals increases wisdom Jürgen Habermas (1996) outlined aways through which groups can distinguish right from wrong in a public discourse ethics. Ethically, people are supposed to maintain accountability of what they say and take full responsibility of the consequences of their assertions. Harbermas created a process to be used in group communication to ensure that all assertions by the various participants are true and that important decisions are based on facts and not on wrong information and personal opinions.

Ethical reflection Cont’d People should reflect on why they do things They should also reflect on how they did those things All affected parties should be allowed to discuss about those actions An environment should be created to allow people to questions actions that affect them Such an environment can exist if: There is free access to the venue by all people affected by the actions There is argumentation by the various parties There is a discussion on universal applicability

Criticism Functional perspective gives a lot of importance to rationality at the expense of other possible issues of equal significance FOICS theory on its part does not take into consideration group relationships Various scholars have come out to challenge these theories at various capacities. They include: Cynthia Stohl and Michael Holmes (1993) Gouran To a significant extend rationality is overrated. For example, functional perspective although being one of the widely accepted theories in group communication, it gives a lot of importance to rationality at the expense of other possible issues of equal significance. FOICS theory on its part does not take into consideration group relationships. In fact, Cynthia Stohl and Michael Holmes (1993) observe that small groups usually have a history of decision making which should not be ignored because they influence how future decisions are made. Other critics like Gouran have also come out to express their doubts over functional perspective applicability and relevance in small groups.

References Carol, R. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers college record, 104(4), 842-866. Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. Courier Corporation. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Mit Press. Hirokawa, R. Y. (1985). Discussion procedures and decision‐making performance. Human Communication Research, 12(2), 203-224. Stohl, C., & Holmes, M. E. (1993). A functional perspective for bona fide groups. Annals of the International Communication Association, 16(1), 601-614.