Dennis Gouran Communication in Groups The Emergence and Evolution of a Field of Study

s Pedagogical concerns about how to prepare students for effective performance in decision- making and problem-solving groups animated early interests in group communication by speech scholars. – Group discussion pedagogy was often justified as preparing students for participation in public life and democracy. – Theory--when it came to such pedagogy--was drawn from John Dewey’s philosophical account of reflective thinking (How We Think 1910).

1930s-1940s Speech scholars began to realize the need for more sophisticated theories in the 1930s (e.g., regarding disruptive group members and effective use of rational procedures). However, little research by speech scholars was directed toward the subject of group communication before – After that time, effective task performance by groups was significantly represented in research studies. – But major advances in communication inquiry were increasingly concerned with the role of relational communication in groups.

1950s Early research on group communication explored questions related to effectiveness of individual and group decision-making. Topics included: – effects on decision-making of critical thinking ability – utility of meeting agendas – group-members’ personalities – competition and cooperation – self-concept and group-member performance – effects of cooperative thinking in groups

1950s Research in this decade, says Gouran, “contributed to the view that characteristics of members and groups have an important bearing on their performance. Mastery of discussion methods alone was insufficient to ensure that groups, especially task-oriented ones, would function effectively” (8).

1960s Research in this decade attended chiefly to functional and developmental perspectives on group communication.

1960s The functional perspective explored “how such variables as members’ abilities and styles of behavior-- including communicative behavior--as well as groups’ satisfaction of task requirements to the outcomes that members and groups achieve” (9). – This perspective presumed a linear process of task-related communication. – It also presupposed that the most effective way to make decisions and solve problems was to follow a sequence based on Dewey (1910) as adapted to group tasks: “definition of problem, analysis of the problem, proposing possible solutions, testing solutions against criteria, and selecting or constructing a solution” (Phillips 1966).

1960s The developmental perspective attended to the content of group-member utterances and how the group interaction they create develops and defines the relationships among group members. – Results in this perspective questioned findings about predictable phases of interaction sequences. In opposition to Bales and Strotbeck (1951), Scheidel and Crowell (1964, 1966) found that interactions do not unfold in linear developmental sequences. – Other research found that themes in task-oriented group discussions reflected emerging group culture (Berg 1967) and that particular characteristics of discussion statements served to disrupt decision-making in groups (Leathers 1969).

1960s According to Gouran, the major achievement of this decade was a “unprecedented attention to what members say to one another, how the content of speech acts affects relationships among members, and what, in particular, such acts have to do with the outcomes that groups achieve” (11).

1970s This decade represented a “diversification of topics, issues, and contexts of investigation,” though without consensus on a theoretical framework to guide research. Despite the lack of consensus, Gouran believes that many studies were grounded in a “Systems Perspective, in that they were concerned with the ways in which both the flow and characteristics of interaction were interrelated” (11)

1970s Task-oriented group communication was studied with a view toward improving performance. – However, group communication in public (social or political) venues was less emphasized. – Researchers recognized the importance of group communication in professional arenas, such as organizations.

1970s Group interaction was studied in relation to numerous variables, not least in relation to the relation to leadership (emergence and impact). However there was increasing dissatisfaction with the lack of theory to guide and integrate inquiry, often concerning interaction in zero- history groups.

1980s The 1980s saw a remarkable proliferation of theories related to group communication, some of which represented formalization of outlooks that had been significant in research for some time (15). – Functional Theory: “concerned with explaining how interaction affects group outcomes-- especially the quality of decision and effectiveness of solutions to problems.”

1980s – Developmental Theory: concerned with “how group interaction unfolds and shapes itself over time.” – Structuration Theory: “shared some concerns addressed by Developmental theory. It differed, however, in its inclusion of internal factors (rules and resources) that shape and are shaped by patterns of group interaction, as well as its identification of structures as the generative mechanisms underlying interaction in groups.

1980s – Symbolic Convergence Theory: “concerned with “processes of meaning construction that originate at the dyadic and group level and culminate--and even influence occurrences--at the organizational, institutional, and societal levels.” – Socio-Egocentric Theory: “predicts group decisions on the basis of prediscussion preferences of group members.” This theory reflects skepticism that task-oriented communication in groups affects decisions made by the group.

1990s Major changes in group communication research during the 1990s include the following. – Reduction of attention to group decision-making and problem solving. Skepticism about the efficacy and technical characterization of communication in task-oriented groups Skepticism about the relevance of rational models for explaining groups decision making.

1990s – Broadening research to include more types of groups. – Bona Fide Groups perspective, which comprehends natural groups in their contexts (organizational, institutional, social), considers how multiple roles and role boundaries along with shifting borders and group membership influence the behavior of group members. – Naturalistic Paradigm, which takes a quasi-cultural perspective on natural groups and employs qualitative empirical methods.