Analyzing Group Interaction: Passion, Patience, and Persistence Required!

1
Analyzing Group Interaction Passion, Patience,
and Persistence Required!

• Renee A. Meyers
• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
• INGRoup Conference
• Methods Plenary Session
• July 29, 2006

2
Outline

• General definition and overview of interaction
  analysis
• Current issues and trends
• Exemplars of this approach
• Areas and opportunities for methodological
  exploration and development

3
Observation and Analysis of Group Interaction

• We need to observe, and we need to do it very
  well, with imagination, with boldness, and with
  dedication. If we do not observe, we shall never
  see what is there. If we never see what is
  there, we shall never see the patterns in what is
  there. Without the patterns, there will never be
  the kind of theory that we can build with.
• Bakeman Gottman (1986)

4
What does it look like?

• Two forms
• Qualitative observation and analysis
• Conversation analysis
• Discourse analysis
• Participant observation

5
What does it look like?

• Quantitative Analyses
• Use of observational schemes (carefully defined,
  pre-established categories) used to classify
  objectively communicative behaviors of group
  members
• Videotaping and transcribing of group interaction
• Trained observers identify segments of group
  interaction as codable units and then classify
  these units within the categories of a
  predetermined observational scheme
• Information on interactive structure
• Distributional structure of interaction
• Sequential structure of categorized units
• Remains one of most important tools in group
  communication research

6
Common Criticisms

• Oversimplifies complex nature of communication
• Doesnt uncover important structural features of
  interaction

7
Common Issues and Trends

• Identifying unit of analysis
• Most commonutterance or idea unit
• Each stretch of talk that can be interpreted as
  an independent clause, nonrestrictive dependent
  clause, term of address, acknowledgement, or
  element of a compound predicate (Stiles, 1978)
• Hirokawa Functional utterance is an
  uninterrupted statement of a single member that
  appears to perform a specified function within
  the group interaction process (1982)
• Other Units
• Topics
• Words
• Timed segments
• Turn-at-talk
• Whole discussion

8
Current Issues and Trends

• What is focus of study?
• Functionscommon in many investigations
• IPA (gives information, relieves tension)
• Argument (offers evidence, frames, agrees)
• Group development(identifies problem, orients,
  identifies solution)
• Other foci
• Content of messages
• Relational/Emotional elements

9
Current Issues and Trends

• Coding and Coding Scheme Issues
• Complexity of coding schemenumber and difficulty
  of categories
• Single code (exclusive and exhaustive) or
  multiple codes?
• What type of meaning is analytic scheme designed
  to capture
• Coders as objective observers (less bias)?
• Or cohort observers (richer data)?
• Reliability issues

10
Examplars of Approach

• Bales (1950) Interaction Process Analysis System
• Shows solidarity
• Shows tension release
• Agrees
• Gives suggestion
• Gives opinion
• Gives information
• Asks for information
• Asks for opinion
• Asks for suggestion
• Disagrees
• Shows tension
• Shows antagonism

11
Exemplars of Approach

• HirokawaFunctional Theory
• Two level coding scheme
• Task analysis utterances concerned with the
  understanding of the task by group members
• Criteria assessment utterances concerned with
  identification, development or elaboration of a
  specific standard for evaluating merits of
  choices
• Evaluation positive utterances concerned with
  the identification or clarification of positive
  qualities of choices
• Evaluation negative utterances concerned with
  identification or clarification of negative
  qualities of choices
• Facilitative Influenceutterance that promotes
  groups efforts
• Inhibitive Influenceutterance that retards
  groups efforts

12
Exemplars of Approach

• Poole et al.Group Development (Task Process)
• Problem Definition
• Problem analysisstate causes behind problem
• Problem critiqueevaluate problem analysis
  statement
• Orientation
• Orientationattempts to orient or guide groups
  process
• Process reflectionreflections or evaluations of
  group process or progress
• Solution Development
• Solution analysisgeneral parameters for d-making
  or criteria for solutions
• Solution suggestionsuggestions of alternatives
• Solution elaborationelaborate on previously
  stated alternative
• Solution evaluationevaluate alternatives
• Solution confirmationstate decision in final
  form or ask for confirmation
• Nontaskstatements that have nothing to do with
  decision task
• Simple Agreement
• Simple Disagreement

13
Exemplars of Approach

• KeytonSYMLOG (Bales Cohen, 1979)
• Active, dominant, talks a lot
• Extroverted, outgoing, positive
• Purposeful, democratic task leader
• Assertive, business-like manager
• Authoritarian, controlling, disapproving
• Domineering, tough-minded, powerful
• Provocative, egocentric, shows off
• Jokes around, expressive, dramatic
• Entertaining, sociable, smiling, warm
• Friendly, equalitarian
• Works cooperatively with others
• Analytical, task-oriented, problem-solving
• Legalistic, has to be right

14
Examplars of Approach

• SYMLOG
• Unfriendly, negativistic
• Irritable, cynical, wont cooperate
• Shows feelings and emotions
• Affectionate, likable, fun to be with
• Looks up to others, appreciative, trustful
• Gentle, willing to accept responsibility
• Obedient, works submissively
• Self-punishing, works too hard
• Depressed, sad, resentful, rejecting
• Alienated, quits, withdraws
• Afraid to try, doubts own ability
• Quietly happy just to be with others
• Passive, introverted, says little

15
Exemplars of Approach

• Meyers, Seibold, BrashersGroup Argument
• Arguables
• Potential Arguables
• Assertionsstatements of fact or opinion
• Propositionsstatements that call for support,
  action
• Reason-Using Arguables
• Elaborationsstatements that provide evidence,
  reasons,
• Responsesstatements that defend arguables
• Reason-Giving Arguables
• Amplificationsestablish relevance through
  inference
• Justificationsestablish validity through rules
  of logic
• Reinforcers
• Agreement
• Acknowledgements
• Agreement (plus)agreement plus another statement

16
Exemplars of Approach

• Meyers, Seibold, Brashers, and othersGroup
  Argument
• Promptors
• Objections
• Objections (plus)
• Challenges
• Delimitors
• Framesprovide a context or qualify arguables
• Forestall-Secureattempt to forestall refutation
  by securing common ground
• Forestall-Removeattempt to forestall refutation
  by removing possible objections
• Nonarguables
• Process statements
• Unrelated statements
• Incomplete statements

17
Opportunities for Methodological Exploration and
Development

• More coding schemes that address aspects other
  than group task functions
• Relational
• Emotion
• Content features
• Computer programs that transcribe group
  interaction data
• Pooling group data (cyberinfrastructure)
  
• Computer-assisted coding

18
Final Overview

• General definition and overview of interaction
  analysis
• Current issues and trends
• Exemplars of this approach
• Areas and opportunities for methodological
  exploration and development