Functional theory is theory in which the central core includes a description of attributes that lead to good consequencesfor, and/or that satisfy agoal of, a system or the system's designer or user. The application of functional theory to small group discussion requires the theorist to make two types of theoretical commitments. First, functional theories should include scientific functional explanations. Second, finctional theories should include a description of necessary discussionfunctions on one and only one level of abstraction. Three well-known functional approaches to group discussion, those of Benne and Sheats, Bales, and Hirokawa, are described, and the two commitment requirements are applied to these approaches. All three approaches are shown to contain incomplete explanations and to describe functions on different levels of abstraction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Achinstein, P. (1983). The nature of explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
Bales, R. F. (1953). The equilibrium problem in small groups. In T. Parsons, R. F. Bales, & E. A. Shils, Working papers in the theory of action (pp. 111-161). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
3.
Bales, R. F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
4.
Bass, B. M. (1981). Stogdill's handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research (rev. ed.). New York: Free Press.
5.
Benne, K. D. , & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4(2), 41-49.
6.
Bennett, J. (1971). Locke, Berkeley, Hume: Central theses. Oxford: Clarendon.
7.
Brown, H. I. (1977). Perception, theory, and commitment. Chicago: Precedent.
8.
Burrell, G. , & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann.
9.
Delia, J. G. (1977). Alternative perspectives forthe study of human communication: Critique and response. Communication Quarterly, 25(1), 46-62.
10.
Fontes, N. , & Guardalabene, N. (1976). Structural-functionalism: An introduction to the literature. Human Communication Research, 2, 299-310.
11.
Friedman, M. (1974). Explanation and human understanding. Journal of Philosophy, 71, 5-19.
12.
Goldman, A. I. (1970). A theory of human action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
13.
Gouran, D. S. (1986). Inferential errors, interaction, and group decision-making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 93-112). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14.
Gouran, D. S. , & Hirokawa, R. Y (1983). The role of communication in decisionmaking groups: A functional perspective. In M. S. Mander (Ed.), Communications in transition (pp. 168-185). New York: Praeger.
15.
Gouran, D. S. , & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1986). Counteractive functions of communication in effective group decision making. In R. Y Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 81-90). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16.
Harre, R. (1984). The philosophies of science (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
Harre, R. , & Madden, E. H. (1973). Natural powers and powerful natures. Philosophy, 48, 209-230.
18.
Hempel, C. G. , & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15, 135-175.
19.
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1982). Group communication and problem-solving effectiveness I: A critical review of inconsistent findings. Communication Quarterly, 30, 131-144.
20.
Hirokawa, R. Y (1983). Group communication and problem-solving effectiveness II: An exploratory investigation of procedural functions. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47, 59-74.
21.
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1985). Discussion procedures and decision-making performance: A test of a functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 12, 203-224.
22.
Hirokawa, R. Y (1988). Group communication and decision-making performance: A continued test of the functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 14, 487-515.
23.
Hirokawa, R. Y , & Pace, R. (1983). A descriptive analysis of the possible communicationbased reasons for effective and ineffective group decision making. Communication Monographs, 50, 363-379.
24.
Hirokawa, R. Y. , & Scheerhom, D. R. (1986). Communication in faulty group decisionmaldng. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decisionmaking (pp. 63-80). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25.
Hirst, R. J. (1959). The problems of perception. London: Allen and Unwin.
26.
Karau, S. J. , & Kelly, J. R. (1992). The effects of time scarcity and ime abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 542-571.
27.
Mills, T. M. (1964). Group transformation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
28.
Monge, P. R. (1977). The systems perspective as a theoretical basis for the study of human communication. Communication Quarterly, 25(1), 19-29.
29.
Pavitt, C. (1992). Describing know-how about group discussion procedure: Must the representation be recursive?Communication Studies, 43, 150-170.
30.
Pavitt, C. , & Curtis, E. (1994). Small group discussion: A theoretical approach (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch-Scarisbrick.
31.
Pitt, J. C. (Ed.). (1988). Theories of explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
33.
Poole, M. S. , & Doelger, J. A. (1986). Developmental processes in group decision-making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 35-61). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
34.
Salmon, W. C. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
Scriven, M. (1959). The covering law position: A critique and an alternative analysis. In P. Gardiner (Ed.), Theories of history (pp. 443-471). New York: Free Press.
36.
Scriven, M. (1962). Explanations, predictions, and laws. In H. Feigl & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, vol. 3 (pp. 170-230). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
37.
Searle, J. R. (1981). The intentionality of intention and action. In D. A. Norman (Ed.), Perspectives on cognitive science (pp. 207-230). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
38.
Seibold, D. R. , & Meyers, R. A. (1986). Communication and influence in group decisionmaking. In R. Y Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decisionmaking (pp. 133-155). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39.
Slater, P. E. (1966). Microcosm: Structural, psychological and religious evaluation in groups. New York: Wiley.
40.
Taylor, C. (1970). The explanation of purposive behaviour. In R. Borger & F. Cioffi (Eds.), Explanation in the behavioural sciences (pp. 49-79). London: Cambridge University Press.
41.
Trusted, J. (1987). Inquiry and understanding. London: MacMillan.
42.
Turk, H. (1961). Instrumental and expressive ratings reconsidered. Sociometry, 24, 76-81.
43.
Wright, L. (1976). Teleological explanations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
