The functional perspective represents one of three dominant theoretical influences on the study of group communication. Howeve, problems inherent to the application of structural-functional models to the analysis of group communication processes are formidable and in need of address. One of the most serious problemsfacing researchers is the need to reconcile the multifunctional nature of communicative acts. This essay addresses this concern and offers several alternative approaches to dealing with it.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, T. , & Goodman, L. (1957). Statistical inference about Markov chains. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 28, 89-110.
2.
Bales, R. F (1950). Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3.
Bales, R. F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
4.
Benne, K. D. , & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41-49.
5.
Borgatta, E. F. , & Crowther, B. (1965). A workbook for the study of social interaction processes. Chicago: Rand McNally.
6.
Cragan, J. F. , & Wright, D. W. (1990). Small group communication research of the 1980s: A synthesis and critique. Communication Studies, 41, 212-236.
7.
Goldman, A. I. (1970). A theory of human action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
8.
Gouran, D. S. , Hirokawa, R. Y, Julian, K. M., & Leatham, G. B. (1992). The evolution and current status of the functional perspective on communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups: A critical analysis. Communication Yearbook, 16, 573-600.
9.
Hewes, D. E. (1979). The sequential analysis of social interaction. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65, 56-73.
10.
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.
11.
Hirokawa, R. Y (1985). Discussion procedures and decision-making performance: A test of a functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 12, 203-224.
12.
Hirokawa, R. Y (1988). Group communication and decision-making performance: A continued test of the functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 14, 487-515.
13.
Leathers, D. G. (1971). The feedback rating instument: A new means of evaluating discussion. Central States Speech Journal, 22, 32-42.
14.
Poole, M. S. (1981). Decision development in small groups I: A comparison of two models. Communication Monographs, 48, 1-24.
15.
Poole, M. S. (1983a). Decision development in small groups II: A study of multiple sequences in group development. Communication Monographs, 50, 206-232.
16.
Poole, M. S. (1983b). Decision development in small groups III: A multiple sequence model of group decision development. Communication Monographs, 50, 321-341.
17.
Poole, M. S. , & Doelger, J. A. (1986). Developmental processes in group decision-making. In R. Y. Hirokawa and M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 35-62). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
18.
Poole, M. S. , & Roth, J. (1989a). Decision development in small groups IV: A typology of group decision paths. Human Communication Research, 15, 323-356.
19.
Poole, M. S. , & Roth, J. (1989b). Decision development in small groups V: Test of a contingency model. Human Communication Research, 15, 549-589.
20.
Sackett, G. P. (1978). The lag sequential analysis of contingency and cyclicity in behavioral interaction research. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development. New York: Wiley.
