Although there are different views toward the use of simulations for research purposes, interactional data produced in a simulated setting (simulated data) is still common in the field of business communication research. However, little research has been conducted to investigate the extent to which simulated interactional data can be used as an alternative to authentic business communication data. In this commentary, we review the controversy over the use of simulated data and discuss some contextual factors that may influence the authenticity of simulated data. We also provide suggestions for improving the compatibility of simulated data when researching business communication.
AngouriJ.MarraM. (2010). Corporate meetings as genre: A study of the role of the chair in corporate meeting talk. Text & Talk, 30, 615-636.
2.
AritzJ.WalkerR. C. (2014). Leadership styles in multicultural groups: Americans and East Asians working together. International Journal of Business Communication, 51, 72-92.
3.
AsmussB.SvennevigJ. (2009). Meeting talk: An introduction. International Journal of Business Communication, 46, 3-22.
4.
BaxterJ. (2015). Who wants to be the leader? The linguistic construction of emerging leadership in differently gendered teams. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 427-451.
5.
BeebeL. M.CummingsM. C. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In GassS. M.NeuJ. (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 65-86). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
6.
BodenD. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
7.
ChanA. (2017). Constructing a “competent” meeting chair: A study of the discourse of meeting chairing in a Hong Kong workplace. In Van de MieroopD.SchnurrS. (Eds.), Identity struggles: Evidence from workplaces around the world (pp. 39-55). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
8.
ChanA.Du-BabcockB. (2019). Leadership in action: An analysis of leadership behaviour in intercultural business meetings. Language & Intercultural Communication, 19, 201-216.
9.
CotterR.FritzscheD. (1991). The business policy game: Player’s manual (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10.
Du-BabcockB. (1999). Topic management and turn taking in professional communication: First- versus second-language strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 544-574.
11.
Du-BabcockB. (2006). An analysis of topic management strategies and turn-taking behavior in Hong Kong bilingual environment: The impact of culture and language use. International Journal of Business Communication, 43, 21-42.
12.
Du-BabcockB. (2013). English as business lingua franca: A comparative analysis of communication behavior and strategies in Asian and European contexts. Ibérica, 26, 99-130.
13.
Du-BabcockB.TanakaH. (2013). A comparison of the communication behaviors of Hong Kong Chinese and Japanese business professionals in intracultural and intercultural decision-making meetings. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 27, 263-287.
14.
EdmondsB. T.McKenzieF.FadelW. F.MatthiasM. S.SalyersM. P.BarnatoA. E.FrankelR. M. (2014). Using simulation to assess the influence of race and insurer on shared decision making in periviable counselling. Simulation in Healthcare, 9, 353-359. doi:10.1097/SIH.0000000000000049
15.
EhlichK.WagnerJ. (Eds.). (1995). The discourse of business negotiation. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
16.
EisensteinM.BodmanJ. W. (1993). Expressing gratitude in American English. In KasperG.Blum-KulkaS. (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 64-81). New York, NY: Oxford University Press
17.
EwaldJ. (2012). “Can you tell me how to get there?” Naturally-occurring versus role-play data in direction giving. Pragmatics, 22, 79-102.
18.
Félix-BrasdeferJ. C. (2010). Data collection methods in speech act performance. In Martinez-FlorA.Usó-JuanE. (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 41-56). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
19.
FirthA. (1995). Introduction and overview. In FirthA. (Ed.), The discourse of negotiation: Studies of language in the workplace (pp. 3-39). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
20.
GordonC. (2013). Beyond the observer’s paradox: The audio-recorder as a resource for the display of identity. Qualitative Research, 13, 299-317.
HandfordM. (2010). The language of business meetings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HalvorsenK.SarangiS. (2015). Team decision-making in workplace meetings: The interplay of activity roles and discourse roles. Journal of Pragmatics, 76, 1-14.
24.
HolmesJ. (2000). Doing collegiality and keeping control at work: Small talk in government departments. In CouplandJ. (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 32-61). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
25.
HolmesJ.StubbeM. (2015). Power and politeness in the workplace: A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work. London, England: Routledge.
26.
KasperG. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In Spencer-OateyH. (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 316-341). London, England: Continuum.
27.
KernbachS.EpplerM.BrescianniS. (2015). The use of visualization in the communication of business strategies: An experimental evaluation. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 164-187.
28.
PlankenB. (2005). Managing rapport in lingua franca sales negotiations: A comparison of professional and aspiring negotiators. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 381-400.
29.
PlankenB. (2012). The changing landscape of business communication: Developments and directions in research. In HeynderickxP.DieltjensS.JacobsG.GillaertsP.de GrootE. (Eds.), The language factor in international business: New perspectives on research, teaching and practice (pp. 17-40). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
30.
PomerantzA.DenvirP. (2007). Enacting the institutional role of chairperson in upper management meetings: The interactional realization of provisional authority. In CoorenF. (Ed.), Interacting and organizing: Analyses of a management meeting (pp. 31-52). London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
SacksH.SchegloffE. A.JeffersonG. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
32.
SekaranU.BougieR. (2014). Research methods for business. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
33.
StokoeE. (2013). The (in)authenticity of simulated talk: Comparing role-played and actual interaction and the implications for communication training. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46, 165-185.
34.
Sudajit-apaM. (2015). Role of simulations in the Thai graduate business English program: Can they engage and elicit learners’ realistic use of specific language?Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5, 282-291.
35.
UlijnJ. (2000). Innovation and international business communication: Can European research help to increase the validity and reliability for our business and teaching practice? 1999 Outstanding Researcher Lecture. International Journal of Business Communication, 37, 173-187.
36.
van der WijstP.UlijnJ. (1995). Politeness in French/Dutch negotiation. In EhlichK.WagnerJ. (Eds.), The discourse of business negotiation (pp. 313-348). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
37.
VineB. (2004). Getting things done at work: The discourse of power in workplace interaction. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
38.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
39.
WestermanC. Y. K.SmithS. W. (2015). Opening a performance dialogue with employees: Facework, voice, and silence. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 29, 456-489.
40.
WhiteR. (1997). Back channelling, repair, pausing, and private speech. Applied Linguistics, 18, 314-344.
41.
WhiteS.CaseyM. (2016). Understanding differences between actual and simulated surgical consultations: A scoping study. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 36, 257-272.
