Favorite Concept: Ethnography

One of my favorite concepts throughout this course was the concept of ethnography. Research is such an important part of learning about new things so I find all areas of research somewhat interesting. What makes ethnography stand out to me is that it involves the researcher going "undercover" to conduct the research. The researcher actually gets involved in the group they are studying. However, since the researcher can get involved with relationships there is the possibility that the research may end up being a little biased. Even though researchers try their best to conduct reliable research it is possible that this method may provide contaminated evidence.

I chose this concept because I find it so interesting. I like the fact that the researcher actually shares some of the experiences with those being observed. I also think that it is the best research method to produce authentic results. For example, if the researcher can keep his or her personal feelings out of the research, and the subjects don't know they are being observed, the researcher is able to observe people in their natural environment.

My Thoughts on This Class

I have learned so much from this class. The course material is very interesting and is also quite diverse. Since there were so many topics covered I did not get bored and was constantly learning new things. Overall, the biggest thing I learned from this class was how to succeed in an online class. This was my first online class and I was a little nervous going into it. I am a little embarrassed to say that this is first time I have read an entire text book. Because there is no lecture portion to this class, it is completely up to me to learn the material.

My favorite thing about this class was probably the fact that I could go at my own pace. Even though we had things due every week, it was nice to be able to turn assignments in at any time of day. I also really enjoyed reading all of the posts. It was interesting to find out what everybody thought about some of the course concepts.

I don't necessarily have a least favorite thing about this class. Something that I had a hard time getting used to though was relying solely on the text book to learn the material. In the past I have been heavily reliant on lecture notes. I am glad that I was able to learn a new way to study.

I don't really think anything can be done to improve this class. Professor Perez was very responsive and helpful. I am very glad that I took this class.

Concept I Found Most Interesting: Nonverbal Communication

I found nonverbal communication to be the most interesting concept from this class. I have always known that people communicated nonverbally however, I never fully understood how big of an impact it can have. I also thought that the eyes were the part of the body that gave away if a person was lying, when in fact, it is a person's body language. A person simply playing with their jewelry or hair can indicate that they are nervous or uncomfortable. Nonverbal communication is basically a whole other language that needs to be studied. I also found it interesting that there is debate about who is communicating in nonverbal communication, whether it is the sender or the receiver. In some cases, the sender doesn't even realize they are sending a message and the person receiving the message may not be the intended receiver.

The whole idea of nonverbal communication is fascinating. There are so many aspects about it that can be studied. I really enjoyed doing the journal on this topic because I found it so interesting. After learning about nonverbal communication I have been extra conscious about my own body language and the nonverbal messages I send people. However, I am sure that I still send nonverbal messages without even realizing.

Concept from Chapter 2: Speech Community

I found the idea of a speech community particularly interesting. A speech community is when people share common styles of communication along with common ways of thinking about it. I found it interesting that there can be small speech communities along with larger ones. I find small speech communities fascinating. The way that a small group of people can develop almost a language that only they understand. I like that the book pointed out locker room talk as a speech community. It is no secret that locker room talk occurs but until you are actually in the locker room an outsider can only guess what is being said. Excluding locker room talk, athletes come up with their own "language" on the field. I played soccer for a number of years and if we wanted the ball we would just yell "yea, yea yea" until we received it or the ball was passed to someone else. Or if the other team was getting close to the person with the ball we would say "man on." Now if we were talking in a normal conversation we wouldn't talk like we do on the field. Also, if someone were to play a game with us and they weren't an athlete and hadn't been around soccer players in the past they would have no idea what some of the things being said on the field meant. A speech community is a special thing to be a part of.

The Pragmatic Perspective

The pragmatic perspective is an interesting concept. The idea is to look at communication as a pattern of interlocking "moves." I think that it definitely makes sense to view communication as a patterned interaction. After all, when people communicate they follow rules and norms. Communication typically follows the same patterns. For example, when beginning a conversation, people typically exchange pleasantries and when ending a conversation they typically bid each other farewell.

The book compares this perspective to playing a game. This makes sense to me because when people play games they take turns and follow a set of rules. The same thing goes for communicating. When people communicate, they don't typically talk at the same time. One person talks while the other person listens and then they switch roles. Communicators also follow a set of rules when talking. For example, people don't typically talk to people they don't know about religion, politics, and money. Those subjects are usually reserved for deeper conversations, not small talk. One difference between communicating and playing a game is that sometimes people don't always follow the rules or take turns while communicating. Sometimes people talk about inappropriate things or talk over other people. These people are typically frowned upon though.

Social Constructionist Perspective

The social constructionist perspective is very interesting to look at. It views "communication as a process" (p. 24). It also emphasizes the relationship between communication and culture. This brings us to how we "build worlds" through communication. Since the social constructionist perspective links communication and culture, that basically means that communication develops who we are as people. A person's culture shapes who they are as a person. It determines how they dress, how they behave, and most every about them. The relationship goes both ways though. What we say may influence our culture but our culture definitely influences what we say. It is almost like what came first, the chicken or the egg :)

The American culture is very outspoken. If we disapprove of our government we can say so publicly without being thrown in jail. This is not the case in some other countries. In America we have freedom of speech so we can say just about anything we want to, excluding saying things like "fire" in a crowded theater. I think that because we can say what we want we are happy. It is reassuring to know that we are allowed to have opinions and state them freely. Also, since everyone is allowed to have a different opinion we are successful because we can explore all options of a problem. If we all just followed one person's vision and accepted their views, things would not be done as efficiently.

Concept from Chapter 13: Triangulation

I thought the mixed methods of research was an interesting idea. I like the fact that the research is being conducted in different ways. This can also be known as triangulation. That means that a research question is being examined from different perspectives. I feel that this could produce some interesting results. Sometimes research can produce inconclusive results and I think this could be avoided somewhat if different methods are being used.

One way we can use mixed methods is by combining experimental research and content analysis. Experimental research is great for first hand results. It also can be very useful. After the experimental research is completed and the results have been found, the researcher could then start content analysis. The researcher would read through text that focused on what they conducted their experiments on. Both forms of research compliment each other and the content analysis could provide support for the experimental research. On the other hand, the results could be contradictory which might be discouraging for the researcher.

Moral Dilemmas Facing Ethnographers

There are two moral dilemmas facing ethnographers. The first is that it can be deceptive. Since this form of research involves going undercover or actually getting involved with a group the researcher may begin to develop mixed emotions. On one hand, they want to get their research; however on the other hand, they may not want to lie to people that they have grown close to in the group. Another moral dilemma is that the researcher may lose their ability to be objective. Since they are involved in the group or organization they are going to develop friendships and bonds. This could contaminate their research which would result in a biased conclusion.

There are a couple ways to resolve these issues. One type of ethnographic research involves telling the participants that they are being observed. This would mean that the researcher would not have to be as deceptive. They would still need to be in the background observing, but they would no longer be lying. A problem with this though is that the research may not be as authentic because people will now have a guard up or put on a front. The objectivity might be hard to overcome. The only solution I can think of would be to have more than one person conducting the research. That way, more research can be done and it is more likely the information would be accurate.

Table 13.3: Ethnography

I think that Ethnography is the most interesting research method in table 13.3. I like that Ethnography observes behavior in the natural setting. I also like that the researcher's values and assumptions are left out. The conclusions are formed based on observation.

If I wanted to study deception, I would choose the research method that had the most to do with behavior. That would be Ethnography again. My research question would be "What are the most common uses for deception?" Since people use deception for such a wide range of things, I think that I could come up with some pretty interesting research. I would definitely have to have a large sample pool though. If the sample pool wasn't large enough, the observations and evidence collected would be inconclusive. However, that is the case with most research. All of the research methods are interesting, however, the method with the least amount of reliability would be surveys. People's opinions can change in a second and some people are not always truthful on the survey. Actually, thinking about it, since some people lie on surveys, the findings could be used as part of the research on deception :)

The Medium is the Message

I agree with Marshall McLuhan that the medium is the message. I think that advertisers think carefully about the way to sell products based on media. They would not sell a product the same way on TV that they would in print. Also, when TV is the medium, in the case of the news, the anchors and reporters are all sharply dressed. This may or may not be the case with radio. Since we cannot see them, they could very well be wearing sweatpants and t-shirts.

I don't necessarily agree that TV is a cool medium though. I would think that other media would require the listener/viewer to fill in detail. When watching a sporting event on TV, the viewer can see what is going on. The announcers are just there to emphasize certain things and to analyze the players. Where if someone is listening to that same game on the radio, they must develop an image in their mind about what is actually going on. In my opinion, more detail is given on TV because it is visual. Something like the radio requires the listener to use a little more imagination to fill in missing details.

Concept from Chapter 8: The Grapevine

I always thought of the grapevine as being negative. I kind of related it to the game of telephone where messages get lost and changed along the way. I found the part about the grapevine particularly interesting because it changed my outlook a little bit. The book said that the grapevine was actually a positive thing and made the company healthy. Maybe it relates to talking by the water cooler, where people divulge information in a less formal setting. I think that the grapevine can be both good and bad. I am a manager so I can see some of the downsides. Sometimes when the employees talk with each other they get themselves fired up about things that are relatively small in the long run. They also don't have all the information to make an educated decision sometimes. Therefore rumors are started and some employees become unhappy. On the other side, it is good to have informal channels that employees are allowed to communicate through. It makes the work environment more social and not as uptight.

Cyberspace Relationships

I have never formed a relationship that existed exclusively online. I have never even formed a relationship online that continued into face to face. I prefer to meet people face to face. I do keep a few cyber relationships with people that I have met in the past. Some of my old classmates that I went to elementary school with I am able to keep in touch with them online and do not see them in person.

I don't know why I have never developed an online relationship. It might be because I don't "hang out" on the computer very often. I check my emails and maybe go on Facebook but that is about the extent of my usual internet communication (excluding this class of course). I think my mom told me too many horror stories of "you don't know who is on the other end of the computer." When I was younger I used to go into chat rooms but that didn't stick for long. In high school I did find something very interesting though. I had a few friends where we talked more online than we did in person. It was really weird. We would maybe say hi to each other at school but when we got on aim the conversations would sometimes last for hours. This might be because it is easier to talk to someone you can't actually see. Maybe the communicators are braver and can therefore disclose more information. I think that is the idea with online dating. People are able to disclose more of themselves because nobody is there in the moment judging them.

In the future, I might develop an exclusively online relationship. It might be a cool way to meet people. However, for the immediate future, I am going to stick to face to face communication.

Concept from Chapter 7: Maintenance Roles

Reading about group communication in chapter 7 provided a lot of insight for me. I found the part about maintenance roles particularly interesting. I had never really thought about it before, but now that I look back, it seems that in most of the groups I have been in, some if not all of these roles were filled. There is the encourager: the person who gets the group members motivated, and obviously encourages the group. Next, there is the harmonizer: the person who resolves conflict. Then there is the compromiser: the member who looks to find a solution for conflict that involves their own ideas. Fourth there is the gatekeeper. I feel that I fall into this role in most cases. This group member keeps the lines of communication open and gets the group members involved. Next we have the standard setter. This person applies standards to the group process. Then there is the group observer. This member observes and offers feedback. Lastly, there is the follower. This member accepts the ideas of the group and serves as an audience. In the end, if the maintenance roles are performed, the task roles should be easily handled and the group should experience success.

Filters

I have not really thought about the filtering process in a long time. I have been with my boyfriend for over five years so I have not looked for a potential romantic partner in a quite a long time. However, when I was searching for a potential partner, there were a few things that made the other person automatically unattractive. This is very superficial but I used some preinteraction cues. The biggest thing for me was whether the other person had good teeth. That was the first thing that I would notice. This would fall into the physical beauty category. The next thing is the type of shoes the person was wearing. It is slightly embarrassing to admit that but I feel that a person's shoes say a lot about them. If they are torn up or really old, that shows me that they don't necessarily take care of themselves. Another thing that made people unattractive to me was if the conversation started out awkward. Granted, we have all experienced awkward moments with people, however, if you are working hard to begin a conversation, talking points may run out quickly.

After learning about Duck's theory, it does make a lot of sense to me. It makes sense that we would develop relationships with people who share our values and beliefs. It also makes sense that people are more attractive based on location. It is one thing to begin dating someone and the other person moves away and the relationship continues, however, in the beginning relationships should be fun and it is much easier to get to know somebody in person, in my opinion.

I admit that I have judged people based on preinteraction cues in the past. However, I have had a few opportunities to get to know these people and have changed my mind about them. It just goes to show that you "can't always judge a book by it's cover."

In the end, Duck's theory makes a lot of sense to me. Now, when meeting people for the first time, I will consciously make note of these filters and whether or not they are taking place.

Competitive Symmetry

I feel that competitive symmetry would be the most difficult pattern to change. In this pattern, both parties are fighting for the one up position. Meaning, both parties involved want to be the decision maker. I feel this is the most difficult to change because it is hard to get somebody to back down. In rigid complementary, one partner takes the one up and the other takes the one down. There is no competition going on, therefore the one up person may be willing to give the one down person control every once and awhile. In the submissive symmetry, one person will inevitably make a decision and then it becomes the one up and one down situation. I have been a part of many submissive symmetry patterns and have experienced first hand that somebody will eventually make a decision.

I think rigid complementary pattern would be the most damaging to the relationship. This is because one person is constantly being controlled. This person will eventually grow very tired of it and may become angry or resentful. In every case one person is going to make a decision, however, in the ideal relationship, that role is shared equally.

I think rigid complementary is also the most potentially damaging to an individual's self-esteem. One reason being that one person is always being looked over. They are never able to control the situation. When this happens over and over, they will begin to doubt themselves. Also, if the person constantly is being looked over, they will become angry and may even lash out. When this happens, the person usually in control may wonder why. They may think that the person enjoys always doing what the one up decides. In the end, both parties will become doubtful of their own opinions which may lead to doubt in the relationship.

Concept from Chapter 12: Assumption of Similarity

I found the topic of assumption of similarity very interesting. I have a tendency to feel like people are all "the same under the skin" as the book put it. Believing this helps to reduce the feeling of being uncomfortable. What I did not really think about though is that it might result in insensitivity. I guess it makes sense that other cultures do things differently and this would carry over into simple facial gestures. The part that really hit home for me was the example about smiling. I smile at strangers all the time, people that I would never be interested in romantically. It was interesting to me that in some other cultures something as simple as smiling may make the other person think you are a "sexual maniac" as the Japanese student put it (339). However, I thought that it was even more interesting that in Japan when a man smiles at a woman she is to assume that he is being impolite. That is the exact opposite as it is in American culture.

It goes to show that it is important to research a country's culture before you visit. The last thing a traveler wants to do is insult the host country. In the end, it is important to respect all people. The easiest way to do that is to make them feel comfortable.

Rationality, Perfectibility, and Mutability Premises

I believe in the rationality premise in most cases. I believe that most people will discover the truth through logical analysis. However, everybody's truth can be different such as when 10 people see a car accident, there are 10 versions of the story. Trial by jury is based on the rationality premise. However, some trials have shown that it doesn't always work. For example, sometimes innocent people are sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit.

The perfectibility premise is based on a Puritan concept. It basically says that people are born in sin and they can only achieve goodness through effort and control. I don't believe in the perfectibility premise. I don't think that people are born in sin. I do, however, think people can achieve goodness through effort and control.

I believe in the mutability premise. This premise states that human behavior is controlled by the environment they are in. This makes sense to me because I think the environment a person grows up in is highly influential in the person that they become. There are always exceptions to the rule, but overall I believe that people are shaped by their environment. Universal education is based on the mutability premise.

Creatures of Our Culture

I agree with Ruth Benedict. I think that we are all creatures of our culture. From the moment we are born, we are taught to act and dress a certain way. For example, boys are always dressed in blue and never in pink, whereas girls are almost always in pink. This goes back to the nature versus nurture argument a little bit. Are our personality traits products of our surroundings or have they been with us since birth? I think a good example of this would be feral children. In extreme cases when a child is devoid of any human contact with the outside world, or even family, they do not know how to speak or have any signs of relating to a culture. These rare cases really go to show how much of an impact the outside world has on a person relating to one culture or another.

In order to break through the limits of our culture it is important to experience other cultures that are out there. Something as simple as eating food or listening to music from another country can make a huge impact. On the other hand, if you wanted something more extreme, visiting other countries and observing their cultures first hand would broaden our perception of culture infinitely.

Concept from Chapter 5: Eye Behavior

I found the section about eye behavior the most interesting in chapter 5. They say the eyes are the window to the soul and that might be true. Our eyes tell people so much about us. I really enjoyed learning about the history of eyes being associated with magic. It seems so silly to think that looking into someone'e eyes could kill you. I guess that is where they got the idea for Medusa. Eyes were also thought to shoot arrows and daggers along with love's flame. Eyes were pretty impressive and busy throughout history :)

In a more realistic sense though, our eyes do say a lot about us. We all know what it is like to avoid eye contact with a teacher to avoid being called on. We tend to stare at things we view as positive and look away from things that disgust us. Something I did not know though, was that when people find something interesting their pupils enlarge. Overall, the eyes are pretty interesting. If you want to know what a person is really thinking just look into their eyes.

Language and Gender

I believe that men and women use language differently. The examples given in the book about the man making plans without consulting the woman but the woman confirming with the man before making plans really makes sense to me. That happens all the time in my relationship. My boyfriend will make plans for us without talking to me first but I always check with him before making plans for us. The book says that men need to be autonomous where women like to be perceived as in a relationship. This makes sense because men are brought up to be strong, masculine and not show their emotions. When they must consult about plans with their partner it makes them seem as if they are asking permission and that goes against the stereotype.

Something else I find interesting is it seems men take what is said in a conversation at face value where women may try to find other meanings within what was said. Men are much more straight forward in their conversations but women like to share more. Women talk about things that are more personal than men do. Women talk about family and problems within a relationship where men focus on sports or news.

Obviously there could be other factors that shape how we communicate. Gender does however have some effect on language use.

Perception

I don't think it is possible to perceive others without some way judging of categorizing them. Automatically, the first thing people do when we see a person is decide whether or not we want to talk to them. We make assumptions based on the way people look and dress, how they carry themselves, and how they speak. For example, one would assume somebody with a large vocabulary is probably educated or somebody who walks with hunched soldiers has low self esteem. The thing is, if we judge a book by its cover too quickly we may end up disappointed or missing out on getting to know a great person.

In order to make the judgments more fair, people can maybe only make judgments after talking to a person. The person being perceived may be having a bad day or lived a tough life. Until getting to know the person, it is only fair to keep an open mind. No matter how hard that may be, I think that a lot of interesting relationships would develop if that were the case.

Concept from Chapter 10: Speech Anxiety

The concept I found particularly interesting in chapter 10 was about speech anxiety. When I get in front of a group of people I tend to talk really fast and then my words get pushed together. I am conscious that I am doing this but have a hard time slowing down. This all happens because I am nervous and just want the speech to be over quicker. The book gives two ways to lower nervousness. The first is cognitive restructuring. This basically encourages you to think positively about the speech. Think things such as "I know more about this topic than anyone else in the class," or "I am going to do a great job." Thinking positively will give you confidence which in turn should reduce nervousness. The other technique is called physical relaxation. This is relaxing your muscles and taking lots of deep breaths. Now that you are feeling confident and relaxed, there is no way to feel nervous and tense.

Next time I have to give a speech I will definitely remember these techniques. I will also remember that most of the time, the rest of the class is just as nervous as me, so we are all in the same boat.

Memorable Speakers

I haven't had the opportunity to hear many speeches live. I do watch some speeches on TV though such as when the President talks to the nation. One of the best speakers I have ever had the chance to see was President Bill Clinton. Now he has a bad reputation because of what he did in his personal life, but as a speaker he was incredible. In my opinion what made him great is that he was so charismatic. The viewer actually felt he was talking to them and only them. I had the opportunity of meeting one of his speech writers and he told me that Clinton would look over a speech once and then he wouldn't need it anymore. All it took was one read through and he knew it. I found that very interesting.

One of the worst speakers I have ever heard was in one of my speech classes at DeAnza. I know that it is a speech class and we are all learning but what bothered me about the speech was the speaker's world choice. The only thing I remember about the speech was the speaker said "ya know" about 25 times during a 3-5 minute speech. it was very distracting and I began counting his use of the phrase "ya know" instead of listening to the message of the speech.

Social Constructionist Perspective

Communication shapes the world around us. We are all taught from birth certain communication cues, whether they are verbal or non verbal, that we use daily. For instance, crying means sadness, in most cases, and smiling or laughing equates to happiness.

In my opinion, America is a very outspoken society, myself included. Kids are taught to respect their parents but speak their minds. This is not the case in many other cultures. In some patriarchal cultures, it is the man of the household's opinion that matters and nobody else's. Women and children don't have a voice. This is very common in Middle Eastern cultures. It is even shown in the way they dress.

It is very different in America. Women can be powerful leaders. For the most part, women can also choose how they dress and there are very little restrictions on that.

The way the American culture is, provides freedom of expression. This would make sense considering America is known as "the land of the free."

All in all, communication is all around us: in what we say, how we react, what we wear, and so much more. Communication is what shapes our culture and that is how we "build worlds" through communication.

Introductory Post

Hello Everyone,

I am a senior at SJSU and this is my first online class. I am a Communication Studies major and looking forward to graduating next May. I love to watch hockey and football in my spare time. My teams are the San Jose Sharks and the Philadelphia Eagles. During the summer I love to go to the beach and just hang out. I lead a pretty hectic life with two jobs, being a full time student, and trying to have a life. It is hard to find time to relax but when I do it feels so good. As some of you might have guessed from my display name, I am a big "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" fan. Overall I love to spend my free time with my family and friends. In regards to school, I chose Comm Studies because it was a broad major but after taking some of the classes I have decided to try to go into the field of corporate crisis communications. I believe Comm Studies is a great major because it not only helps you out in your professional life but has an effect on your personal life as well. I think that's it for now.

I look forward to working with all of you this term.