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.