It’s Time. Ready, Set, Debate!

Well (big sigh), I think that at one point or another, we’ve all become frustrated by this online communication format! It’s clearly very different from being able to interact in class – even if it’s a brief, let’s-meet-for-five-minutes-to-discuss-the-assignment type of communication. I’m impressed with my fellow teammates because our weblog entries don’t at all reflect these frustrations. Instead, undertones of these frustrations can be “heard” in behind the scenes communication – take, for instance, when we were unable to get together in the chat function. However, it’s important to note that we must cooperate and work together (and not give up hope!) to complete this portion of the assigned work. With these seemingly negative “tensions” now in our recent past (and by “tension,” I refer to the anxious, physical definition), it seems timely to discuss Zediker and Stewart’s positive “tensions” and its role in current team dialogue.

First, I liked the terminology that Zediker and Stewart referred to – “dialogue” versus “monologue.” I feel that this concept and distinction relates to the notion of active versus passive listening, as well as connecting to the other person in conversation – you must be actively participating in communication to have a “dialogue.” Indeed, the authors continue to elaborate on the two concepts, referencing “letting the other happen” and “holding my own.” It is the tension of these opposing ends (as I see it, similar to that passive-aggressive didactic) that create the “tensionality” in conversation. It is in the hypothetical middle of this spectrum that successful dialogue can be achieved.

Below are some examples from team interactions thus far, with accompanying explanations (in layman’s termsJ).

In “My Group At A Glance,” Topofthemorning brings up a very interesting point when he states, “It is very important to be honest but that doesn’t really mean people are going to become defensive and resent you for your comments.” What he is referring to is a direct example of the balance between passive and aggressive, letting the other happen and holding his/her own. In other words, Topofthemorning suggests that honesty allows for open dialogue and communication. The other half of the spectrum (that Topofthemorning hints at) is that it is necessary to, as a listening or bystander, to respect this honesty. This “other half” relates directly to the commitment of active listening and the ability to drop any negative pre-conceived notions of the speaker or where the conversation may be going. Similarly, in commsyr09’s entry “Taking the Next Step” she states, “In my opinion cross the bridge is the most difficult part of communicating.” She elaborates, describing the “bridge” (what I believe) to be conflict between “letting the other happen” and “holding [her] own.” Indeed, finding this balance of positive communication could arguably be “the most difficult part of communicating.”

I’d also like to reference another point made in the article by Zediker and Stewart – the authors mention the term “monologue” and describe an example of it as thinking of how you are planning to respond to the other person’s comments while they are speaking (because, again, if you are thinking of how you are going to respond, you’re not likely to be actively listening).

As I mentioned in a previous entry, I absolutely loved Johnniedrama’s post, “Great Debates lead to the Greatest Ideas.” In this entry, he described each of our team members in great detail based on what he had observed in the dialogue thus far. Obviously, I cannot speak to the accuracy of his descriptions of other teammates, but he nailed my personality! After looking back over his entry, I’m curious to see if we are fulfilling the roles he described (I say “curious” because I feel we haven’t had extensive amounts of team communication – unfortunate, but a reality nonetheless). Furthermore – (and I want to stress this!) – I wonder if we are fulfilling (or will fulfill) the roles he described because he described them as such (Does this make sense? It’s the chicken-or-the-egg phenomenon).

So, next, next, next – is it the chicken or is it the egg? No, I’m just kidding! But, an interesting question that can be expanded upon – if we are “assigned” roles/characteristics/etc., do we follow these designated descriptions because they’ve been “assigned” to us or is it fair to say these traits accurately depict the people that we are?

If the latter is the case, I’d like to hear more of your thoughts, Topofthemorning. How do you think this group work is going thus far? Johnniedrama, I can ask you – do you think we’re fulfilling the flashes you described (regardless of the chicken or the egg)? But, perhaps we can use this chicken versus the egg thing as a launching point for some great debates and great ideas. And commsyr09, Johnniedrama described you as his “argumentative counterpart.” I think it’s time to get some debate going (maybe this can be our “data collection?”). Lastly, as Johnnie mentions and you’ve demonstrated in your previous blog entries, you’re very good at assigning the theoretical backing to the actual experiences, Beaver32. Is there anything you’d like to add to improve the group’s understanding of these concepts? Really, guys… what are your thoughts?