Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Small Group Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pavitt, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Theoretical Commitments Presupposed by Functional Approaches to Group Discussion

Charles Pavitt

University of Delaware

Functional theory is theory in which the central core includes a description of attributes that lead to good consequencesfor, and/or that satisfy agoal of, a system or the system's designer or user. The application of functional theory to small group discussion requires the theorist to make two types of theoretical commitments. First, functional theories should include scientific functional explanations. Second, finctional theories should include a description of necessary discussionfunctions on one and only one level of abstraction. Three well-known functional approaches to group discussion, those of Benne and Sheats, Bales, and Hirokawa, are described, and the two commitment requirements are applied to these approaches. All three approaches are shown to contain incomplete explanations and to describe functions on different levels of abstraction.

Small Group Research, Vol. 25, No. 4, 520-541 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/1046496494254006
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
C. Pavitt, A. C. High, K. E. Tressler, and J. K. Winslow
Leadership Communication During Group Resource Dilemmas
Small Group Research, August 1, 2007; 38(4): 509 - 531.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
J. M. Laux, J. B. Smirnoff, M. H. Ritchie, and W. S. Cochrane
The Effect of Type of Screening on the Satisfaction of Students in Experiential Counseling Training Groups
Small Group Research, April 1, 2007; 38(2): 289 - 300.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
M. S. Poole, A. B. Hollingshead, J. E. McGrath, R. L. Moreland, and J. Rohrbaugh
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Small Groups
Small Group Research, February 1, 2004; 35(1): 3 - 16.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
G. M. Wittenbaum, A. B. Hollingshead, P. B. Paulus, R. Y. Hirokawa, D. G. Ancona, R. S. Peterson, K. A. Jehn, and K. Yoon
The Functional Perspective as a Lens for Understanding Groups
Small Group Research, February 1, 2004; 35(1): 17 - 43.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
M. Orlitzky and R. Y. Hirokawa
To Err is Human, to Correct for it Divine: A Meta-Analysis of Research Testing the Functional Theory of Group Decision-Making Effectiveness
Small Group Research, June 1, 2001; 32(3): 313 - 341.
[Abstract] [PDF]