That’s a Wrap!

Prompt: In this final WordPress blog post for the course, reflect on what you have learned. How do you think your classmates did on their basic inquiry papers? Share your insights with regard to some of the best examples of the material you learned from the digital presentations, as well as some of the most interesting projects.

What a whirlwind these last two months have been! I can’t believe how much material was crammed into an eight week period.

I’m already finding myself approaching situations and relationships a bit differently at my office. While I am already a tactful communicator, I have found more opportunities for language improvement. Just today I was able to make a change to my marketing budget just by taking an additional minute to analyze the text of my email and rewrite it to be more collaborative. I had originally written, “I would argue that…” but at the last moment I changed it to, “I propose that…” While the CFO still called me a pain in the ass, I think that phrase in the context of my plea made the difference between careful consideration and resistance. I think maybe I’d have not taken that extra moment to edit had I not studied strategy-choice models.

Regarding the presentations, in general, I was impressed by the work my colleagues did. It was a challenging project, and these women put forth a valiant effort with the tools that were available to them in this short period. I know that it was not easy. If I recall correctly, all but one of the traditions were used at least once (poor cybernetics). For me, some stand-outs include Angela Stalcup’s analysis of The Shawshank Redemption, Peggy McGill’s analysis of Up, Nicole Hunt’s analysis of Mean Girls.

Angela’s personal story was heavily intertwined with her paper/presentation which is why I think it was so powerful. Based on discussion posts, it clearly had an impact on everyone who watched. What I liked most about her presentation was how she intertwined her literature review with her data analysis. I myself struggled with making sure the lit review offered a cohesive foundation for the paper. Angela’s seemed effortless; her lit review propelled her paper. Her paper provided a nice reminder that reality is ever-changing and so must our identities be.

Being in a somewhat non-traditional, child-free relationship with a focus on adventure!, I can personally relate to Peggy’s topic, not to mention I simply love the film. Peggy encouraged me to go back and review the communication theory of identity.  She concentrated on the relational layer, exploring Carl’s identity changes as he related to different characters in the film (his wife, then the scout). Peggy’s creative voice also appeals to me, as I have the same creative writing background. Some of her language touched my heart: in particular, that we can be “broken and whole at the same time.”

I did not see the movie Mean Girls. Sometimes I feel like the only one who didn’t, but I’ve heard enough references to get the drift. I think sociocultural was the perfect lens with which to approach this film. The teenage self in relation to high school culture makes sociocultural a natural choice. I especially like her focus on the dangers of groupthink. Sometimes people want to call groupthink a good thing because it sounds cohesive and collaborative, but it can be a very dangerous phenomenon. Using The Plastics as the primary example, she highlighted that the structure of the clique created groupthink and prevented individual critical thinking.

Honorable mention goes to Arwen McCaffrey for her analysis of Cloud Atlas. It is certainly a complicated movie to approach theoretically. She was the only one of us who really deconstructed the film into its technical, behind-the-scenes parts – cast, set, makeup and soundtrack. At first I didn’t understand their inclusion, but she pointed out that it was to highlight the interconnectedness of the narrative. Using this interconnectivity, her use of standpoint theory from within critical tradition was fascinating.

Many thanks to all of these women who are with me on this journey of professional and personal development.

Responding to Criticism

Constructive criticism is a gift. Accept it with gratitude, not attitude.

As a side note, I had much better luck with this Prezi than the first one. There is still much to learn, but I’m glad I gave it another shot.

Face It, Girls.

A not-very-brief presentational summary of my final paper. My apologies for being unable to say the word “phenomenological.”

I did run out of time in the presentation to play the film clip, so if you’d like to watch it, here you go.

References

Adams, T. (2007). A Review of Narrative Ethics. Conference Papers — National Communication Association, 1.

Avnet, J. & Lear, N. (Producers), & Avnet, J. (Director). (1991). Fried Green Tomatoes [Motion picture]. USA: Universal Pictures.

Burke, K. (1973). The Philosophy of Literary Form. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Littlejohn, S.W. & Foss, K.A. (2011). Theories of Human Communication (Tenth ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Rosenbury, L. A. (2007). Friends with benefits?. Michigan Law Review, 106(2), 189.

Turpin, P. (2007). Equipment for Living: Talking of Love and Loving Talk in Phaedrus and Pride and Prejudice. Conference Papers — National Communication Association, 1.

Young, S. (2000). Movies as Equipment for Living: A Developmental Analysis of the Importance of Film in Everyday Life. Critical Studies In Media Communication, 17(4), 447-468.

Zhang, P., Yi, Z., & Xi, Y. (2012). The rhetorical—theatrical sensibility as equipment for living: A Review of General Semantics, 69(2), 186-196.

Special thanks to Peggy McGill, Tenecia Thomas and Dr. Leanne Pupchek for their feedback on this paper.

Week 7: Cybernetic Sense

Back in Week 3 we discussed seven traditions from which communication theory emerges. Review the materials for that Unit. Which tradition makes the most sense to you? Which theory/ies do you understand the best? Why? Give an example of how you could apply them to an experience you have had or observed.

I’ve actually turned out to be quite amused during this course that I was not nearly as interested in semiotics as I thought I would be. Coming from a creative writing and brand management background, I thought for sure that I would be voraciously consuming all that semiotics had to offer.  While I’m very much interested in the critical tradition, I ultimately, think the cybernetic lens is one I could look through quite often. It makes sense to me to think of things arranged as an interlinked and interdependent system: families, organizations, media, etc.

Image courtesy of Simon Howden at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

When we go back to chapter four of our text, “The Communicator” (Littlejohn and Foss, 2011), we read about information-integration theory and how it applies to the individual who is participating in communication. Two of the key concepts presented in this theory are valence, that is whether a piece of information supports a belief or opposes it, and weight, the value a communicator assigns to the information (p. 91). This theory appeals to me because it shows that you don’t necessarily have to be held to any one belief your whole life, you’re allowed to change your mind as you receive new information. You can integrate this new information into your knowledge cache and adapt, if the conditions are right. I appreciate the balancing act between valence and weight. I’ve realized that this was in play over the many years I’ve come to hold the beliefs and attitudes I do. Once upon a time, I wanted four children, now I want zero. Once I was a church-goer, now I’m not. I was going to go into police/investigative work, now I’m not.

Image courtesy of Kittisak at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

As we move to chapter six, “The Conversation,” we learn about the coordinated management of meaning, developed by W. Barnett Pearce, et al. (p. 210). I wouldn’t say I understand it the best, but I’ve become deeply intrigued by it. I like the idea of analyzing a communication event by assigning “meaning to the situation and to the behaviors and messages of others” and deciding “how to respond or act within the situation” (p. 211). I would say that I encounter this daily at work. Anytime I have conversations with the directors, managers or executives, I am in a constant state of analysis – what do these meetings actually mean and what is the ultimate goal of the meeting organizer?

Image courtesy of Ambro at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

In chapter seven, “The Relationship,” we encounter the Palo Alto Group’s relational patterns of interaction (p. 230). They also express that “you cannot not communicate” (p. 231) which basically means that even if you’re giving the silent treatment to your husband, you’re still communicating. You’re still interacting with a sending a message to him. Patterns develop over time, and you structure relationship in certain ways. You establish behaviors based on patterns of communication. I tend to feel that Nick and I are in a complementary relationship – when he is heated, I am calm, when I am panicking, he is reasonable; though, I do see some patterns of a symmetrical relationship for we both tend to be know-it-alls and will argue until the other one just gets tired of trying to be right (I mean really, even if I’m right most of the time, it’s important I let him win every now and again, right?).

Image courtesy of stockimages at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

There are some other theories within cybernetics that appeal to me as well, especially the theories presented in chapter nine, “The Organization” with cybernetics beginning on page 296. As I’ve mentioned multiple times, I am fascinated by organizations, how they are structured and how communication is dispersed within them. The process of organizing from Karl Weick (p. 297), actor-network theory, co-orientation and the Montreal School all introduced on page 299, and network theory on page 303. I’m still learning these theories in a way that I can apply them to my work, though. 

Image courtesy of renjith krishnan at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

---

Littlejohn, S.W. & Foss, K.A. (2011). Theories of Human Communication (Tenth ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Peons on Parade

Prompt: Imagine a problem (administrative, interpersonal, etc.) you have encountered in your experience with an organization. How might examining the problem according to different traditions change the way you view the problem and/or its solution?

In a previous job, I worked under a manager who, while outrageously and impressively knowledgeable about the industry, had little knowledge of how to communicate with her team. She held this management position solely based on her experience within the industry and the company itself, certainly not because of her personable and approachable demeanor… There was a time she sent us away to a coffee shop to work under the guise of wanting us to have a change of scenery while we worked on some projects. She stayed back at the office because she didn’t “want to affect our creativity.”  Later we found out it was because she thought we were all just staring at her waiting for her to talk to us, and she couldn’t handle it. I’m still baffled by it and it was several years ago. While I had ideas for solutions, I never was able to experience a resolution to this issue, as I gave up and found another job.

Image courtesy of renjith krishnan at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

How might we examine the problem of a manager not wanting to interact with the team she manages?

I’d love to analyze it from a psychological standpoint, but my analysis at this time would not fit in a public forum. So, let’s stick with theories from an organizational standpoint.

First, we could take a sociopsychological approach. We were a creative department, and a manager was important to have in order to keep the department on task and focused when necessary. She was our gatekeeper, protecting us from all of the demands of the various higher-ups and project leaders. This can be viewed as a reflection of Weber’s theory of bureaucracy. The team required an authority figure in order to function.  While “administrators must be appointed and always on the basis of qualifications” (Littlejohn and Foss, 2011, p. 295), her qualifications stemmed from length of time and experience in the field. She was our liaison to the rest of the executive board, the other authority figures in the company. I could have just dealt with it quietly – she was my manager, and I should have respected the authority that was given to her by the company.

Next, we might look through the lens of the cybernetic tradition. Perhaps she and I just had differing worldviews; our perspectives were opposite in that I believe a manager should be open to interacting informally, though not necessarily socially, with her team while she thought a manager should limit herself to strictly formal, professional interaction. She and I had difficulty reconciling our relationship because while we had a common goal (our projects), our perspectives may have worked against us. I thought we should have more creative freedom and find more opportunities to learn from each other as a team to create awesome ideas; she felt we could each work independently and conjure creativity strictly from within.

It is within these traditions I believe I would have found my ideal solution: we needed an additional manager or an appointed member of the team who would be between her and the rest of the team; this person would relate to us on a more personal level, engage in team-building and other creative brainstorming activities, who was open to innovation, change and fun.

Image courtesy of David Castillo Dominici at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Screencast Reflection

I have to mention how surprisingly easy it was to create a screencast with Screencast-o-matic. The bulk of my time was spent creating the PowerPoint presentation, but turning it into a screencast was almost instant. Even though the title of the program could be considered outdated or cliche, it pretty much sums up the speedy process of creating the video from your data. I realize how often I’ve watched screencasts (especially in this program, so far), but I never thought of it as something accessible or applicable to my personal/professional use. Color me corrected. I’m wondering if I can use it to create some training videos at my office. I’m trying to think of other applicable uses for the technology, surely they’re not good for only training videos or tutorials. What else would you use screencasts for?

To be candid, despite the application’s ease of use, I found it difficult and timely to prepare a speech and create a PowerPoint presentation on an article that, while relevant to my personal interests, was somewhat irrelevant to our larger assignment for the week. The longer I spent preparing this, the more frustrated I became; time that could have been spent on my paper draft was being monopolized by graphs and bullet points on an article about greyhounds – a topic quite far removed from Fried Green Tomatoes. Even though it was in the directions to use the scavenger hunt article we’d found, I almost wish I’d have used an article relevant to the paper we’re working on. I feel that would have benefited me on multiple levels. Rather than just outlining and examining any random article to become familiar with the structure, I could have added the benefit of info analysis on our paper topic.

In all, it was a beneficial experience to learn about the technology, but I wish I could’ve maximized its value.

Screencast

Presentation of “Imagining the Greyhound: ‘Racing’ and ‘rescue’ narratives in a human and dog relationship,” an article by Raymond Madden