Essay Instructions: The research paper I need from you (please!) is the third in a series of papers we have been assigned by our crazy professor. The first two papers I have written but am under the gun for the third.
-----------------------------------------------------
The following is the first paper that I wrote:
Problem Identification Paper
Self-disclosure has been shown to make audiences feel closer to the presenter (Englebert, 2002). Self-disclosure takes place not only in the auditorium between presenter and audience, but also between males and females at home, in the car, in social settings and any other place where interpersonal communication occurs. Self-disclosure affects all of our interpersonal relationships. Because interpersonal relationships are important to most human beings, this paper suggests a research problem based on this topic.
Among women?s communication styles and tendencies, their higher levels of self-disclosure have generated interest in our field. When women are observed in interpersonal intimate relationships, either female-to-female or female-to-male, their use and level of self-disclosure may be expected to influence such variables as their level of communication satisfaction and the number and length of interpersonal relationships they maintain. Based on this speculation, the following problem is advanced of research: What is the relationship between women?s use of self-disclosure in interpersonal intimate relationships and the number and length of the relationships they maintain?
This paper has isolated self-disclosure in women?s communication styles as a variable and asked a research question relating it to the number and length of interpersonal intimate relationships. This problem suggests an interesting and helpful research area to guide future investigation.
------------------------------------------------------------
The following is the second paper I wrote:
Definitional Paper
Self-disclosure has long created interest in the field of communications (Englebert, 2002). This paper will examine a specific research issue in self-disclosure. Specifically, this paper will review a problem question for future research and identify and define two key terms in the problem.
Self-disclosure is an important variable in effective, meaningful interpersonal communication. The question that has been isolated for research in this paper is: What is the relationship between women?s use of self-disclosure and reciprocation in interpersonal intimate relationships and the number and length of the relationships they maintain? The problem contains two major terms for definition. The first of the two terms is self-disclosure and the second is interpersonal intimate relationship. Each of these terms will be reviewed separately in the following paragraphs.
Self-disclosure is a term that has many different definitions. However, only three schools of thought will be examined here. The first school of thought maintains that self-disclosure is sharing information with others that they would not normally know or discover. Self-disclosure involves risk and vulnerability on the part of the person sharing the information (Borchers, 1999). This is generally a good definition but lacks in that it does not exclude situations or instances. Self-disclosure is not always a risky or vulnerable action. Self-disclosure is sometimes used to maintain the integrity of a relationship. Consistent self-disclosure is vital in many intimate interpersonal relationships. Without it, tension may be felt by one of the participants or they may even feel that the other is withholding information. Since this definition excludes a very vital aspect of self-disclosure, it is not a worthy definition. A second school of thought defines self-disclosure as a dance. This school of thought goes on to say that self-disclosure must be reciprocated at a mutually regulated pace. It progresses by small steps and is at every step reciprocated by similarly personal disclosures by your partner (Insel, 1999). This definition is not a worthy one in that it does not actually define the term. Instead, it explains how it is achieved. Therefore, the definition is deemed unworthy because the conceptual definition is not more precise than the term defined. A third school of thought defines self-disclosure as the process of deliberately revealing information about oneself that is significant and that would not normally be known by others (Adler and Towne, 1999, p. 358). This definition goes on to say that there are degrees and levels of self-disclosure, and the depth or range of disclosure in a message defines a relationship between two people as casual or intimate. They explain these levels of disclosure by defining clich?s, facts, opinions and feelings as the types of information people share as a way to determine the depth of disclosure. This is a very useful definition because it satisfies all of the standards required of acceptable definitions.
The second major term in this problem question is interpersonal relationships. As was done with the first key term, three schools of thought will examined. In the field of communication studies, relationships are most often defined with the implementation of a model. The first definition/model is that of Stephen Duck?s Relationship Filtering Model (Duck, 1985). Duck's model is a set of filters through which we make choices about the level of relationship we wish to pursue with others. The first filter, sociological/incidental cues, describes the constraints placed on our meeting people due to where we live or work. In other words, given our sociological location, there are some people we see a lot of and others we never meet. Preinteraction cues refer to information we gain about people before we even interact with them leads us to exclude or include individuals with whom we wish to have a relationship. Interaction cues refer to judgments we make in regards to whether one includes or excludes individuals from possible relationships as interaction begins. Last are cognitive cues. At the deepest level, we make judgments about people based on their personality and the degree to which we think it will match ours. As others reach this level, we consider them "best friends." Given that this model examines every aspect of relationship development, it is generally a good definition. However, there are many situations that have been excluded and also many situations that should be included but are not. Thus, this definition cannot be considered appropriate. The second school of thought is that of Mark Knapp and his Relational Stages Model (Knapp, 1984). Knapp?s model has five stages. The first is initiation. This is a short stage dealing mainly with making favorable impressions and observing one another?s actions. The next is experimenting. This stage is characterized by individuals asking questions of each other in order to gain information about them and decide if they wish to continue the relationship. The next stage is the Intensifying stage which states that self-disclosure becomes more common. The relationship becomes less formal, the interactants begin to see each other as individuals, and statements are made about the level of commitment each has to the relationship. The Integrating stage is next. This stage is where the individuals become a pair. They begin to do things together and, importantly, others come to see them as a pair. A shared relational identity starts to form in this stage. Finally, the last stage is bonding. During the bonding stage, rituals such as marriage, business partnerships and ?best friendships? are established. The model has the same defect as the previous definition. Several situations have been excluded and not all appropriate situations were included. The third school of thought maintains a simpler point of view. It is called the developmental view and it maintains that interpersonal relationships are defined by the interpersonal communication that takes place. From this view, interpersonal communication is defined as communication that occurs between people who have known each other for some time. Importantly, these people view each other as unique individuals, not as people who are simply acting out social situations (Gouran and Wiethoff, 1994). This is an acceptable definition. For the purposes of this research problem, this definition of an interpersonal relationship works very well by the standards set forth for acceptable definitions.
This paper has proposed a problem statement and has compared three definitional suggestions for each of its major terms. This paper has argued that acceptable definitions of terms may be found for both self-disclosure and interpersonal relationships.
-------------------------------------------------------------
He wasn't too nice is his critique of this paper but the third is the one I need you guys to do for me. My professor has VERY SPECIFIC instructions. They are as follows:
Literature Review Assignment
Write a brief paper in which you review literature related to your problem question. The paper is designed to develop an argument that justifies completing new research on the problem question you have selected. Let the paper take the following form:
Introduction: justify selection of this topic in the study of communication and overview the remaining points of the paper.
Problem: State the problem and provide any necessary context to understand it.
Theoretic Expectations: describe what is conceptually expected with the chief variables(s) involved
and (if possible) review how any relevant theory may explain these effects.
Review Literature: examine research literature for each variable you have selected (either separately
or together, depending on the nature of past research) by including these elements):
a. identification of variable to be reviewed;
b. summary of relevant research findings on the variable and appropriate criticism of research on
the variables (designed to help you justify the completion of new research on the topic);
c. assessment of relevant material that remains unknown about the topic (demonstrating a gap in
knowledge that invites the new research suggested by the problem question).
Future Research Priorities: indicate what research should be completed; identify the specific reasons
new research is invited.
Conclusion: summary of paper and bottom line statement of the notion suggested in it.
Write the paper very well. Work from an outline. Turn in two copies. Staple this form to the front of one copy. Use the APA form and cite everything you use. Your paper will be evaluated on the criteria in the following check sheet (minus four and a half points for each criterion not fulfilled).
___Introductory paragraph began by justifying importance of topic to field
___Introductory paragraph ended by specifically previewing paper main points
___Introductory paragraph cited at least two scholarly sources in field
___Introduction featured no writing inconsistent with the "A Guide to Writing and Usage" found on
the textbook website
___Problem stated in direct and obvious language
___Problem statement satisfied all requirements for a worthwhile problem statement
___Problem statement paragraph featured no writing inconsistent with the "A Guide to Writing and
Usage"
___Discussion of theoretic expectations included conceptual expectations
___Discussion of theoretic expectations included consideration of relevant theory to explain the role of
the chief variable(s) in the research
___Discussion of theoretic expectations included no writing inconsistent with the "A Guide to Writing
and Usage"
___Variable to be reviewed isolated in clear and direct language
___Literature reviewed research by grouping research to build common argument(s) in a summary
narrative consistent with those found in the textbook and webpage (not a mini "book report"
format).
___Literature review summarized what relevant information is known about variables
___Main review included no writing inconsistent with the "A Guide to Writing and Usage"
___Consideration of future research discussion summarized what relevant information remains to be
known about variables reviewed
___Consideration of future research discussion clearly argued why new research is invited by specific
and explicit identification of the gap(s) in knowledge that invite the new research suggested by the
problem statement
___Consideration of future research discussion included no writing inconsistent with "A Guide to
Writing and Usage"
___Concluding paragraph began with a summary of the points in the paper
___Concluding paragraph ended with a single bottom line statement of the notion found in the paper
___Concluding paragraph featured no writing inconsistent with style sheets
___References in proper form
The reason I sent you the first two papers that I wrote is so that the third can sound like I actually wrote it...
Also, here is a list of resources I have compiled to date:
1. Trenholm, Sarah. (1995). Thinking through communication: An Introduction to the study of human communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
2. Schutz, William. (1958). Firo: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
3. Steiner, I.D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
4. Tubbs, Stewart. (1995). A systems approach to small group interaction. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.
5. Fisher, B. Aubrey. (1970). Decision emergence: Phases in group decision making. Speech Monographs, 37, 53-66.
6. Tuckman, Bruce. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399.
7. Poole, Marshall Scott. (1981). Decision development in small groupsI: A comparison of two models. Communication Monographs, 48, 1-24; Poole, Marshall Scott. (1983). Decision development in small groups II: A study of mutiple sequences in decision making. Communication Monographs, 50, 206-232; Poole, Marshall Scott. (1983). Decision development in small groups III: A multiple sequence model of group decision development. Communication Monographs, 50, 321-341; Poole, Marshall Scott, & Roth, Jonelle. (1989). Decision development in small groups V: Test of a contigency model. Human Communication Research, 15, 549-589.
8. Dewey, John. (1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: Heath.
9. Irving, Janis. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; Irving, Janis. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
10. Bormann, Ernest G., & Bormann, Nancy C. (1988). Effective small group communication. 4th ed. Edina, MN: Burgess.
11. Benne, Kenneth, & Sheats, Paul. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41-49.
12. Ruble, T.L. & Thomas, K.W. (1976). Support for a two-dimensional model of conflict behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 143-155.
13. Gouran, Dennis, W.E. Wiethoff, & J.A. Doelger. (1994). Mastering communication. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
14. Gouran, Dennis, W.E. Wiethoff, & J.A. Doelger. (1994). Mastering communication. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
15. Knapp, Mark. (1984). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
16. Duck, Stepehn. (1985). Social and personal relationships. In M.L. Knapp and G.R. Miller (Eds.) Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 665-686). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17. Gouran, Dennis, W.E. Wiethoff, & J.A. Doelger. (1994). Mastering communication. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
18. Luft, Joe. (1969). Of human interaction. Palo Alto: National Press.
19. Sieberg, Evelyn. (1975). Interpersonal confirmation: A paradigm for conceptualization and measurement. San Diego: United States International University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 098 634).
20. Trenholm, Sarah. (1995). Thinking through communication: An Introduction to the study of human communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
21. Hocker, J.L. and Wilmot, W.W. (1991). Interpersonal conflict. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
22. Gouran, Dennis, W.E. Wiethoff, & J.A. Doelger. (1994). Mastering communication. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
23. Zueschner, Raymond. (1997). Communicating Today. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
