Further Discussion on Increasing the Efficiency of Multiparty Interaction

Abstract The question of facilitating more efficient communication in groups raises a number of important issues. The first issue is to try to understand more fully and design for the rich functionality of communication in a group context; in other words, we have to understand more fully what exactly we are trying to facilitate. There are three major approaches which provide useful frameworks for understanding group communication: speech-act theory, conversational analysis and discourse analysis. Speech-act theory is favoured by Novick and Walpole. Winograd (1987–1988) has developed a language/action perspective on group communication based on the speech act approach. The Coordinator system is a specific product, based on this approach, to support computer-mediated communication. Bowers and Churcher (1988) suggest instead an approach based on conversational analysis. Their main criticism of speech-act theory is that it is individualistic rather than interactional in approach. They argue that conversational analysis, developed by sociologists interested in the study of human conversation, is more appropriate. The third perspective, discourse analysis, was developed mainly by linguists. It is also interactional in approach, but is oriented to provide a more formally based description to account for the structure of interaction (Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975; Coulthard and Montgomery, 1981; Coulthard, 1985). There is thus a rich set of conceptual frameworks to choose from in studying group communication. Social psychologists have provided useful insights on group processes and the effect on these of manipulating features of the context in which the group works. The studies of particular relevance to Novick and Walpole's proposal concern manipulation of group communication architectures. These studies point to the value of more open communication structures, though there are many variables which need to be considered. Certain findings from these studies, however, suggest a productive role for the virtual conversant proposed by Novick and Walpole. It is clear that many individuals become peripheralised in group structures, and this can affect individual motivation and the group performance. The virtual conversant, suggested by Novick and Walpole, might help avoid wasteful marginalisation of individuals by allowing all individuals access to the central issues the group is tackling. This would be especially useful where individuals joined a group at different stages. It might also support subgroups within a large group in keeping track of the relevance of their ongoing work to overall group objectives and achievements. The virtual conversant could thus provide a useful aid to foster more effective group communication. The argument here is that the virtual conversant could be aid to, and not a replacement for, dynamic processes of group structuring. Novick and Walpole's article provides a well presented and stimulating perspective on problems of improving group efficiency. It opens up discussion on group communication structures and the role of the individual within the group. The authors propose a clear answer which provides a useful focus for debate. Their concern that we should exploit new technological opportunities to amplify group effectiveness is a good one. The key questions about how to achieve this are still very open, but there are rich conceptual and empirical resources which can be brought to bear on the problem.