Dominant group/Communication

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This photo of the Al Jazeera English Newsdesk is in the Doha headquarters. Credit: Wittylama.

"Communication is the activity of conveying information. ... Communication requires a sender, a message, and an intended recipient, although the receiver need not be present or aware of the sender's intent to communicate at the time of communication; thus communication can occur across vast distances in time and space. Communication requires that the communicating parties share an area of communicative commonality. The communication process is complete once the receiver has understood the message of the sender. Feedback is critical to effective communication between parties."[1]

With respect to communication, a dominant group may be associated with communication or a dominant group of communication such as communication processes.

Communication[edit | edit source]

Def. "[t]he concept or state of exchanging information between entities"[2] is called communication.

Dominant group[edit | edit source]

Examples from primary sources are to be used to prove or disprove each hypothesis. These can be collected per subject or in general.

  1. Accident hypothesis: dominant group is an accident of whatever processes are operating.
  2. Artifact hypothesis: dominant group may be an artifact of human endeavor or may have preceded humanity.
  3. Association hypothesis: dominant group is associated in some way with the original research.
  4. Bad group hypothesis: dominant group is the group that engages in discrimination, abuse, punishment, and additional criminal activity against other groups. It often has an unfair advantage and uses it to express monopolistic practices.
  5. Control group hypothesis: there is a control group that can be used to study dominant group.
  6. Entity hypothesis: dominant group is an entity within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  7. Evolution hypothesis: dominant group is a product of evolutionary processes, such groups are the evolutionary process, produce evolutionary processes, or are independent of evolutionary processes.
  8. Identifier hypothesis: dominant group is an identifier used by primary source authors of original research to identify an observation in the process of analysis.
  9. Importance hypothesis: dominant group signifies original research results that usually need to be explained by theory and interpretation of experiments.
  10. Indicator hypothesis: dominant group may be an indicator of something as yet not understood by the primary author of original research.
  11. Influence hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article containing original research to indicate influence or an influential phenomenon.
  12. Interest hypothesis: dominant group is a theoretical entity used by scholarly authors of primary sources for phenomena of interest.
  13. Metadefinition hypothesis: all uses of dominant group by all primary source authors of original research are included in the metadefinition for dominant group.
  14. Null hypothesis: there is no significant or special meaning of dominant group in any sentence or figure caption in any refereed journal article.
  15. Object hypothesis: dominant group is an object within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  16. Obvious hypothesis: the only meaning of dominant group is the one found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.
  17. Original research hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article by the author to indicate that the article contains original research.
  18. Primordial hypothesis: dominant group is a primordial concept inherent to humans such that every language or other form of communication no matter how old or whether extinct, on the verge of extinction, or not, has at least a synonym for dominant group.
  19. Purpose hypothesis: dominant group is written into articles by authors for a purpose.
  20. Regional hypothesis: dominant group, when it occurs, is only a manifestation of the limitations within a region. Variation of those limitations may result in the loss of a dominant group with the eventual appearance of a new one or none at all.
  21. Source hypothesis: dominant group is a source within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  22. Term hypothesis: dominant group is a significant term that may require a 'rigorous definition' or application and verification of an empirical definition.

Arts[edit | edit source]

"Art, like print communication, allows individuals to think about themselves and others in new and abstract ways, and plays a central role in the creation of an imagined community."[3] "The creation of an imagined community through artistic representation necessarily entails exclusion of minority groups and interests as the dominant group attempts to create a homogenized identity and national unity"[3].

Electronic computers[edit | edit source]

"We carried out several post hoc analyses to examine such potential influences on decisions as extreme position proposals (eg, a group member proposes an extreme position or a high-risk strategy), dominant group members, and decision rules. In the first case, we coded the number of times group members mentioned the risk values 1 and 9 (very high and very low risk, respectively), and we compared these values (alone, and in combination) across communication conditions and, again, across group members ranked according to their participation in the group."[4]

"The most dominant speaker in CM groups contributed a lower proportion of total group communication than did the most dominant speaker in FTF groups, F(l, 51) = 4.76, p < .05; Mm=.45(.06),MFIF=.49(.09)."[5]

"Likewise, the median speaker had much higher participation than the least dominant group member in both CM and FTF discussions, /(48.8) = -9.7 and /(48) = -8.91 ,p < .0001."[5]

Cultures[edit | edit source]

"This process forces persons who are not dominant group members to function within a communication system that is not necessarily representative of their experiences."[6]

"In its most general form, co-cultural communication refers to interactions among underrepresented and dominant group members."[7]

Imperialisms[edit | edit source]

Keywords: "cultural imperialism theory and dominant sociopolitical group influences"[8]

Linguistics[edit | edit source]

“When intelligibility is non-reciprocal, the language or dialect spoken by the culturally dominant group, or the language or dialect with the greater functional value, seems to be the preferred medium for interlingual communication.”[9]

Literature[edit | edit source]

"This article reviews literature on employment interviewing from the perspective of non-dominant group applicants. In general, interviewees from traditionally under represented groups may experience a double bind in job interviews."[10]

Psychology[edit | edit source]

"It is predicted that a group's level of communication, and the tendency of its members to conform to the dominant group opinion on an issue, will be positively related to the degree of cohesiveness present within the group."[11]

Sociology[edit | edit source]

"[T]he process of definition occurs obviously through complex interaction and communication between the members of the dominant group."[12]

Speech[edit | edit source]

"At first glance, it would appear that the second set of constraints—which reflect the prejudices of the dominant group and implement a status and power difference between the communicators—would obscure those deriving from intentions and self-concept: the members of the inferior group would define themselves consistently with the social reality of the dominant group and see to it that their communication behavior conforms to expected patterns"[13]

Hypotheses[edit | edit source]

  1. A dominant group communicates to manipulate.

See also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. "Communication, In: Wikipedia". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. October 21, 2012. Retrieved 2012-10-21.
  2. "communication, In: Wiktionary". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. October 16, 2012. Retrieved 2012-10-21.
  3. 3.0 3.1 Maria Kingsley (2007). "Art and Identity: the Creation of an 'Imagined Community' in India" (PDF). pp. 1–10. Retrieved 2011-08-11.
  4. Jane Siegel, Vitaly Dubrovsky, Sara Kiesler, Timothy W McGuire (April 1986). "Group processes in computer-mediated communication". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37 (2): 157-87. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90050-6. Retrieved 2012-10-21. 
  5. 5.0 5.1 Susan G. Straus (February 1996). "Getting a Clue The Effects of Communication Media and Information Distribution on Participation and Performance in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Groups". Small Group Research 27 (1): 115-42. doi:10.1177/1046496496271006. Retrieved 2012-10-21. 
  6. Mark P. Orbe (1996). "Laying the foundation for co‐cultural communication theory: An inductive approach to studying “non‐dominant” communication strategies and the factors that influence them". Communication Studies 47 (3): 157-76. doi:10.1080/10510979609368473. Retrieved 2012-10-21. 
  7. Mark P. Orbe (November 1998). "An Outsider within Perspective to Organizational Communication Explicating the Communicative Practices of Co-Cultural Group Members". Management Communication Quarterly 12 (2): 230-79. doi:10.1177/0893318998122003. Retrieved 2012-10-21. 
  8. Thomas L. McPhail (April 2009). Thomas L. McPhail. ed. Chapter 2. Major Theories Following Modernization, In: Development Communication: Reframing the Role of the Media. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444310740.ch2. ISBN 9781405187954. 
  9. Hans Wolff (March 1959). "Intelligibility and inter-ethnic attitudes". Anthropological linguistics 1 (3): 34-41. Retrieved 2011-07-26. 
  10. Patrice M. Buzzanell (April 1999). "Tensions and Burdens In Employment Interviewing Processes: Perspectives of Non-Dominant Group Applicants". Journal of Business Communication 36 (2): 134-62. doi:10.1177/002194369903600202. Retrieved 2012-04-13. 
  11. A. J. Lott; Bernice E. Lott (March 1961). "Group cohesiveness, communication level, and conformity". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62 (2): 408-12. doi:10.1037/h0041109. Retrieved 2012-04-13. 
  12. Herbert Blumer (Spring 1958). "Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position". The Pacific Sociological Review 1 (1): 3-7. Retrieved 2012-04-13. 
  13. Marsha Houston Stanback & W. Barnett Pearce (1981). "Talking to “the man”: Some communication strategies used by members of “subordinate” social groups". Quarterly Journal of Speech 67 (1): 21-30. doi:10.1080/00335638109383548. Retrieved 2012-04-13. 

External links[edit | edit source]

{{Semantics resources}}{{Terminology resources}}