& Braithwaite (2008):
1. What seems
most surprising in the discussion of history ("Roots of
Interpersonal Communication," pp. 2-4)? What seems most
2. What the
significance of moving from thinking of communication as message
exchange to thinking of it as how we create meaning? (p. 4)
3. What makes
the three foci of interpersonal communication that the authors
identify distinct from one another? What is the significance
of these distinctions? (pp. 5-6)
4. What are
the four elements they say are common in definitions of
interpersonal communication? (p. 6)
5. So what's
their definition of interpersonal communication? What's
their argument for this definition encompassing the range of
theories in the book? How does it compare with other
definitions of interpersonal communication you've seen.
6. OK, a
little review of COM 300 (or COM 500): What distinguishes
post-positivism from interpretivism from criticism?
7. So what
percentage of the interpersonal communication studies published
between 1990 and 2005 followed each of the three paradigms?
Why do you think this is? (p. 12)
their argument for the importance of theory? Why not just
study interpersonal communication phenomena without regard to
1. For each of
the six candidates for criteria for good communication he
identifies on pp. 105-108:
a. What is it?
b. What makes it so important?
c. Even if it is a necessary criteria for good communication, why wouldn't it be sufficient as the only criteria?
d. What are the problems he identifies with this criteria? Do you agree?
2. What is the
standard combination of criteria for communication competence? (p.
3. So why
isn't communication a "set of teachable skills?" (pp.
are the five dimensions of context? Why would each make a
difference for competence? (pp. 111-112)
5. Why does
locus of competence matter? (p. 113)
6. Why does
the level of abstraction of competence evaluations matter? (p.