Go to Reading Guides | Go to Syllabus  | Go to Course Schedule 
Go to Assignments |  Go to Irwin's Main Page | E-Mail Irwin

COM 520, Spring 2018 – Reading Guide Questions for April 3

For Parrish-Sprowl:

Parrish-Sprowl was Chair of the IPFW Department of Communication from 1995 to 2000 and of the IUPUI Department of Communication Studies from 2000 to 2005.  He is now Director of IUPUI's Global Health Communication Center.

1. What does he say makes the bona-fide perspective particularly appropriate for a study of organizational change?

2. What is the organizational change this organization wants to enact?

3. How does he respond when asked "Why are we talking to a communication person and not a management consultant?"  What makes his answer appropriate (or not)?

Since we don't yet have a class in communication consulting, I'm asking you questions 4 and 5

4. What does he do to lay the groundwork prior to starting his "basic training?"  Does this make sense?  Why or why not?

5. What challenges does he face once "basic training" start?  How does he handle them?

6. Why does he start a team facilitation program?  Who were the facilitators?  What training did the facilitators receive?

7. What implications does he find for teams engaged in organizational change?

8. What are other takeaways from this article?

For Seamons and Canary:

As you read this article, keep in mind that this was Seamons's master's project.  Just sayin'.

1. What makes working in teams such a big deal in the context of surgery? (bot. p. 42-top p. 43)

2. What are the big issues in prior studies of health care teams that the authors identify as particularly important for this study?  Are these issues you see in your line of work? (bot. p. 43)

3, What is organizational knowledge?  What are potential sources of organizational knowledge?  (p, 44)

4. What is structurating activity theory?  What are contradictions? (pp. 45-46)

5. So what are the research questions (p. 46)

6. Who got studied?  What was the event that led to this study?  Who didn't get studied that probably should have?  (bot. p. 46-top p. 47)

7. How did the participants get studied? (p. 47)

8. How was the data analyzed? (p. 48)

9. The authors identified three policy contradictions and one "patient care" contradiction.  For each of these four, identify:
    a. the contradiction ("A versus B")
    b. how it was handled
    c. how, if at all, it was resolved
    d. how, if at all, you see it manifested in workplace teams you've been part of (pp. 51-53)

10. What are the key contradictions the authors identify in the section on "Theoretical Contributions?"  How do they link with each other?

11. Looking particularly, but not exclusively, at
pp. 54-58, what do you identify as the biggest takeways from this article?

12.  What else needs to be said about this article?

Go to Reading Guides | Go to Syllabus  | Go to Course Schedule 
Go to Assignments |  Go to Irwin's Main Page | E-Mail Irwin

Copyright © 2001-2018 Irwin Mallin
Last Updated: 7 March 2018
URL: http://users.ipfw.edu/mallini/520s18rdg0403.html