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

COM 520 Course Schedule (subject to change)


Tues Jan 9
Introduction to the course, each other, and the graduate program
• Special guest: Dr. Michelle Kelsey Kearl, Interim Director of Graduate Studies
• Fri Jan 12 is last day to add and last day for regular audit– Sun Jan 14 is last day to drop for full refund and without a W on your transcript
Tues Jan 16
Introduction to the subject matter and introduction to the research assignment
• Read Poole, 1998; Henman, 2003; and Keyton & Beck, 2008
• Research Assignment Distributed


Tues Jan 23
The functional perspective
• Read Griffin, 2011a; Propp & Nelson, 1997
Tues Jan 30
Symbolic convergence
• Read Griffin, 2011b; Putnam, Van Hoeven, & Bullis, 1991
Tues Feb 6
• Read Griffin, 2003; Sunwolf & Seibold, 1998
Tues Feb 13
Bona Fide Groups
• Read Putnam, 2003; Lammers & Krikorian, 1997

Tues Feb 20 • Research Proposal Due


Tues Feb 27 The ideology of teams; To team or not to team?
• Read Sinclair, 1992; Hackman 1998
• Take Home Midterm Distributed
Tues Mar 6 No class – Spring Break
Tues Mar 13
• Take Home Midterm and Research Proposal Revisions Due
• Fri Mar 16 is last day to request withdraw
Tues Mar 20
Individual team members; Shared leadership
• Read Lafasto & Larson, 2001; Kramer, 2006
Tues Mar 27
Team leadership
• Read Galanes, 2009; Garner & Poole, 2009
Tues Apr 3
Contradictions and organizational change
• Read Parrish-Sprowl, 2006; Seamons & Canary 2017
Tues Apr 10
Group deliberation
• Read Tracy and Standerfer, 2003; Barge, 2002


Tues Apr 17
Paper workshop
• First Complete, Credible Draft of Research Paper Due
• Take Home Final Distributed
Tues Apr 24
Student presentations
• Research Paper Due
Tues May 1
Debriefing the semester
• Take Home Final Due


Barge, J. K.  (2002).  Enlarging the meaning of group deliberation: From discussion to dialogue.  In L. R. Frey (Ed.), New directions in group communication (pp. 159-177).  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Galanes, G. J.  (2009).  Dialectical tensions of small group leadership.  Communication Studies, 60(5), 409–425.

Garner, J. T. & Poole, M. S.  (2009).  Opposites attract: Leadership endorsement as a function of interaction between a leader and a foil.  Western Journal of Communication, 73(3), 227–247.

Griffin, E.  (2003). Adaptive structuration theory.  In 
A first look at communication theory (5th ed.) (pp. 244-257).  New York: McGraw Hill.

Griffin, E.  (2011a). Functional perspective on group decision making.  In 
A first look at communication theory (8th ed.) (pp. 233-246).  New York: McGraw Hill.

Griffin, E.  (2011b). Symbolic convergence theory.  In 
A first look at communication theory (8th ed.) (pp. 247-258).  New York: McGraw Hill.

Hackman, J. R.  (1998).  Why teams don’t work.  In Tindale, R. S., et al. (Eds.), Theory and research on small groups (pp. 245-267).  New York: Plenum.

Henman, L. D.  (2003).  Groups as systems.  In R. Y. Hirokawa, R. S. Cathcart, L. A. Samovar, & L. D. Henman (Eds.), Small group communication theory and practice: An anthology (pp. 3-7).  Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Keyton, J., & Beck, S. J.  (2008).  Team attributes, processes, and values: A pedagogical framework.  Business Communication Quarterly, 71(4), 488-504.

Kramer, M. W.  (2006).  Shared leadership in a community theater group: Filling the leadership role.  Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(2), 141-162

LaFasto, F., & Larson, C. (2001). What makes a good team member?  The abilities and behaviors that matter (p. 1-30).  In When teams work best: 6,000 team members and leaders tell what it takes to succeed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lammers, J. C., & Krikorian, D. H.  (1997).  Theoretical extension and operationalization of the bona fide group construct with an application to surgical teams.  Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25, 17-38.

Parrish-Sprowl, J.  (2006).  Team facilitation of organizational change: A case study from a bona fide group perspective.  In L. R. Frey (Ed.). Facilitating group communication in context: Innovations and applications with natural groups (pp. 203-223).  Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press

Poole, M. S. (1998). The small group should be the fundamental unit of communication research. In J. S. Trent (Ed.), Communication: Views from the helm for the 21st century (pp. 94-97). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Propp, K. M., & Nelson, D.  (1996).  Problem-solving performance in naturalistic groups: A test of the ecological validity of the functional perspective.  Communication Studies, 47, 35-45.

Putnam, L. L. (2003).  Rethinking the nature of groups: A bona fide group perspective.  In Hirokawa, R. Y., Cathcart, R.S., Samovar, L. A., & Henman, L. D.  (Eds.).  (2003).  Small group communication theory and practice: An anthology (pp. 8-16).  Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Putnam, L. L., Van Hoeven, S. A., & Bullis, C. A.  (1991).  The role of rituals and fantasy themes in teachers’ bargaining.  Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 85-103.

Seamons, V. A., &  Canary, H. E. (2017).  Contradictions in surgical work teams.  Journal of Applied Communication Research, 45(1), 42-60.

Sinclair, A. (1992). The tyranny of a team ideology. Organization Studies, 13, 611-626.

Sunwolf, & Seibold, D. R.  (1998).  Jurors’ intuitive roles for deliberation: A structurational approach to communication in jury decision making.  Communication Monographs, 65, 282-307.

Tracy, K., & Standerfer, C. (2003). Selecting a school superintendent: Sensitivities in group deliberation. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed.) (pp. 109-134). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

Copyright © 2001-2018 Irwin Mallin
Last Updated: 6 January 2018
URL: http://users.ipfw.edu/mallini/520sked.html