A Sympathetic Reaction To The Sm And Dlcm As Group Communication Theories

摘要

I see that in the first paragraph of his essay, Dean Hewes (2009) has given me credit both for understanding the implications of the socioegocentric model (SM) and for adopting its basic logic in past work. To the extent that this assertion is true, it is a product of my academic heritage, as during our joint time at the University of Wisconsin (1976 through 1981), I as graduate student and Hewes as professor, I had constant opportunities, both inside and outside of the classroom, to be influenced by his style of thinking. I found earlier versions of the SM provocative, and when I had developed a suitable dataset, I took it upon myself to respond to one of its implications (Pavitt & Johnson, 1999). I welcome this opportunity to consider it once again, in tandem with the newly proposed dual-level connectionist model (DLCM).rnIn this essay, I consider three issues, all related to topics I have taken up in past work. First, through a rephrased summary of the argument in Pavitt and Johnson (1999), I will describe why I feel that the SM is unlikely to be an accurate portrayal of communicative influence.