A rose by any other name: The vitality of group communication research

Abstract

Small group communication research has been criticized repeatedly for its narrow focus on decision making, over‐reliance on experimental research designs, and failure to examine real‐life groups. It is our contention that these criticisms are the result of confusion as to what constitutes group communication inquiry. Research that examines the dynamics of small groups label the groups alternatively as “networks, “ “teams, “ “committees, “ “quality circles, “ “families, “ “collectives, “ “juries, “ and so forth. To assess the vitality of the field, scholars must look at the wide spectrum of research being conducted on group communication processes, regardless of the umbrella under which it is conducted and published. An expeditious review of the literature under some of the alternative labels demonstrates the richness, breadth, theoretical diversity, and methodological pluralism of the study of groups in various social contexts.