Reflections on the type of question as a determinant of the form of interaction in decision‐making and problem‐solving discussions

Abstract

This essay advances the thesis that scholars interested in communication in decision‐making and problem‐solving groups have focused in their research on questions of policy at considerable neglect of questions of fact, conjecture, and value. One should not presume that the process involved in discussions of questions of policy is similar to those involved in discussions of the other three types. In fact, there is good reason to believe that because the decision frame presumably is different for each type of question, the pattern of interaction characteristic of discussions involving each type of question will be distinct. Such distinctiveness is suggested and better explained by viewing each type of question from a unique theoretical perspective. Accordingly, this essay explores discussions of questions of fact from a narrative perspective, questions of conjecture from a cognitive perspective, questions of value from a deontological perspective, and questions of policy from a social‐influence perspective in terms of expected patterns of interaction and the possibilities each presents in accounting for variation in the consensual outcomes of group decision‐making and problem‐solving discussions, as well as the appropriateness of the final choices the participants make.