Describing know‐how about group discussion procedure: Must the representation be recursive?

Abstract

While formal agendi and some descriptions have characterized the group discussion process as an overall sequence of linear stages, other descriptions have noted the presence of short, proposal‐centered, “reach‐testing” sequences embedded within these stages. To the extent that group members’ beliefs about ideal group discussion procedures appear to influence actual manifested procedures, an explanation of the basis for group discussion processes requires an understanding of whether group members believe that ideal group discussion procedures should involve linearity or reach‐testing. A study was performed to examine the structure of participants’ conceptions of ideal group discussion procedures. The results revealed that about one‐half of the participants favor a reach‐testing procedure, about one‐fifth a linear procedure, about one‐fifth a procedure beginning with reach‐testing and ending with a linear stage, and about one‐tenth a procedure beginning with a linear stage and ending with reach‐testing. These findings can be adequately represented by a “recursive MOP” formalism.