The last of four boys in a working-class family of six, I was born in Peoria, Illinois, on October 30, 1941 to Rolland James Gouran and Helen Catherine Gouran. My father, at the time, worked for a vending company called “Canteen,” which supplied candy bars for vending machines in businesses throughout the Peoria area. My mother had not previously been employed and was not employed during this period, as she was busy with four children, including yours truly, who ranged in age from 8 to under 1. She later worked as a domestic providing cleaning and related household services to various families in the community. Subsequent to that, she served as a cook at the local sanitarium for the mentally ill, and, beyond the several years she served in that capacity, took employment in a neighborhood laundry. My mother's employment history began when I was 5 and continued into my early 20s. Over the same years, my father, upon leaving the vending company, held positions as a salesperson for Sears, Roebuck and Company, managed a Standard Oil service station, and returned to sales with Cohen Furniture Company, where he stayed until he retired in 1975.
Neither of my parents had a college education. My mother completed high school, and my father left school in tenth grade, which incidentally was not all that uncommon in the 1920s, I came to learn as I was growing up and met the parents of my peers, especially in larger families, in which male children were expected to supplement parental earnings.
My parents, as well as my grandparents on my mother's side of the family, were very influential in my formative years. They both saw education as the route to a better life and wanted my brothers and me to go as far in school as we could. The grandparents in question lived next door to my family for 15 years before we moved to a new neighborhood and, for me, were the very embodiment of a strong work ethic, but in respect to activities that were meaningful to them in the context of developing a sense of accomplishment, personal worth, and responsibility to the community. Never were they out to “keep up with the Joneses.” In fact, I think they could not have cared less about what the “Joneses” did or thought. At least, I never detected any evidence of envy on their part for those who had gained materially more than they or the lives that they led. Their feeling seemed to me to be that people have to do the best they can with the resources that are available to them and that, in recognizing this, they are more apt than not to lead successful, fulfilling lives.
Once I entered the public school system I encountered all sorts of individuals who influenced me. We resided in an ethnically diverse neighborhood. School to me was a good place to be. I liked being a student. The reason for this, I suspect, is that all but one teacher in my elementary school years I found to be caring, competent professionals who exposed me to things I never before had known and helped me to develop skills I would otherwise likely would not have been aware I possessed, let alone exhibited.
My attitude toward school continued through my secondary school years, college, and graduate school. That is undoubtedly a reflection of the fact that the overwhelming majority of my teachers at all levels were exceptionally talented and first-class professionals. However, they also were demanding and quite willing to express disappointment when students (not just I) fell short of their potential—an acknowledgment that today often carries the threat of confrontation with angry parents, allegations of mistreatment, highly unflattering performance appraisals, and even demands for disciplinary action, if not removal, from the faculty.
Throughout my elementary, secondary, and undergraduate school years, I was active in a variety of extracurricular activities. In elementary school, from sixth grade forward, such activities were largely centered in athletics, as able males were expected to play on the football, basketball, volleyball, and softball teams whether they were skilled or not; however, I was the MOC for the variety show just prior to graduation and from that experience acquired a taste for the public arena, even though my level of apprehension took me to the point of being physically ill. My high school years were the ones most filled with participation in extracurricular activities, including forensics, a variety of plays, student government, yearbook staff, Latin Club, French Club, Key Club, and National Honor Society. College brought greater focus on forensic activity, but I did squeeze in a couple of plays. Graduate school, I discovered, did not allow one much opportunity for activities beyond those relating to degree progress and assistantship responsibilities.
As to who influenced me in later life, there are so many individuals who have had an impact on my professional outlook and development that I could not begin to acknowledge my indebtedness in any sufficiently comprehensive or appropriate way. In terms of impact in launching a scholarly career that has evolved along the lines it has, however, I can single out Sam Becker and John Bowers, both of whom encouraged me to run with some ideas concerning communication in groups in which I developed an interest while in graduate school at the University of Iowa. In respect to individuals who most informed my thinking early in my career via their own scholarship, I was most attracted to the work of Irving Janis and Ernest Bormann. I should also note here two of my contemporaries (now both deceased and students of Professor Bormann)—Aubrey Fisher and Dale Leathers—who were also interested in decision-making and problem-solving groups, but who came at the study of them in ways different from my own. They each helped me to realize the sometimes excessively narrow perspective I was inclined to adopt in studying group process and the role of communication in it. At present, there are any number of younger members of the profession whose work continues to stimulate and impress me. With apologies to those I may have inadvertently overlooked, these include David Seibold, Dean Hewes, Linda Putnam, Scott Poole, Renée Meyers, Joann Keyton, Craig Scott, Sunwolf, Michele Jackson, Larry Frey, Kevin Barge, Sandra Ketrow, Andrea Hollingshead, Gwen Wittenbaum, Joe Bonito, and, of course, my good friend and frequent co-author, Randy Hirokawa.
Given what I have said about my involvement and interest in speaking activities of various kinds, it might appear that my choice of a discipline was in the cards from high school on. To a large extent, it was. However, the level at which I aimed underwent a good deal of change. Upon matriculating at Illinois State University in 1959 my objective was to prepare myself to become a high school teacher. As I approached graduation and had marriage plans that included my spouse-to-be's completing her baccalaureate degree, pursuit of a master's degree entered the picture. At the outset, this additional credential was attractive to me because it seemed to allow for greater flexibility in my career choices. Not only would I be qualified to teach in public schools, but with an M.S. I could also likely have pursued a career in community college teaching. Not long into my M.S. program, again at Illinois State, the prospect of a Ph.D. degree began to loom, as I increasingly became interested in the “why” of human communication and less focused on the “how.” Holding me back in making a decision was self-doubt concerning my ability to pursue doctoral-level work. But with the encouragement of such professors as Walter Friedhoff (a psychologist at ISU), Carl Dallinger, Stan Rives, and Don Burks, I began applying to various Ph.D. programs and eventually chose the University of Iowa, which for me turned out to be a decision I never once regretted at the time and have not since.
What is my self-description? I have never been comfortable trying to describe or characterize myself to others, and, given what I have learned about perception over the course of my career, am well aware that views of oneself are often at considerable variance with those of others. Nevertheless, since I am obliged to indicate how I see myself for the purposes of this autobiography and the larger project of which it is a part, I would portray myself along the following lines: “above average in intelligence, appreciative of rational judgment and objectivity (even if I am not always able to display these attributes), high in organizational skill, productive of scholarship that has made a difference in how we study and think about communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups, conscientious in meeting professional responsibilities, a reasonably good writer, a helpful editor, supportive of the work of promising young scholars in my area of specialty, prompt in providing feedback, a competent, constructive reviewer of manuscripts, and a good professional citizen.” Others may speak to my less admirable attributes if they wish.
Prior to becoming President of the National Communication Association (then the Speech Communication Association) in 1991, I held a number of positions in the organization. These included Vice Chair and Chair of the Interpersonal and Small Group Communication Division, Associate Editor of Communication Monographs and Quarterly Journal of Speech, Member and Chair of the Research Board, Member of the Legislative Assembly (then Legislative Council), Member of the Administrative Committee, Second Vice President, and First Vice President. All of the experiences associated with these positions and roles, in my view, provided an excellent basis for understanding th e organization and foundation for executing the duties of the Office of President once I acceded to it.
Regarding what I hoped to accomplish as NCA President, or what I prefer to think of as “what I would like to have happen as a result of initiatives undertaken during my year as President,” I stated nearly everything in my Presidential Address at the Atlanta Convention. In the address, the theme of which was “reaching out,” I discussed the need for the Association to take steps to: (a) assure better representation of historically underrepresented groups in the organization and the profession more generally; (b) establish better relationships with those in professional communities, such as law, medicine, politics, and business and, thereby, to improve our work/contributions in the area of Applied Communication; (c) enhance our appeal to those in the international community and create a greater degree of connection with them; and (d) develop closer ties with those in cognate disciplines to promote greater collaboration and a sense of interdisciplinarity.
In advancing these goals, I did not sense resistance or feel that the Association was up against major barriers. They struck me as entirely reasonable in light of the sorts of matters that seemed to be on the minds of different individuals and groups within the discipline. While not wishing to posit cause-to-effect relationships between my remarks and subsequent developments, it is my impression that the Association has been moving along the lines noted and doing so with considerable success during the past 15 years. We are now a more diverse organization than we were in 1991, have improved in addressing the concerns of underrepresented communities, are more international in our membership and intellectual interests, and are being taken more seriously by those in other disciplines than I think we have been hitherto. (I address some of these accomplishments in other connections near the end of the document.) Whoever is responsible for these strides forward, what, as president, I wanted to see happen has been happening, and in clearly discernible ways, even if not to everyone's satisfaction.
I turned 50 while attending the Atlanta Convention in 1991. Why age or my marital status (which, incidentally, was “married” then and still is—to the same person) at the time of my presidency should matter, I do not know, but I have now offered the obligatory responses. More germane to my way of thinking is the question of “credibility” problems. I am not aware of any such difficulties specifically related to my presidency, with the possible exception of some negative reaction to my support of a rather substantial increase in dues—less substantial now than appeared to be the case at the time. Some members of the Legislative Council were very concerned that the leadership of the Association was being insensitive to the financial situation of many of its members, but the proposed increase passed with the support of a substantial majority of the members of the Legislative Council, and the predicted dire consequences on membership retention and future convention attendance did not materialize. I do recall one accusation of my “stifling dissent” during the meeting when I was attempting to secure an interpretation of a parliamentary issue, so I suppose that I had little credibility with the accuser—at least, at the moment. Not knowing how many members of the Association may have favored my opponent during the election that eventuated in my becoming president, it is difficult to judge the extent of possible mistrust in me. I can only say that little, if anything, of an overt nature surfaced during my year as president that leads me to believe that my credibility in enacting that role was in doubt.
As to my strengths as president, I have much the same feeling as I expressed above in relation to “self-descriptors” that I would apply to myself. Virtually anything I might say in this regard is almost surely to have a self-serving tone. Nevertheless, I will attempt to recount what I consider to have been my pluses in the role of NCA President. Among other things, I believe that my background in the study of group process enabled me to function efficiently and effectively in meetings of the Administrative Committee and the Legislative Council. In addition, I am confident that I treated all members of both bodies in a fair and impartial manner. I also addressed concerns, whether from members of the two governing bodies or those in other positions, that came to my attention as soon thereafter as I could. In short, I was close to being immediately responsive, even if those seeking a response were not always altogether happy with what I had to say.
In answer to the question concerning my prior administrative experience, I would point to two kinds: academic and professional. In the first domain, I spent several years as the Director of Graduate Studies in Speech Communication at Indiana University during my 16 years as a member of the faculty in the Department of Speech Communication and one semester as Acting Chair. I went to Penn State in 1984 as Head of the Department of Speech Communication there and was still in that position during my NCA Presidency. In the professional domain, I held office in the Central States Communication Association as Vice President Elect, Vice President, and President in 1983, 1984, and 1985, respectively, and as a member of that organization's Executive Committee.
To the inquiry concerning my scholarly achievements, I developed my research interests while pursuing a Ph.D. degree at the University of Iowa from 1965 to 1968. Of greatest impact was a research project I selected for a course in Group Communication that John Bowers taught, and in which I became fascinated with the predictability of communicative acts in group discussions. That led to a more general interest in Group Communication as an area of specialization and the decision to do a group study for my dissertation. In making this choice, I also became focused on understanding the dynamics of interaction in decision-making and problem-solving groups, especially as they account for successes and failure. That interest and focus have been evident in my scholarly agenda for what is approaching 40 years.
What I believe has been the principal contribution of my scholarship is the formation, development, and sustained evolution of the “Functional Theory of Communication in Decision-Making and Problem-Solving Groups,” of which Randy Hirokawa and I have been the chief architects. Not only has the work led to an increase in our understanding of why some decision-making and problem-solving groups are effective while others similarly equipped in respect to talent and resources are not, but also has provided grounds for improving the performance of such groups, which always has been a goal for me. My inspiration for such a pursuit was Alfred North Whitehead's notion, expressed so eloquently in The Aims of Education, that to be of value, knowledge ultimately requires application.
I earlier mentioned individuals who have had a strong impact on my thinking and scholarly outlook concerning decision making and problem solving in groups. As to who among them would qualify as “mentors,” Sam Becker and John Bowers, I believe, provided the most direct assistance in helping me to understand what scholarly inquiry is about and how to engage in it. Upon entering the world of scholarship as a newly minted Ph.D., I found Ernest Bormann to be the one established person who took immediate interest in my work and was willing to help me develop my thinking and ideas. Finally, in terms of learning the ropes associated with being NCA President, I could not have asked for a better teacher than my immediate predecessor, Mark Knapp.
What pathways led to my becoming an NCA officer? That is difficult to answer if I am to be exhaustive. However, if that is not a requirement, then three come to mind. First, I think that the record of scholarship I established between 1968, the year I completed the Ph.D. degree, and 1988, the year I entered the presidential succession, gave me visibility I would not otherwise likely have had. Second, I believe that prior to becoming a viable candidate for the office, I had developed a record in service to the profession that suggested I could and would handle the job of president competently, if elected. Finally, experience in the administrative structure of the largest regional association, the Central States Communication Association, including a year as its president, I suspect, not only brought me votes as a known quantity among its members but also some from NCA members in other regions who may have concluded that such service was a good credential and provided reason for believing that adjustment to the leadership of a more complex organization would be more easily possible.
My opponent in the election of 1988 for Second Vice President was James W. Chesebro, who, as everyone knows, later became NCA President in 1996 and who proved in the process that if I had lost the election in which we were opponents, the Association nevertheless would have been in very able hands. I had no particular agenda in making the decision to be a candidate for the presidency. I had been asked to be a nominee the year before, when the Nominating Committee selected Mark Knapp and Carolyn Calloway-Thomas for the ballot. The second time around, it named me as one of the two candidates.
My motivation to be a candidate for Second Vice President and, ultimately, NCA President, stemmed from a long-held feeling concerning professional service, which was (and still i s) that when one benefits as much as I have from membership in a professional organization (e.g., NCA published my work, it enabled me to meet regularly in fora in which I could share ideas with others having similar interests, it provided me, through its publications, a low-cost means of keeping myself informed about much of the ongoing scholarship in the discipline, and it gave me numerous opportunities for professional growth and development), if able to serve, he or she has the obligation to respond positively to requests to do so. Hence, I agreed on both occasions to be a candidate for office.
I was also aware that the Association's financial picture was not as bright as it could be, in fact, needed to be, and that in having administered for several years a budget larger than the Association's at the time, I might be able to be of assistance in helping it manage its financial difficulties more effectively. As of 1990, the year I was responsible for planning the Convention, the situation began to change, as we had the most well-attended conference in the Association's history to that point and, in the subsequent year, were able to achieve a variety of economies, as well as increase revenues in ways that put the organization on a sound financial footing.
What to me is the symbolic meaning of the NCA Presidency? Among other things, it signifies, to the extent a professional organization can, that a large number of people regard one as able to look after their professional interests. It further confers on the occupant a certain degree of respect, but not unqualified. Should one betray the trust of those who elected him or her, and, possibly more importantly, those who did not, the end result might well be censure. Finally, having a position like that of NCA President can reflect favorably on the Division(s) of the Association he or she represents, as well as the department or institution from which the person hails. In short, it enables others to say: “One of us has shown achievement of a significant kind that can befall others of us.”
Regarding the final question I have been asked to address, what I tried to accomplish during my presidency is implicit, if not explicit, in some of the comments above. Specifically, I wanted to help the Association develop and pursue a policy of sound fiscal management and corporate responsibility. Second, as mentioned previously, I sought to set in motion several forms of reaching out, including greater inclusiveness of underrepresented constituencies, greater contact with those in the professional, non-academic world confronting various sorts of communication problems for which members of the Association's expertise could be helpful, more significant involvement of those in the international community in the work of the Association and discipline more generally, and the development of a greater sense of interdisciplinarity with those having similar concerns in cognate fields of inquiry.
In the first instance, I made every effort to assure that expenditures be reasonable and that the Association avoid acting on visions of its future without it knowing their fiscal implications and determining how the resources necessary for their realization could be acquired. In achieving this objective, I believe that I was eminently successful.
In the second instance, in view of the fact that an NCA President is in office for only a year and that the forms of reaching out I have noted could not come to fruition for several years, I had to be content with attempting to set directions and waiting for specific initiatives to emerge. It seems to me that the results thus far have been encouraging. There is greater diversity in the membership of the organization, as well as in its leadership, the amount of applied work continues to expand, the Association presently has members representing 38 different countries, and research has shown a growth in inquiry that crosses disciplinary boundaries. Given where we were in 1968 when I joined the Association, and even when I became NCA President in 1991, these developments, to me, are impressive and reflect the efforts of members who, I think, have been on the same page as I was when I attempted to set the directions I did.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Dennis S. Gouran
Dennis S. Gouran (Ph.D., University of Iowa, 1968) is Professor in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences and the Department of Labor Studies and Industrial Relations, The Pennsylvania State University, USA. He was National Communication Association President in 1991Notes
1. At the time of Gouran's presidency, the Association was known as the Speech Communication Association.