Page 51 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

34 Chapter 2

face-to-face group meetings?” Depending on the kind of net conference, participant
nonverbal messages like facial expressions and body language are missing or exagger-
ated. For example, during a videoconference participants can see each other, but
38
only to the extent that the camera allows. Proximity is only simulated, not duplicated—
members are not actually in each other’s physical presence. Turn taking is harder
because there is often a delay of half a second, which causes participants to overlap
each other. Because participants are tied to their computers, gestures are restricted.
The sense of sharing, involvement, and team spirit can be low. This could be harmful
if the group is trying to build consensus about something, but it may not matter if
participants are just trying to generate a list of ideas. 39
Videoconferences are increasingly easy to use, making them common to the pro-
fessional world as well as the classroom. The market is exploding with competitors
offering their services to organizations that wish to hold online group meetings
among members and even outside partners, like sales vendors. Google Hangouts is
often used to facilitate videoconferences and is easily accessed through Gmail,
Google+ websites, or mobile apps. It is used extensively by one of the author’s faculty
curriculum committee to work during the semester, “in between” the face-to-face cur-
riculum meetings. Even Amazon has entered the videoconferencing market with
Amazon Chime, competing with one of the most popular tools for both business and
personal videoconferencing, ZOOM. Not to be outdone, Google’s new Meet is replac-
ing Hangouts and allows multiple participants from different groups to join the
meeting.
As these videoconferencing technologies mature and offer more sophisticated
visuals, audio capabilities, and even three-dimensional videoconferences with avatars,
Social Presence members get a sense they are actually there with each other. Lack of social presence,
The extent to which or how much members perceive the communication medium is like face-to-face inter-
group members action socially and emotionally, has been a criticism of CMC. This presence is depen-
40
perceive that a dent on the degree to which members feel like others are there during interaction.
particular Asynchronous communication, where there is a delay between when a message is sent
communication and when it is received (e.g., text message or e-mail), promotes less social presence
medium is socially than more synchronous or simultaneous communication. These more sophisticated
and emotionally videoconferencing tools allow for more synchronous communication modeling “face-
similar to face-to-face to-face” meetings.
interaction.
Whether a group desires communication that facilitates more warmth and social
presence versus that which promotes more distance and data is up to the needs of the
group. However, individuals using CMC can become very creative when it comes to
replicating the social presence of face-to-face communication. Walther’s theory of
social information processing stems from the premise that individuals are motivated to
learn about one another, whether they communicate face-to-face or by computer. Thus,
people adapt to the particular medium they are using and by extension the degree of
social presence allowed by the technological tool they are using. More synchronous
41
communication with visuals and three-dimensional capabilities give members the range
of nonverbal cues to use with their words. With more asynchronous communication
found in e-mail, for instance, group members can still self-disclose, ask about one
another, and form close relationships, although such relationships may take longer.

gal37018_ch02_021_050.indd 34 3/30/18 11:13 AM