Kinney field observation report final

Carol Kinney COM 308 Interpersonal Communication Field Report April 20, 2013

Part I: Interpersonal Communication amongst siblings As an only child, I have always been intrigued by the special bond that my two children, Gabrielle and Nicholas have had. As a parent who has cared for and nurtured them from conception, I am amazed how two children who often could not be in the same room as each other without an argument erupting could grow to be two people who enjoy spending time together. While I have been aware of how they communicate in special ways, I have never given it much thought until observing their interpersonal communication in light of academic study. Through observation, I not only learned about their patterns of communication, but I also learned how they communicate has shaped their relationship to each other and how their relationship has grown and is changing.

Having the benefit of background context helped me to understand their communication and relationship. A large part of how they communicate involves a special made-up nonverbal form of communication. When Gabrielle was about ten years old and Nicholas was just about nine, and right about the same time that they realized that they could actually be friends to some measure, they spent a lot of time one summer developing a unique form of sign language that they named “Pete.”

“Pete” contains a series of complicated facial expressions and hand gestures that translate into various emotions and sayings. True to Lynn Turner’s and Richard West’s “principles of nonverbal communication (Understanding Interpersonal Communication 154),” “Pete” is very

“ambiguous” and often needs to have a small amount of accompanying verbal communication to determine the meaning of the communication, especially when “Pete” is used to communicate the opposite of what is being said. This works in Gabrielle’s and Nicholas’ favor when they want to communicate something that they do not want anyone else to know. When “Pete” does need to be verbally communicated, Gabrielle and Nicholas use a “paralanguage (Turner and West 162) in which they use low, deep voices. While this is still easy for Gabrielle to do, Nicholas has a harder time of it since his voice changed and it usually just sounds like his normal voice.

Sometimes “Pete” is used as a way for them to communicate intimate topics of selfdisclosure (Turner and West 259) and “trust (Turner and West 258)” of one another. In my observation Gabrielle and Nicholas communicate using “Pete” in casual settings, as a way to bond as siblings and to show emotion, and this is right in line with a compilation of sibling communication studies by Katie Dunleavy, Matthew Martin and Kelly Rocca (2010). Dunleavy, Martin and Rocca report that “people look to their siblings to provide companionship, comfort, affect and friendship (205).”

Right about the time Gabrielle was a sophomore in high school, she told Nicholas that she did not want to use “Pete” anymore and they both agreed that it was time that “Pete” went away.

However, here we are four years later and “Pete” still makes appearances from time to time.

However, there are agreed upon rules of using this mostly nonverbal communication: not in public, not in front of anyone besides Mom and Dad, and only when they both want to. For instance, during the observation period, I only saw them communicate using “Pete” twice. Once was when we took a family trip to visit Gabrielle at her college city for the weekend after we

had not seen her for six weeks. They had plans to go into the city to see a musical and were in the back seat of our car. I noticed they were very quiet, but when I looked back in the rearview mirror, they were using “Pete.” The other time was when she came home for Spring Break and they were just lounging on the couch late in the afternoon watching television. On several other times during the course of the observation, I heard both of them saying “Pete really does need to go far, far away,” however they were laughing and just kind of nodded knowing that they probably will never stop communicating in this way. I would not be surprised if one day they teach their own children “Pete” and I will have a whole house full of people who communicate in way I will never understand!

“Pete” may be unique to their relationship, but they also communicate in other ways that are more typical of siblings. They communicate in terms of conflict, and as most young adults their age that grew up with technology all around them, they communicate using that technology. There’s not much else to say about Gabrielle’s and Nicholas’ use of technology that has not been said on the PowerPoint presentation or that differs from any other older teenagers in the western world, however through my observation, I discovered some important aspects about each of them and their relationship with each other by the way that they communicate conflict.

As their parents, we have always tried to stay out of their conflicts with one another unless the conflicts dragged on for prolonged periods of time, or the conflicts had the potential to escalate into harmful acts. As a result, I was able to observe how they communicate conflicts with one another as young adult siblings. I was able to see how the way that they do this involves a lot of “distal and proximal contexts (Turner and West 316)” within the “explanatory

process model (Turner and West 316) of conflict. As siblings they have both the benefit and disadvantage of having an abundance of background context in which to base their conflicts.

Knowing how the other argues, what emotional cues and how our family chooses to handle conflict helps them to recall the mutual “field of experience (Turner and West 18) and use it in the conflict, often at the advantage of the other.

In other words, there is direct correlation of power in their conflicts. When Gabrielle says to Nicholas that he should do something one way because that’s how she would do it and that is the right way, she uses “direct application (Turner and West 319)” of power as the oldest sibling and asserts her gender role as Nicholas’ so-called second mother (Sex Differences, Turner and West 320-321). When Nicholas considered his choices of colleges, Gabrielle did not tell him which college she preferred for him, yet he did choose one that was fairly close to her college.

While I know he is confident that he made the right choice, based upon many talks with him, I could not help but think that he was deferring just a bit to Gabrielle’s “hidden use of power (Turner and West 320)” when he said to me that his sister would be happy about his choice.

Dunleavy, Martin and Rocca’s findings say that Gabrielle’s power in the relationship may have to do with the fact that there are just the two of them. They write “when there is only one sibling, people report communicating more for control (215).” Additionally they conclude that older siblings communicate power more than younger siblings who prefer to communicate for “pleasure.” While Gabrielle usually does have the most power in the relationship, I also observed ways that Nicholas has been the leader in the “coming apart stages (Turner and West 351)” of the Stage Model of relationships and is made evidence by their conflicts.

In order to understand how the Stage Model applies to their interpersonal communication, a bit of background context is necessary. For the most part, Gabrielle and Nicholas have been typical siblings of opposite genders. For a period of time when Gabrielle went to junior high and Nicholas was still in elementary school through the time Gabrielle was in tenth grade, they went through all of the coming apart stages. However, once Nicholas reached his freshman year, they rediscovered one another through mutual classes, extracurricular activities and friends. Once that occurred, they became best friends and went through all of the “coming together stages”-again.

However, now that Gabrielle has graduated and is away at college, Nicholas has discovered a whole new “sense of self (Turner and West 58)” that identifies him as Nicholas instead of Gabrielle’s brother. Over the course of my observation, I had the opportunity to witness how Nicholas has become the initiator in the coming apart stages, even though Gabrielle was the first to leave. When she was home for Spring Break, he did not accommodate his schedule to fit around hers. He communicated that while he missed performing with her in the school’s annual musical, he enjoyed this experience as uniquely his. While I have noticed this all year, I really saw it in a new light in when I could interpret this process with the information from this class.

I knew it to be good for Nicholas, but was a bit worried about how it would affect their relationship. By observing the stages through their communication, I realized that they are now adults and are not only negotiating their individual self-concepts of self-awareness and selfesteem (Turner and West 60-62), but they are working out their own sibling relationship as adults. What I realized through this observation was that, like how my husband and I would

allow them to settle most of their conflicts as children themselves, they are mapping out they fit into each other’s lives at this point in time by themselves. From this observation, I learned that they will still share context and special bonds like “Pete” as a way of holding onto their past relationship and identities, yet they are also discovering new, more adult ways of handling conflict and communicating with one another that does involve a certain amount of coming apart.

Yet, by observing Gabrielle and Nicholas’ communication, I am happy that I do not foresee the final “terminating” stage in their future as siblings, mainly because of the positive manner that they communicate with each other-most of the time.

Part II: Professional Interpersonal Communication The public library is an excellent setting in which to study interpersonal communications because there are people of all ages, both genders and from various cultural backgrounds who are continuously using verbal and nonverbal ways of consciously and unconsciously sending and receiving messages. There are so many ways people are communicating at the public library that I had a difficult time focusing on just a few points.

Once I sat down and thoroughly examined the data that I collected, I decided to focus my report on how the staff used interpersonal communications from a professional viewpoint. The main points that I chose to focus on are the high-context culture that exists within the public library and expectancy violations theory, as well as nonverbal communication in relationship to professionalism and listening skills needed by the workers in order to serve the patrons.

According to Turner and West, a high-context culture is defined by how communications are developed. The authors state that “the meaning of a message is primarily drawn from the surroundings (95) and “people do not need to say much when communicating because there is a high degree of similarity among members of such cultures (96).” Turner and West also note that communication within a high-context culture involves a clear understanding of nonverbal messages (96). While the authors use the term in context of peoples groups, I found all of the elements within the library that makes the library a high-context culture within society. Mary O’Hara-Devereaux and Robert Johansen state that people in the profession of “Information Systems (2000)” such as libraries are indeed involved in a high-context culture and communicate in ways that are typical to that culture.

John Hooker of the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University agrees that certain professions and businesses can be considered a high-context culture (“Cultural Differences in Business Communication 2008). Hooker cites several reasons for this which supports Turner’s and West’s theories. Hooker writes this about high-context professional communication and cultures: Messages are understood by acquiring background information (1).

Rules of the business are regulated, not by written “signs” but rather by someone within the organization who “may accost me if I break the rules (3).”

• Being corrected by someone is “normal procedure.”

• “Norms . . . must be communicated personally.”

• “Contracts” are simple in shape and form because “it is not necessary to write everything down because mutual understanding and a handshake suffice (4).”

• High-context business cultures are based upon relationships and not an overwhelming number of rules, although improper behavior is deterred by shame, loss of face, punishment or ostracism (6).

• •

Based upon my field observations and the information provided by Turner and West, as well as Hooker, I have concluded that the public library is a high-context culture. There are very few

signs posted around the library regarding rules; the rules are either understood by patrons after much acclimation to a library setting or one of the staff members explains how a library card works. When people fail to obey the unwritten rules of the library, a staff member or volunteer speaks to the offender personally. The rules at the library are simple to follow: do not disrupt others as much as possible, bring back your borrowed items in good condition and on time, or you will pay a fine. During my observation someone needed a receipt for books purchased at the book sale and the staff member had to write it on a piece of paper because they had no formal receipts.

If you do not behave in the library, someone reprimands you; you do not listen, you are asked to leave. Even when the workers do not think that behavior is an issue, many people have a preconceived notion as to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in a library.

The example that remains strong from my observation is the father telling a very young child that using a loud voice in the library was unacceptable, all the while the workers are using voices that are not whispers. In other words, the father had a preconceived notion that the setting of the library was to dictate appropriate library communication volume for his child to use without any communication of that by the workers; the father had background context to back his assumptions. All of these ways show that meaning of communication is derived by the setting of the library, thus making the public library a high-context culture within our society.

The second point of my observation of professional communication within the setting of the public library is the acceptance of the “expectancy violations theory (Turner and West 168)” which says that “we expect other people to maintain a certain distance from us in their conversation with us.” Patrons waiting to check out items at the circulation desk wait in lines

with acceptable space between them of about 18 inches in a straight line, even though there are no ropes or signs indicated to do so. Additionally the workers are behind the circulation desk which forms the accepted distance between them and the patrons in a nonverbal form of communication. Even when the workers are on the floor helping patrons, the accepted distance between the workers and patrons seems to be the “personal distance (Turner and West 168)” length of about 18 inches. During my observation, one patron threatened to violate a volunteer’s space and the staff member was quick to respond with “voice qualities (Turner and West 163)” and non threatening nonverbal gestures that were designed to calm the patron’s emotions.

These are all ways that the expectancy violations theory is communicated in the professional setting of the library; however, there are instances in which the theory is also ignored by the workers. The children’s librarian seems to have the most leeway in violating the principles of the theory. I observed children sitting very close to her, even touching her, during story time and she gently touched a child on the shoulder during playtime when he was going to throw a toy. She also got down on the floor with some children to play. All of these observations showed that the “private space” was down to “intimate distance (Turner and West 167) of less than “18 inches.” Yet, this seemed acceptable, expected and appreciated by the parents and caregivers of the preschool aged children.

My third point of my library observation is professional nonverbal communication. Aside from the points that I already covered in the high-context culture and expectancy theory points, the professional nonverbal communication shown by the workers at the library are mainly work related actions and posturing without verbal communication. The job duties of the workers,

when not dealing with patrons are nonverbal. Standing straight at the circulation desk and not leaning on it, using the equipment and performing various job tasks are part of the professional communications that shows that they are performing library duties in a professional way.

When dealing with patrons, the workers use facial expressions to greet them and to show that they either understand or do not understand a patron’s question. Eyebrow and mouth movement nonverbally communicate meaning (Turner and West 161-162) without conscious effort of the workers. Additionally, I observed that the workers used eye contact to show interest in what the patron’s were verbally saying without verbally saying that they were listening (Turner and West 209-210).

Eye contact while being “silent” is just one way that I observed the workers at the library utilizing professional interpersonal “active listening (Turner and West 208)” skills. I observed the one staff member who had the most interaction with the patrons, using “paraphrasing” and “dialogue enhancers” on several occasions, especially when she was on the phone. She was also ready to empathize with patrons when a book could not be located (“I hate when that happens, but I can order it for you and have it here within three days”) or when one patron lost his library card (I’m so sorry, but I can replace it for you for 50 cents. Let me just pull up your account”). By using these listening skills, this staff member communicated that she was concerned for both the patron and the business of the library by making the patron happy. This is a good example of professional communication: it benefits both the patron and the business by telling the patron that the library wishes to have an ongoing personal relationship with them. This falls back to the high-context culture of the library. I am not saying that the staff member’s listening skills were perfect during the entire observation, but for the most part she

was putting forth a better than average effort to communicate the overall message of the library’s ideals.

Like the observation of my two children, the observation of professional communication at the public library helped me to see a very familiar setting in a whole new light. As a regular patron of the library and a member of the library’s board of trustees, I am not conscious of how important communication is at the library; it cannot function without it. How the library functions as a high-context culture also lays the ground for various professional interpersonal communications. Some of these ways that this is communicated are through the nonverbal agreement of space between people and the accepted exceptions to the “violations” of that space, the active listening skills of workers that communicate a desire for professional relationships, as well as the various ways nonverbal and verbal communication is sent to the receiver-the patrons. Just as the library is a place to gather information of all sorts, the library is an excellent place to study professional interpersonal communications. I only wish I had more time and space to show all of my findings.

Sources Dunleavy, K.N., Martin, M.M., and Rocca, K.A. “Siblings’ Motives for Talking to Each Other.”

The Journal of Psychology. 2010, 144 (2), 205-219. Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. Retrieved from web.ebscohost.com.libproxy.calbaptist.edu. 08 Apr. 2013.

Hooker, J. (December 2008). “Cultural Differences in Business Communication.” Retrieved from http://ba.gsia.cmu.edu/jnh/businesscommunication.pdf. 10 Apr. 2013.

Ohara-Devereaux, M. and Johansen, R. (2000). “Transcending Cultural Barriers: Context, Relationships

and Time.� Retrieved from http://www.csub.edu/TLC/options/resources/handouts/fac_dev/culturalbarries.html.

13 Apr. 2013.

Turner, L.H. and West, R. (2009). Understanding Interpersonal Communications, 2 nd Ed. Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Boston, MA.