5 FINDINGS OF THE SUB-STUDIES
5.2 Positioning dynamics and small group interaction in the context of joint
INTERACTION IN THE CONTEXT OF JOINT DECISION-MAKING
After discovering the usefulness of positioning theory to the investigation of group level phenomena, I wanted to continue with an analysis of a more specific theme of group behavior. In this sub-study, I focused my analysis on decision making episodes occurring in PRI1 of DS1. The findings demonstrate how decision making episodes consist of varying storylines and how positioning acts in these episodes result in task positioning and the re-creation of local moral orders. In addition, positioning during the episodes intertwined with different group-level phenomena, such as progression of the meeting, establishing the chair’s position, and negotiations on constructing an understanding regarding shared themes and concepts. In addition, my analysis in this sub-study led to conceptual developments of the theory, mainly defining task positioning as a specific group level form of positioning.
The reasons for choosing decision making episodes as the focus of analysis were two-fold. First, I wanted to focus my analysis on a more definite theme that already had an established research tradition within the field of small group research but had not yet been approached extensively from a micro-cultural perspective. Second, particularly meetings in PRI1 included quite a lot of decision making, namely, labeled in the meeting agendas as topics to be decided. For the purposes of my study, it seemed rather straightforward to choose this specific theme for closer inspection.
In the early stages of this sub-study, in addition to micro-cultural group studies and positioning, I was very much inspired by Rom Harré’s texts and considerations
regarding social episodes as a starting point for this sub-study. According to Harré and Van Langenhove (1999a), to comprehend how, for example, a shared understanding of an event is constructed, one must understand the dynamics of social episodes and how continuity is created through the unity and cohesion of social relations.
Continuing with the same theoretical and methodological framework as sub-study one, the aims of this sub-study were to further examine what concepts and themes come into play when examining decision making episodes and their social dynamics in a group setting from the perspective of positioning theory. My aim was not to evaluate the end results of decision making but rather the social process of how the joint action of the team is constructed as a specific kind of decision making episode.
Studying decision making in the context of small groups is by no means a novel subject. Previous studies have emphasized either communication- or interaction-oriented perspectives. Group communication scholars have delineated different models and variables of decision making (e.g., Hirokawa & Scott Poole, 1996), whereas discursive investigations on group-level interaction have highlighted the in-situ social processes of group decision making. Previous conversation analytical studies have paid attention to these themes by investigating, for example, the effects of situated work practices (Alby & Zucchermaglio, 2006), formulation of proposals (Asmuß &
Oshima, 2012) and problem solving talk (Angouri & Bargiela-Chiappini, 2011). In accordance with the starting points of positioning theory, these studies of naturalistic decision making talk have emphasized the social constructionist and intersubjective nature of decision making. However, investigations of this nature have focused very little, if any, on social positioning, or explicit investigations of groups in the context of decision making.
On the basis of my analysis, I identified the structure of the decision making episodes of the investigated meetings according to storylines. The overall storyline of decision making created an institutional and conversational moral order in which, through both pre-positioning, and interactional positioning, different positions were assigned to the team members entailing specific sets of rights and duties. The decision making storyline consisted of two sub-storylines—storyline of presentation and storyline of discussion—both of which contained also more micro-scale storylines. The relational aspects of positioning came about in these storylines as, for example, in the presentation storyline, the presenter was positioned as an expert and the other team members as requiring information, accordingly. The expert positions were mainly constructed through tacit first-order positioning of the self or through explicit other-positioning. However, the latter form of positioning was more emblematic in the discussion storyline.
The findings demonstrate the central role of the chair to the proceeding of the meeting, as the transitions form one sub-storyline to another often took place through the chair’s initiative. In some cases, however, the presenters themselves made the initiative to move from one storyline to another resulting in task positioning and creating a new local moral order. The micro-level storylines taking place within the sub-storylines of presentation and discussion entailed positioning that resulted in either establishing the role of the chair as the facilitator of the meetings, negotiating meeting procedures, and negotiating concepts, and themes concerning the decisions.
The chair’s role as a facilitator in the meetings became apparent when, for example, someone else in the meeting attempted to proceed from one storyline to another without explicit permission of the chair. Micro-level storylines of negotiation also took place when one of the group members did not act according to the position
assigned to oneself in a given storyline but rather challenged the position. This resulted particularly in negotiations regarding the meeting procedures. In turn, challenging the expert position of the presenter via second-order positioning resulting in brief manifestations of conflict storylines leads to negotiations concerning the meeting procedures or the discussed concepts and themes.
Analysis of positioning in a small group in this context led me to the conceptualization of task positioning. The positioning acts and the storylines created during decision making often entailed an element that dealt with how the team should continue with the task at hand, what the central concepts regarding the task meant, or what should be done about the matter in the future. For example, by simply stating that the matter at hand is important and allowing more time for presentation resulted in creating specific kind of an institutional (e.g., What is the meaning of the matter to the institution?) and conversational (e.g., How should the team members orient toward the task?) moral order. I have demonstrated this process in a simplified form in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Example of positioning dynamics in task positioning and re-construction of local moral orders.
Findings presented in this sub-study demonstrate the social dynamics of group decision making from the viewpoint of positioning. By highlighting the construction of local moral orders of small groups, the findings bring forth something that has been
previously somewhat neglected by positioning theory scholars. As a result, my findings also demonstrate the overall episodic structure of group decision making according to storylines and the micro-level storyline structures resulting in task positioning and creation of local moral orders. Particularly, the analysis of positioning in a group context sheds light on both the social and instrumental elements of positioning. From the perspective of positioning theory, separation between task, and social elements of group work seems rather artificial. Analysis of this nature makes it possible to investigate what social aspects are related to the construction of group tasks such as decision making.