To What Extent Can Psychology Be Considered a Science?

To What Extent Can psychology Be Considered a scholarship?Examine to what extent Psychology sack be considered a ScienceRebecca HarrisIntroductionThe question s pole packing Psychology be considered a Science? It is important to understand what a Science is in relation to Psychology. Psychology is deemed as the scientific study of behavior. Science is a branch of cognition conducted on objective principles involving the systematised observation of an experiment with phenomena. So rear end Psychology be a Science? Throughout this essay, deeper understanding of Psychological Methods and the aims of Science and how these link, entrust be looked at and investigated further.There be four elementary principles of Science truth, objectivity, realism and rationality. For psychological science to be perceived as a science certain scientific methodology would be needed, these be objective observation, s perpetuallyalise to spikelet up an argumentation, an investigation to test the hypothesis, an induction which draws conclusions from f ventures or guinea pigs, repetition, critical analysis and verification and testing of the study.Empiricism, a scientific approach founded by philosopher washstand Locke (1632-1704), turned into a scientific method of enquiry that used both observation and experiments to gather facts and license that may bring been needed. Scientific enquiry shadow be based upon both phrases 1. Too do with theory and the foundation of hypotheses. 2. Empirical method, consequently being experiments and observations. The important method of scientific enquiry would be the use of experiments. Using examinations make investigate more scientific. Important key features for an experiment be control over variables, in this case they would either be Independent, dependent and extraneous. This particular approach would be a strength towards Psychology as a Science as cause and effect send packing be established due to the control over the ex periments.A form of Empiricism is Logical Positivism. This theory suggests that arresting experience is our main and only source of development about the world we pull through in. There are two main claims for this theory Knowledge Empiricism- The theory that the knowledge of the world is gained through evidence from our sensory experiences. The theory states that the meaning of a statement is determined by verifiability. Verification must be through observation. This is an advantage of Psychology as a Science as behaviour is looked at through observation and so thitherfore this means that verification bed happen.Rationalism compared to Empiricism is that senses can non be completely relied upon to depict knowledge needed. Knowledge can be gained by inductive reasoning, as long as its applied properly. Rationalists look at the world we live in and discipline deeper meaning behind everything they see, implying that the world is not real. Empiricists see the world were living in as the true world and that everything we see does not suffer a deeper meaning.Idealism and realism are two philosophical terms that deal with our forelands relationship with the world in which we live. Idealism knowledge that the mind interprets what we see. The knowledge that constructs the mind and does not necessarily correspond to the on goings of the outside world. What we see is not actually real.Realism the appraisal that knowledge reveals the macrocosm of the outside world. Thus meaning that, it is what it is, you see what you see. This is a disadvantage for Psychology as a Science as it cant be proved or disproven that whether the world we live in is real or not.Locke took on the nature-nurture debate, the first part to the theory of behaviourism and came up with the idea that the human mind is a tabula rasa meaning blank slate. In 1913 Watson gained the support that Wundt had lost and formed behaviourism. Wundt concentrated on introspection, however, Watson consi derd that this couldnt be proved or disproved so decided to concentrate on the study of behavior. Behaviourism as a theory of Psychology was final examinationly created. The overall meaning of behaviourism is to study the idea of the relationship between peoples environment and their behaviour, without application to hypothetical events happening inside geniuss head. The use of behaviour today can be seen as Scientific, helping mentally ill patients with behaviour modification and therapy to treat mental dis influences. Modern behaviour now looks at mental processes like imagery and attention, considered to be proper subject matter for scientific investigation.Positivism a form of behaviourism that uses experimental methods, as well as duodecimal data. Conclusions are not derived from a subjective approach. The conscious cant be objectively observed. It rejects emotions, feelings and mental processes and qualitative data is not used, so evidence that is collected is limited. The refore not Scientific and disagrees with psychology as a Science.Social Constructionist a neighborly circumstance which we face, our behavior dependent upon the social stead so its not scientific. If people be gull in a certain way then this leads to personality bias. Rather than looking at the behaviour in a social setting, research should be on the relative social construction. This looks at social cognition what we think other people are thinking. This is a disadvantage to why psychology is a science as its difficult to apply research as the focus would be on subjective constructions.Critical Realism looks at experience, culture and history when conducting observations and theories. It applies scientific practice to multiple methods of data collection. We are aware of a situation and act critical about what were doing. It gives us ideas on how to research and it uses multiple approaches, so the comparison of gos can take place. This is an advantage to why Psychology is a Scie nce due to the multiple research methods used rigorously including experimental method.A hypothetico-deductive method is a technique which involves observation of a participant. In order for the hypotheses to be classified scientific the researcher must generate a testable and realistic hypothesis, it must be falsifiable by recognized scientific methods. It can never be patroniseed fully. Some predictions must be make, these are to be proved or disproved. The predictions must be directly testable for the hypothetico-deductive method to be valid. Trying to test the hypothesis that God exists would be difficult because there is no way to scientifically evaluate it. This is an advantage of why psychology is a science as observation, the gathering and collecting of data is used.Kuhn 1922-1996 was a historian and had a great impact on revolutionary psychology in the field of battle of paradigms. The idea was to unite all thoughts and opinions on the subject. With the success of this c ame Psychologies biggest and most feared lunacy the inability for a universal paradigm. This is the greatest criticism to Psychologies claim to be Scientific. Kuhn himself gave psychology a name Pseudo-Science. The fact that a universal paradigm cant be formed means that this is a disadvantage towards Psychology as a Science, as all scientific methods should have paradigms.Popper 1902-1994 a philosopher with strong opinions towards whether Psychology is a Science. He believed that for a theory to be scientific it doesnt have to be true. Facts can show theories to be wrong. He had two major concerns, the first was defending and maintaining the idea that Science does progress. This concern was built in the positivist account that facts can and do verify theories. Popper believed that this part of the society was being put at risk due to pseudo-scientific theories that were not open to rejection, thus in particular Freud and his idea of Psychoanalysis. Poppers view of falsification wa s a disadvantage of why Psychology is a Science as Freud and psychoanalysis led to the argument that psychological theories are not falsifiable.According to Kuhn the lack of ecological validity is a disadvantage to why Psychology has a lack of adjudgement at heart scientific communities. If a study was based on Behaviourism, a key theory of Psychology, then there are some key ideologies that the investigation should have generalization, reinforcement and behaviour shaping. This in turn explains vast behaviours from language acquisition through too moral development. In Science, conclusions always remain true, however, in Psychology, this is not the case. When a piece of research is conducted in an artificial environment, the participants are aware of the study and may act and behave differently. This being demand characteristics, it affects the overall result, as there are no form of applications to cursory carriage. It can as well be argued that its low on the idea of applicat ion to real life due to the participants behaviour i.e. demand characteristics. This was showed in Piaget study of Conservation.In 1974 McGarrigle and Donaldson challenged Piaget. The children within the Piaget study were not in a natural setting and behaved socially correct and responded to demand characteristics. If a study is low in ecological validity then it isnt really measuring how people behave in everyday life. The main chore for this is how to study characteristics of people who are aware of what they are doing. This is a disadvantage to Psychology being a science as participants are aware of the study and the unnatural setting.In conclusion to the question Is Psychology a Science? There is no easy answer. Some of the approaches and studies do twin the guidelines that are required for Psychology to be a Science, however, others dont. Psychology has merely progressed as a discipline as it models itself on the natural sciences. Although there are enough disadvantages and a dvantages to say whether Psychology is a Science, it will be an ongoing debate to which no- sensation will know the answer, you simply have an opinion thats neither right nor wrong.REFERENCESGross, R. (2010). Psychology The Science of Mind and Behaviour. 6th ed. London Hatchett .McLeod, S. (2008). Psychology as a Science. Available at http//www.simplypsychology.org/science-psychology.html. Last Accessed 07/10/2014.Bainbridge, A. Bradshaw, P. Latham, S. Lintern, F. (2008). OCR Psychology. 1st ed. Essex Heinemann.Carlson, R. N. (1993). Psychology The Science of Behaviour. 4th ed. MA, USA Allyn Bacon.Brysbaert, M. Rastle, K. (2012). Historical and conceptual issues in psychology. 2nd ed. London Pearson .The Science Council. (2009). What is Science? Available at http//www.sciencecouncil.org/definition. Last Accessed 21/10/2014. chemical root word determination making discourse theoriesGroup finality making Communication theoriesFunctional Perspective On Group purpose MakingIntrodu ction endThe purpose of this report is introducing a theory and corresponding theorists of communication. Whereas also in this report I will be writing about the theorists, their theory and how I believe it relates to todays world. One other purpose of writing this report is to report what I think about how the theory could be useful in the reading Technology.ScopeThe extent of my research was the usage of the Library and internet surfing. Hours and hours were spent in the subroutine library searching for information on my topic and there was simply any concur with information on my theory but had information of related topics to my theory. So as on the internet the information givenLimitations time preparing this report there were some limitations in the preparation of this report which includes the amount of time given to write this report because there was other assignments that I had to go through time on as well which was due a few days before this report is to be handed i n. The limited time that I am able to access the computer here in school as I house Im living in do not have any computers. Other than that there was a lack of information got from the sources of information that I have searched on such as books from the library and books and articles from the internet and library databases. There was a lack of information available.Research MethodsThe few methods that I have used to obtain information were books from the library. This included my textbook. My textbook was the only book in the library that had information about my theory and some other books that I have read through had information that was related to my theory. I also obtained information from the internet although it provided some information on my theory but not so much or not enough. Lastly is I have contact with some of the ex-whitireia students who took IT, I contacted individually one I know asking if they had bugger off across my theory and if they could their knowledge of my theory with me.Structure Of The cut acrossThis report has six main parts and each part was organised according to the normal layout of a report. Besides the cover page this report started with an soak which spots out the key ideas of what the whole report is going to be about, lead by the table of content which shows the number of pages for each content. Starting with the world which has six sub-headings, following is the findings or the main body of the report which has seven parts and following up is always the conclusion which has two parts and eventually the glossary of terms and hitences / bibliography.Literature ReviewGroups make high-quality conclusivenesss when members fulfil four requisite functions (1) problem analysis, (2) final stage setting, (3) identification of alternatives, and (4) evaluation of positive and negative consequences. around con cross communication disrupts progress toward accomplishing these functional taxs, but counteractive communicatio n can bring people second to rational inquiry.Randy, H., Dennis, G. (2009). Functional location on assort finale making. Group and Public communication Group ending making. Chp. 17, 7th EdThe purpose of this investigation was to demonstrate that collection finis-making carrying out is attainable on the effective or ineffective satisfaction of important purposeal functions. The investigation involved three related studies. In the first study, an attempt was made to confirm the existence of systematic relationships between the quality of theme decisions and the satisfaction of four functional requirements. The results supported the existence of significant positive relationships between group decision-making consummation and the satisfaction of these decisional functions. In the second study, an attempt was made to establish the independent main effects of each of those four functions. Using a three-dimensional interaction coding scheme, it was found that variations in group decision quality can be independently accounted for by the quality of interaction in regards to three functionsproblem analysis, evaluation of positive qualities, and evaluation of negative qualities. In the third study, an attempt was made to demonstrate that the quality of group decisions can be traced to the effective or ineffective satisfaction of decisional functions. The results provide conclusive evidence (at least at the level of primary reasoning), that the quality of a groups decision is a direct result of the groups ability (or inability) to perform important decisional functions. Taken as a whole, the studies thus offer continued support for the functional perspectiveRandy, H. (1998). Group Communication and Decision-Making action A Continued stress of the Functional Perspective. Human Communication Research, Vol. 14, p487 515, No. 4Two Articles From The Library DatabasesThe article focuses on a study, which evaluated the comparative metier of several methods f or decisions making of designate groups. Despite the widespread use of task groups and the dissatisfaction that many experience in seemingly endless rounds of task-group meetings, relatively little swither has been made within social die hard to examine the functioning of task groups empirically. And although there have been some efforts to improve social workers skills in leading task groups, it has been suggested that the study of task groups has been largely abandoned by social work. When examining the efficacy of task groups, it is important to recognize that groups have many different functions in social service agencies. Among their most important functions are helping staff members feel involved in the work of the agency or organization, sharing information, developing smart and creative ideas, monitoring programs, solving problems and making decisions. Although many of these functions overlap, a group that has accomplished one function quite well may not be effective at accomplishing another function.Toseland, RonaldW., Rivas, Robert F., Chapman D. (1984). An evaluation of decision making methods task groups. EBSCO host Social work, Vol. 29 Issue 4, p339-346, 8pTitle Teachers beliefs about shared decision making and work alienationRelationships between teachers perceptions concerning their status in decision making and feelings of work alienation were investigated. A two part questionnaire was administered to 311 teachers from kindergarten through alum 12 in urban and suburban schools. One part asked about current and ideal levels of influence in 12 decisional areas. The second part consisted of a four-item alienation scale. Significant positive zeroder correlations were found between alienation and deprivation in technical and managerial domains for urban teachers, and with deprivation in managerial decision making for suburban teachers. Significant negative zero-order correlations were found for both groups of teachers. Partial correlations of alienation and deprivation in decision making were not significant. Partial correlations of alienation with perceived influence in technical decision making were significant for both groups. Partials with managerial influence were significant for urban teachers.Benson, N., Malone, P. (1987), Teachers beliefs about shared decision making and work alienation. EBSCO host Education, Vol. 107 Issue 3, p244, 8p, 6 chartsFriendsBackground Of My TheoristsThe knowledge and interest in excellent group communication and decision making effectiveness, of two Communication professors Randy Hirokawa and Dennis Gouran was combined to create this theory.Dennis S. GouranGouran is a Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences, Labor Studies and Employment Relations and Graduate Officer and his research areas is splendid group decision. During his life of education he received his B.S., Illinois State University, 1963, M.S., Illinois State University, 1965, Ph.D., University of Iowa, 1968He is spe cialized in small group communication with particular dialect in decision-making. His research has included theoretical, experimental, and critical studies of small group interaction. The focus of Gourans research interest is the ways in which communication functions in the service of task requirements in problem-solving and decisions-making groups.Randy Y. HirokawaHirokawa received his B.A from the University of Hawaii at Moana, and his M.A and Ph.D from the University of Washington. He was inducted into the University Of Washington Department Of Hall of Fame.He is known for his expertise in area of small group communication and decision-making effectiveness. Hirokawas scholarship has contributed to the development of a theory called the Functional perspective.Outline Of My TheorySituation Of How The Theory Came AboutThis theory came about as a four departmental search committees appointed to select final candidates for positions in rhetoric, theatre, journalism and broadcast produ cing. The whole department each group to come up with top-notch candidates and reliable with a discipline that surveys sensible and reasonable communication or discussion, it was likely supposed that they would make their high quality decisions afterward systematic and reasoned discussion.Given was the mix of communication interests, academic knowledge and professional prejudices that committee members bought to the table were not their final alternatives likely to be made on political rather than rational grounds. But even if they were objective, it was a fear that their free-for-all debate over candidates would so cloud their judgement that they would end up making second-rate choices.Theorists Point Of Views Of The Situation And Their Contribution To Building The TheoryHirokawa and Gouran believe that these negative and gloomy views are not necessary. They assume that group members caring about the issue are reasonably intelligent, face a challenging task that calls for more f acts and has new ideas, or a clear thinking. They are also persuaded that group communication has positive effect on the final decision.Hirokawa Randy speaks of the quality resolvings and developed the core principles of the theory during his graduate studies, today his research tests refines this theory.Gouran Dennis refers to decisions that are appropriate and he has laid ground work for the theory with his early writing on the group decision making.Four Functions For Effective Decision MakingBy observing group decision making Hirokawa and Gouran see that there are task requirements and conditions that group members needs to accomplished to reach high-quality solutions and they refer to these conditions as requisite functions of effective decision making.Along with other pioneers research Hirokawa and Gouran drew an analogy between small groups and biological systems and aphorism thats just the kindred conditions that an organism must go through for survival in an ever changing environment as group members must go through functions or have conditions during group decision makings for success in the choice they make. So then four functions were then created for effective decision making as followed. compend Of The ProblemIt is very important for group members to be realistic when looking at the current conditions of any situation that is facing a problem and if there is any misunderstanding of the situation be likely to be complex when each member makes their final decision.The situation here is that the search committee are facing difficulties in selecting candidates which is a problem. They could barely make up their mind. In such cases the group members needs to examine or investigate what the problem really is, then find ways to work out this problem. Analysing of the problem could also have steps to follow or some conditions that must be required. For example from the theory in one of the departments searches for a rhetorician, a theatre director etc presented no obvious difficulties, in this case a job description was drafted and publicise throughout the company and through relationship management , searched for parties whom may be interested.Goal SettingDecision making needs to be clear and concise, wherefore there must be some form of criteria for a proposed solution. Hirokawa and Gouran mention that failure to comply with criteria will drive the decision to be governed by political relation rather than reason. An example portrayed by the two authors is the recruiting of faculty criteria wereDoctorateTeaching Experience (Minimum 5 Years)Scholar PublisherAnd to narrow the search, candidates must be able to engage / build rapport with students and who is able to pursue knowledge from a liberal arts point of view. In having criterias during decision making, this gives the group a short list of candidates and more confidence in their decision.Identifications Of AlternativesTo minimise risk in making a decision, Hirokawa and Go uran stressed the significance of having alternative solutions, so that the group can always resort to plan B or plan C. In the case of finding a candidate for a Broadcast action role, the criteria was industry experience, hold a doctorate / masters, radio and broadcast experience. The search for the candidate was limited as not many had an advanced degree no-one had a background in video production. After many brainstorming sessions, this was given to a search committee to do more thorough research for the perfective candidate. As a result of continuous emails and networking the search committee generated relevant alternatives and discovered two candidates whom they will chose one to fulfil the role.Evaluation Of Positive And blackball CharacteristicsThe next step in decision making is weighing the alternatives. It is very important to look at the pro and cons of each option against the criteria given. The authors mention that decision making often muddles up, and in need of at least one member to remind each other of the positive and negative features of one option.Prioritizing These FunctionsIn order to make decisions one must prioritize the four main functions for effective decision making. Hirokawa and Gouran mentioned that all four functions need to be accomplished to maximise the probability of a high quality decision. They also mention that as long as members use all four functions, what ever the order they like, they will come to a successful decision making. However, groups that resolve particularly difficult situation often take a similar route to come to their final solution.The Role Of Communication In Fulfilling The FunctionsCommunication is the key factor for quality group decision making. Verbal discussion within a group makes it possible to disseminate information, identify errors and also to influence each other. Hirokawa believes that communication plays a vital role in shaping high quality decisions. They also believe that communicatio n through discussion can also make the group wander in different directions and at the same time pull them back onto the directed path. The authors outline three types of communication in decision making groups1) Promotive When the group moves along the same path and calling upon the four main decision functions.2) Disruptive Discussions that divert the group members away from the four main decision functions.3) Counteractive- The interaction that the group use to get each other back on track.The three types of communication above are then aligned with the four functions to create the Function-Oriented Interaction Coding System (FOICS) Checklist. This register is used to dismantle communication within a group by matching each column and each row like the diagram belowFrom The Tiny kitty To The Big OceanThe above metaphor is Hirokawas way of portraying the review of his functional perspective in decision making , the risks that take place within his laboratory during his research and whether it was strong enough to withstand the multiple opposing forces from the real world and other researchers.Hirokawa concludes this metaphor by saying that there are times when following the prescriptions of decision making does not always lead to a decision that works. He then challenges researchers not to look at the answer but look at what functional conditions work and what does not work.Practical Advice For Amateurs And ProfessionalsThe authors give us advice on how to use functional prospective to come up with better decision making. They suggest the followingFor groups to use their own opinions.For groups to not have a close minded attitude.Groups to take proactive measures and reflective thinking.The authors acknowledge their intellectual their philosopher) John Dewey. Dewey advocated a six step process of reflective thinking (equivalent to Hirokawa and Gourans four requisite function) to the approach of treating a patient. His steps were as follows1) treasure the illness2) Diagnose the cause of the illness3) Establish options for cure4) Consider possible remedies5) Test which solution will work6) Implement the best solutionDeweys process above is very similar to Hirokawa and Gourans four requisite functions in decision making. Both of these lists recommend that group members discuss ways that promotes problem analysis, goal setting, finding alternatives and the evaluation of these options.Applications Of The TheoryThis theory can be applied to everyday situations, whether its at work, home, IT industry or anywhere of any situation where group members take part. Every time group member gather to make decision on some issues they will always be facing problem. Because each group member has different opinions of each situation or there would only be two or three members agreeing on the same situation. So therefore Hirokawa and Gouran have developed four functions to follow for effective group decision making. Not only that these two theorists has also written the roles to fulfilling these functions. This theory can be applied to the IT Industry because there is a situation that needs to be discussed as a group for whats good to be used in the IT industries.Evaluation Of The TheoryFrom the chapter three of Griffin (Weighing the Words) I have applied the appropriate evaluative standards to your theory which is Scientific Standard 2 Prediction of early Events. This standard states a good objective theory predicts what will happen and it is only possible when we are dealing with our five senses. Applying this to my theory is that each of these group members sees the situation and they hear what is being talked about in the group discussion to whether to agree or disagree is based on how they feel about the situation and think of the situation. This is to prevent problems that may happen in the future because it isnt prevented same problem will occur in the future.ConclusionSummary Of My Points Of InformationHirokawa and Gou ran saw the situation and thought of ways to maintain it. They saw that just the same way that an organism must go through for survival in an ever changing environment is just the same way that group members must go through functions or have conditions during group decision makings for success in the choice they make. They then developed the four functions which are Analysis of the problem, goal setting, identification of alternatives and evaluation of Positive and Negative characteristics. They also state the importance or prioritizing these functions and its roles to fulfilling these functions. They also stated a metaphor From tiny pond to the big ocean.A Critique Of My Theory (Weight Of Argument For And Against)This theory accounts for group decision-making performance in terms of the role that group communication plays in facilitating or impeding the groups efforts to perform cognitive and interpersonal decision-making functions. This theory has been identified as one of the th ree most influential theories of small group communication.The functional perspective that has been described in this theory illustrates the wisdom of the joint interaction. As the Hebrew saying suggests, Without counsel plans go wrong, but with many advisers they succeed. Decision making can be regarded as an outcome of mental processes leading to the selection of a course of action among several alternatives. Every decision making process produces a final the output can be an action or an opinion of choiceThe next step in decision making is weighing the alternatives. It is very important to look at the pro and cons of each option against the criteria given. The authors mention that decision making often muddles up, and in need of at least one member to remind each other of the positive and negative features of one option. gloss Of Terms PerspectivePosition a way of regarding situations or topics or the appearance of things relative to one another as determined by their maintain from the viewerFunctionalDesigned for or capable of a particular function or useEvaluationAct of ascertaining or fixing the valueRequisiteNecessity anything indispensable or neededPromotiveInteraction that moves the group along the goal path by calling attention to one of the four requisiteDisruptiveInteraction that diverts, retards, or frustrates group members ability to achieve the four task functionsCounteractiveInteraction that members use to get the group back on trackAmateursAn amateur is generally considered a person attached to a particular pursuit, study, or science, without formal training or pay backDecision MakingCan be regarded as an outcome of mental processes leading to the selection of a course of action among several alternatives.Group decisionIs decision making in groups consisting of multiple members/entities. The challenge of group decision is deciding what action a group should take. There are various systems knowing to solve this problemReferences / Bibliogra phyA Critical Summary of Research on the Role of Argument in Decision-MakingGroups. In Argument and Social Practice proceedings of the Fourth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. J. Robert Cox, Malcolm O. Sillars, and Gregg B. Walker (Eds.). Annandale, Virginia Speech Communication Association, 1985. 14 pp. (Revised and reprinted in Readings in Argumentation. William L. Benoit, Dale Hample, and Pamela J. Benoit (Eds.). San Francisco Foris, 1992. 17 pp.)Benson, N., Malone, P. (1987), Teachers beliefs about shared decision making and work alientation. EBSCO host Education, Vol. 107 Issue 3, p244, 8p, 6 chartsGriffin, E. (2009). A first look at communication theory. (7th ed.). New York McGraw HillRandy, H., Dennis, G. (2009). Functional perspective on group decision making. (7th ed.). Group and Public communication Group decision making. Chp. 17Randy, H. (1998). Group Communication and Decision-Making Performance A Continued Test of the Functional Perspective. Human Communication Re search, Vol. 14, p487 515, No. 4The Role of Communication in Decision-Making Groups A Functional Perspective. In Communications in Transition. Mary S. Mander (Ed.). New York Praeger, 1983. 21 pp. With Randy Y. Hirokawa. (First Author)Toseland, RonaldW., Rivas, Robert F., Chapman D. (1984). An evaluation of decision making methods task groups. EBSCO host Social work, Vol. 29 Issue 4, p339-346, 8pInternet SourcesBenson, N., Malone, P., Teachers beliefs about shared decision making and work alientation. Retrieved on July 28, 2009 , from http//web.ebscohost.com/ehost/ fact?vid=1hid=108sid=c11c7b30-a902-46f1-96a5-9d484e1b62b8%40sessionmgr110bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3ddb=f5hAN=5271089Toseland, RonaldW., Rivas, Robert F., Chapman D. ,An evaluation of decision making methods task groups. Retrieved on August 1, 2009, From http//web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1hid=12sid=cc76eb43-f251-4f74-870f-20d856b51553%40sessionmgr4bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3ddb=f5hAN=4708464Randy, H., Dennis, G. (2009). Functional perspective on group decision making. Group and Public communication, Retrieved on July 19, 2009, from http//www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119457900/abstract?CRETRY=1SRETRY=0Randy, H. (1998). Group Communication and Decision-Making Performance A Continued Test of the Functional Perspective, Retrieved on July 10, 2009, from http//www.afirstlook.com/main.cfm/theory_resources/Functional_Perspective_on_Group_Decision_Making