Instructor: Steve Duck, Daniel and Amy Starch Distinguished Research Chair
Office: 151 BCSB Phone: 335-0579 steve-duck@uiowa.edu Website: http://myweb.uiowa.edu/blastd
Class Meets: TuTh 10.55-12.10 106-BCSB
Office hours Tu/Th 12.30-2.20; or by appointment. There is a signup sheet outside my office. If you sign up you get priority. Department Office is 105-BCSB; DEO .john-peters@uiowa.edu , 105B-BCSB Phone 353-2258
For each semester hour credit in this course, students should expect to spend two hours per week preparing for class sessions (This is a three-credit-hour course, and so standard out-of-class preparation per week is six hours).
· To introduce you to the basic themes, concepts and controversies in research on relationships -- particularly from a communication standpoint, but in the context of the rest of the research that is typically done on such issues;
· To nurture and increase your abilities to do critical analysis of theory and research about relationships or to connect those analyses to Rhetorical Theory and other approaches to communication in everyday life;
· To offer you chances for asking intelligent and thought-provoking questions about old issues and new ideas;
· To encourage you to develop skills in engaging in analytical discussions with other class members (including, but not limited to, the instructor) concerning the materials that you read;
· To assist you in developing new ideas for your own independent study in this field;
· To improve your awareness of the roles of researchers in defining, engaging, and researching topics in this field of research. Do resesarchers study the right issues or merely those that are convenient?
The purpose of this course is to survey the area of relational communication at an advanced level appropriate for Graduate Students and to stimulate research in specific projects about relationships. You will be introduced to a range of literature from several disciplines and will be focused on research issues in communication within that literature. The course has the extra pedagogic intention of contributing to your experience and training as students preparing for thesis work and empirical investigation -- whatever sorts of methods you prefer to adopt. It should give you a taste not only of the field itself but also of the issues and obstacles that face a person attempting to conduct empirical work -- and how to overcome them.
Communication researchers have many sides to their work and, in the case of relational communication, this involves training in research that constitutes a productive stream of scholarship running in (and often against) the post positivist tide of predominance of social psychological work in this topic. However, the significance of research on personal relationships to interpersonal communication has reached the stage where it is appropriate to have panels at CSCA (2000) on whether there is any real difference between interpersonal communication and relational communication. Relational Communication is not just about "doing research" on relationships in some narrow sense of recording things that seem to the investigator to be important. It involves much other essential background work. Such activities involve reading (not only in relational communication but also in the other areas that make up the whole field of relationship research), creating bibliographies, keeping up with research reports, learning to use the library skillfully, reviewing literature, commenting on and supporting colleagues' work, doing constructive critical reviews of the work of others, designing research, going to conferences, presenting ideas to colleagues, offering advice on drafts, analyzing problems, writing essays and reports, and, sometimes, organizing panels, workshops or conferences. This course will expose you to some of these facets of Relational Communication as well as to the more traditional "doing research" parts. The course aims to introduce you to the area in all its forms, therefore, both in your reading and in your class experiences.
I believe very strongly that the separation of "theory" and "research" is a bad idea, whether conceptually distinguished or pragmatically distinguished, and that both of them are forms of analytic work. You cannot do research without theory; choice of methods involves (whether implicitly or explicitly) theoretical choices; both involve careful thought about phenomena, terminology, and concepts. Even as you reach for a specific form of questionnaire you are reaching for the theoretical assumptions that go with it.
Also inevitably embedded are a few assumptions about the nature of inquiry as a whole and the shape of the specific problem as viewed in that context. Decisions about the pragmatics of tackling a research question involve decisions of analysis of concepts that mean something in a particular theoretical framework. This presupposes the dogged and intelligent teasing apart of possible components and it is very hard to do -- yet it is also something that is rarely trained formally.
A true scholar must always be concerned to ensure that terms are used precisely and accurately and that their references are carefully delineated, designated, and qualified. Many debates in all fields of communication research are essentially artificial and occur only because opposing camps take different epistemological stances, define terms differently, and use their terms to enclose different phenomena, but fail to recognize this basic fact of “scientific inquiry”.
In this course we will, in early classes, take problems that have occupied the scholars in this field and we shall analyze them as if we were going to do a study. We shall find that the greatest part of the work of scholarship is this process of analysis before embarking on measurement. We will start with somewhat simple issues from the research field at large, and then go on to more complex questions in relational communication that will entail our getting more familiar with the preceding work of other researchers. You will also be introduced to some basic research techniques in relationship work that could be relevant in planning your own studies. In this way you will be introduced not only to a range of research but also to a way of thinking about it and doing it. The later parts of the course will involve fuller developments of your own thinking about more specialized issues.
Most of the course material is drawn from journal articles or other specific sources and there is no set course text as such. I will be using a couple of my own books that will be put on ICON, one as parts selected from the whole (Dragon, W., & Duck, S. W. (Eds.). 2005. Understanding Research in Personal Relationships: A text with readings. London: SAGE, and the other a book that is not yet out but will be published at some point in the Fall semester so you get to see it before anyone else (Duck, S. W. 2011 Rethinking Relationships; SAGE, Thousand Oaks California. What I have posted on ICON are copy edited chapters and the book will not look like that).
I have supplied specific readings for each class plus a list of Additional Readings at the end of this syllabus in case you should wish to go more deeply into a topic. The basic readings may be found on ICON. The additional suggestions are for you to follow up only as the Spirit moves you and as interest directs. My list provides you with some pointers for further study but it is not exhaustive and it is not expected that you will have read it for class, though of course if you have, then you will be better informed (but also exhausted).
It is extremely unlikely that you will find all of these topics equally appealing. You are encouraged to develop your own perspective on relational theory, on communication, and on the special topics that we shall cover during the course. Use this class as an opportunity not only to become familiar with the issues and debates that are out there but also to adopt or try out a particular approach that you might find useful in the future work that you do for your thesis.
Journals: The major journals here are JSPR (Journal of Social and Personal Relationships), JMF (Journal of Marriage and the Family), J Fam. Comm (Journal of Family Communication) and PR (Personal Relationships). Other journals deal with specific sorts of relationships (Journal of Divorce, Family Relations) or else include relationship work when it is directly applied to some broader principle in a discipline with larger interests (for example Communication Monographs, Human Communication Research, Communication Research Reports, or Western Journal of Speech Communication). If you are interested in relational communication then you should routinely scan JSPR and should consider joining IARR (International Association for Research on Relationships) through which you get a reduced rate of membership as graduate students, and JSPR and PR are included in the membership price, also at discounted rates. htttp://www.iarr.org for information.
I try to arrange the course assignments so that you do not get stuck with a huge requirement at the end of semester, along with all the other things that you have to produce for other courses. Thus the structure of assignments here is progressive. You should be able to build on the work that you do early in the course and accumulate it into the final product for assessment, having already had periodic feedback from me, and finally from the rest of the class after your class presentation, on the project as it develops.
Class participation is essential and should be based on your reading of the materials. Come to each class with notes as indicated per class -- something to raise for discussion and to engage the other students as well as the instructor. The purpose of these notes is to help you structure and organize your approach to the reading. Briefly summarize the key points in page one and then add your own personal thoughts, analysis and organizational digestion of the readings on page 2. Then stop. They are for your present and future use.
The major assignment that we are working towards is a paper on a specific topic of your choice (see end of this document for some ideas). [Pick something that interests you: Duck’s Fourth Maxim is that an ounce of interest is worth more than two pounds of effort]. En route to that final major assignment paper, you will be given plenty of chances to develop these ideas with class mates as the semester goeas along, as you:
1) do a review of literature and construct an annotated bibliography dealing with the main points of the literature on the topic (early to middle part of semester);
2) do a presentation to the rest of the class. This will be based on your annotated bibliography and will review and evaluate your personally chosen topic, incorporating an idea for possible further exploration (middle to late part of semester);
3) do a “pull-it-all-together” final paper (for the last day of semester) that blends these previous two assignments together and designs -- “as if” for future study – a proposal for empirical work. You might perhaps go on to carry out a version of the proposal in a later semester for Independent Study or you might just prepare for this class as useful experience or you could even eventually make it into something you could work on for conferences (and your vita) or for your dissertation.
Policy on deadlines and due dates: Deadlines are meaningful and I have planned my own timetable for the semester around expectations of receiving things from you when they are due. Plan ahead. Things will go wrong this semester from time to time and the unexpected always occurs. Plan ahead and allow time for delays, burst pipes, broken printers, lost pets, crashed computers, and other possible events that might become unavailing excuses. If you miss deadlines then you will get a failing grade. I do not give Incompletes.
STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
§ Administrative Home
The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences is the administrative home of this
course and governs matters such as the add/drop deadlines, the
second-grade-only option, and other related issues. Different colleges may have
different policies. Questions may be addressed to 120 Schaeffer Hall, or see
the CLAS Student Academic Handbook.
§ Electronic Communication
University policy specifies that
students are responsible for all official correspondences sent to their University
of Iowa e-mail address (@uiowa.edu). Faculty and students should use this
account for correspondences. (Operations Manual, III.15.2.
Scroll down to k.11.)
§ Accommodations for Disabilities
§ A student seeking academic accommodations should first register with Student Disability Services and then meet privately with the course instructor to make particular arrangements. See www.uiowa.edu/~sds/ for more information.
§ Academic Fraud
Plagiarism and any other activities
when students present work that is not their own are academic fraud. Academic
fraud is a serious matter and is reported to the departmental DEO and to the
Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs and Curriculum. Instructors and DEOs
decide on appropriate consequences at the departmental level while the
Associate Dean enforces additional consequences at the collegiate level. See
the CLAS Academic Fraud section of the Student Academic Handbook.
§ CLAS Final Examination Policies
§ Final exams may be offered only during finals week. No exams of any kind are allowed during the last week of classes. Students should not ask their instructor to reschedule a final exam since the College does not permit rescheduling of a final exam once the semester has begun. Questions should be addressed to the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs and Curriculum.
§ Making a Suggestion or a Complaint
Students with a suggestion or
complaint should first visit the instructor, then the course supervisor, and
then the departmental DEO. Complaints must be made within six months of the
incident. See the CLAS Student Academic Handbook.
§ Understanding Sexual Harassment
§ Sexual harassment subverts the mission of the University and threatens the well-being of students, faculty, and staff. All members of the UI community have a responsibility to uphold this mission and to contribute to a safe environment that enhances learning. Incidents of sexual harassment should be reported immediately. See the UI Comprehensive Guide on Sexual Harassment for assistance, definitions, and the full University policy.
§ Reacting Safely to Severe Weather
In severe weather, class members
should seek appropriate shelter immediately, leaving the classroom if
necessary. The class will continue if possible when the event is over. For more
information on Hawk Alert and the siren warning system, visit the Public Safety
web site.
*These CLAS policy and procedural statements have been summarized from the web
pages of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and The University of Iowa Operations Manual.
CLAS recommends that instructors include relevant resources for students on the syllabus. The following are examples of such resources that might be included:
§ Writing Center 110 English-Philosophy Building, 335-0188, www.uiowa.edu/~writingc
§ Speaking Center 12 English-Philosophy Building, 335-0205, www.uiowa.edu/~rhetoric/centers/speaking
§ Mathematics Tutorial Laboratory 314 MacLean Hall, 335-0810, www.uiowa.edu/mathlabTutor
§ Tutor Referral Service Campus Information Center, Iowa Memorial Union, 335-3055, www.imu.uiowa.edu/cic/tutor_referral_service
§
We celebrate the 1931st anniversary of the eruption of Vesuvius over Pompeii and Herculaneum by our first meeting of the class and we will discourse freely on the general objectives and style of the course, methods of attacking the research issues, requirements for reading, and such. You might at this point browse Chapter 1 of Dragon & Duck and read Clore & Byrne [on ICON as Intro to reading Aug 24] in order to see how methodology and research questions are connected in this field. The course will start being “traditional” and move on towards more a new way of conceptualizing the field, so fresh it has not even been published yet and you will be the first to read the MS. The book comes out in October but you need to have understood the history of the field somewhat before you launch into it.
Study of relationships typically involves the assumption that there are "better" and "worse" or "competent" and "incompetent" ways of relating. People also have a sense that relationships can be “inappropriate”. Magazine racks are full of advice that tells us how to “improve” relationships or suggest ways in which to “get the love we want”, whereas morning TV shows offer us morally compelling instances of faulty relational behavior for audiences to scream at. Viewed from a critical perspective, any notion that there can be "quality" in relationships or “faulty” or “bad” relational behavior assumes a preferred vantage-point for determining what is “quality”/“good”/“appropriate”. Who decides? Has the judgment of relationship quality always been the same or does it change (over historical periods or over relationship growth)? Do different cultures think of relationship “quality” in different terms? How does the student of relationships get involved in larger social questions about the form of relationships that is possible/desirable/appropriate? Think about these issues and we'll debate them in class.
Reading (on ICON): Montgomery, B. M. (1988). Quality Communication in Personal Relationships. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships (pp. 343-362). Chichester: Wiley; Duck, S. W., & VanderVoort, L. A. (2002). Scarlet letters and whited sepulchres: the social marking of relationships as "inappropriate". In R. Goodwin & D. Cramer (Eds.), Inappropriate relationships: The Unconventional, the Disapproved, and the Forbidden. (pp. 3-24). Mahwah, New Jersey.: Erlbaum. Oswald, R. F. (2000). A member of the wedding? Heterosexism and family ritual. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(3), 349-368. Also take a look at an article critical of research in this field: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_2001_Spring/ai_73368519/pg_1 which contrasts research and religious views of relationships and crucifies Steve Duck on the way.
Come to class with: one or two pages of comment on the reading, especially your thoughts about this issue of quality and appropriateness. Can you see any problems with the arguments in the readings? Is “quality” an issue we can ever avoid using here? Does “relationship enhancement” commit people to particular dogmas? What factors guide us in the decisions about whether a relationship is “good” or “bad”? Can we never escape using terms like “relationship success/failure” or there something logically tainted about those who say that we must strive for neutrality here? Why are divorces “failed relationships” .... or aren’t they?
The first sorts of studies that shaped the beginnings of this field of scholarship were the studies of initial attraction. There were many different styles of work into this and only some had a communication "spin" to it (Van Lear & Trujillo, 1986). The predominant work was social psychological and it is useful to begin with it, in order to see how later work has grown away from it in substance and style. As you read about this social psychological work, you could think about it from the standpoint of the previous week's reading. What assumptions about attraction are built into the study of attraction in this way?
Reading: Dragon and Duck Chapter 2 [ICON]; Cross check with Morry (2007) in extra reading for a different (and actually wrong) way of looking at this.
Come to class with: Brief notes about the ways in which a communication scholar could get interested in initial attraction as distinct from the development of relationships. How would we apply communication theory to initial attraction? How does communication work in the setting up of second dates after first dates? What situations could we use for answering these questions or testing these ideas? Also give some thought to the issue of what it is that people learn from initial attraction and what is being communicated in the initial stages of such interactions.
Because of some of my other duties, the next three classes have to be organized as reading sessions where you get familiar with a lot of basic material . SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS THURSDAY SEPT 2, TUESDAY SEPT 7 AND THURSDAY SEPT 9. CLASS WILL NOT MEET ON THESE DAYS.
This is an easy one: What is a relationship? Well, maybe not so easy, but we all know what relationships are anyway, don't we? Before you do any reading, write down a few features of relationships that you regard as essential before something counts as a relationship. How do we differentiate a relationship from a series of interactions? Or is that too simple? Or are they like obscenity: you can’t define them but you know one when you see it?
Reading: Hinde, R. A. (1981). `The bases of a science of interpersonal relationships'. In S. W. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal Relationships 1: Studying Personal Relationships (pp. 1-22). London, New York, San Francisco: Academic Press. Secklin, P. L. (2001). "Losing Sammy: A Catalyst for exiting an abusive relationship." Journal of Loss and Trauma 6(1): 65-74. [ICON]
WEEK 3
Read Weigel, D., & Murray, C. (2000). The paradox of stability and change in relationships: What does chaos theory offer for the study of romantic relationships? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(3), 425-449. [ICON]. Having done that, start to follow up previous research using any previous reading or any of the below as a starting point. Write short bibliographic notes on each article (give full reference and then do a four line abstract of what the article was about). Aim for about 10 pages altogether. At this point you do not need to make it particularly coherent, though if you can discern patterns and themes please do. Just follow up what interests you and move forward from them to more recent articles (so this is an exercise in you developing research skills on this topic as well as gaining substantive knowledge).
Amodio, D. M., & Showers, C. J. (2005). "Similarity breeds liking" revisited: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(6), 817-836.
Boon, S. D., Deveau, V. L., & Alibhai (not her real name), A. M. (2009 Payback: The parameters of revenge in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26 (6-7), 747-768. [ICON]
Flora, J., & Segrin, C. (1998). Joint leisure time in friend and romantic relationships: The role of activity type, social skills and positivity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 711-718. [ICON]
Kumashiro, M., Rusbult, C. E., Finkenauer, C., & Stocker, S. L. (2007). To think or to do: The impact of assessment and locomotion orientation on the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(4), 591-612.
Paz Galupo, M. (2007). Friendship patterns of sexual minority individuals in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 139-151.
Sprecher, S., & Duck, S. W. (1993). Sweet talk: The role of communication in consolidating relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (20) 391-400. [ICON]
Weger, H. & Emmett, M. C. (2009) Romantic intent, relationship uncertainty, and relationship maintenance in young adults’ cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26 (6-7), 964-988. [ICON]
Yoshimura, S. (2007) Goals and emotional outcomes of revenge activities in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 87-98. [ICON]
After looking at patterns of interaction and some influences of roles upon the ways they are performed, we perhaps need to break down the concepts and elements of relationships a bit into components to find out where the different bits join up. We'll start with the individual elements of relationships, the individual minds that come to the relationship, not because that is all there is, but because that is a place to start.
Reading: Delia, J. G. (1980). "Some tentative thoughts concerning the study of interpersonal relationships and their development." Western Journal of Speech Communication 44: 97-103. Andersen, P. A. (1993). Cognitive schemata in personal relationships. Individuals in relationships [Understanding relationship processes 1]. S. W. Duck. Newbury Park, SAGE: 1-29; Bochner, A. P., C. Ellis, et al. (2000). Relationships as stories: Accounts, storied lives, evocative narratives. Communication and personal relationships. K. Dindia and S. W. Duck. Chichester, Wiley: 13-30. Banks, S. P., E. Louie, et al. (2000). "Constructing personal identities in holiday letters." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 17: 299-328. [ICON]
Come to class with: some notes on the notion of a schema. Anyone who uses Schema as a plural will get a C in the class.
Researchers tend to adopt metaphors for studying and explaining the phenomena that they study.
Reading: Kovecses, Z. (1991). “A linguist's quest for love.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 8: 77-98.; Duck, S. W. (1984). “A rose is a rose (is a tadpole is a freeway is a film) is a rose.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 1: 507-510; [ICON]
Come to class with: some thoughts about why metaphors matter.
About 15 years ago the topic of “just” friendships between men and women was leapt upon by researchers as fascinating and under-researched. What is so interesting about it or was that kind of research ideologically located in time and now something that is irrelevant as a result of changes in social networking, cultural beliefs, ideological shifts and changes in behavioral styles? Again, Morry (2007) looked at this and is in the extra reading list.
Reading: Werking, K. J. (2000). Cross sex friendship research as ideological practice. Communication and personal relationships. K. Dindia and S. W. Duck. Chichester, Wiley: 113-130; Paul, E. L. (2006). Beer goggles, catching feelings and the walk of shame: The myths and realities of the hookup experience. In C. D. Kirkpatrick, S. W. Duck & M. K. Foley (Eds.), Relating difficulty: Processes of constructing and managing difficult interaction. (pp. 141-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K.-J. K. (2005). What's love got to do with it? Exploring the impact of maintenance rules, the attitudes, and network support on friends-with-benefits relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 69(1), 49-66. Smith, C. V (2007) In pursuit of “good” sex: Self-determination and the sexual experience. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (24) 69-85. [ICON]
Come to class with: some ideas about the social forces at work here and the ways in which they might operate communicatively. H(ow h)as the connection between friendship and sexuality been changing?
Following on from one of last time’s readings, we move outwards. So far, we have looked at relationships as things in themselves, only occasionally noting that they occur in a social context that shapes their form and nature in important ways. Such social forces are not simply abstractions but are realities that people butt up against in everyday life as we interact with other people in the networks to which we belong.
Reading Dragon & Duck Chapters 12 ; Igarashi, T., Takai, J., & Yoshida, T. (2005). Gender differences in social network development via mobile phone text messages: a longitudinal study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 691-713. Phan, M. B., Blumer, N. & Demaiter, E. I (2009) Helping Hands: Neighborhood diversity, deprivation, and reciprocity of support in non-kin networks. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, (26) 899-918; Cohan, C. C., Cole, S. W, Schoen, R. (2009) Divorce following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, (26) 512-530. Baxter, L. A., T. D. Dun, et al. (2001). "Rules for relating communicated among social network members." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18: 173-200. [ICON]
Come to class with: some examples (other than Romeo and Juliet) of the force of outside opinion as a factor in relationships.
Given the centrality of scholarship about compliance gaining in communication theory how can we incorporate it into the research discourse about relationships? Is it valuable to see, for example, relationship development and relationship decline as persuasive tasks? Is it “persuasion” or “compliance gaining” to ask someone out on a date or to increment the level of a relationship? Next, try to relate this course to anything you know about Burke, persuasion, rhetoric, dramaturgy. Can we get a bit further by thinking of relationship activity as a persuasive action involving the creation of identification and consubstantiality? Recall the discussions of similarity in earlier classes. How can we tie them in?
Reading: Dixson, M. D., & Duck, S. W. (1993). Understanding relationship processes: Uncovering the human search for meaning. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Individuals in relationships [Understanding relationship processes 1] (pp. 175-206). Newbury Park: SAGE. Duck, S. W., & Pond, K. (1989). Friends, Romans, Countrymen; lend me your retrospective data: Rhetoric and reality in personal relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships (Vol. 10, pp. 17-38). Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Carl, W. J., & Duck, S. W. (2004). How to do things with relationships. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 28, pp. 1-35). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Some people, especially in social psychology, think of "communication" as merely "expressivity", when a person exposes information about himself or herself that is private and intimate. On this view a conversation is intimate if it contains secret or private information, and the intimacy of the interaction is largely determined by one person's decision to speak frankly. Of course much research also looked at the reciprocity evoked by such splurges of emotion and it has always been assumed that interactions tend to be balanced in the sense that a person will reciprocate information of about equal intimacy to that revealed by a partner. There are of course findings that women self disclose more than men etc. etc. But perhaps the more interesting questions are framed in a context where self-disclosure is thought of as communication in the sense in which "Communication Studies" thinks of "communication" rather than the way that psychology thinks of it, as above.
Reading: Dindia, K. (2000). Self-disclosure, Identity, and Relationship Development: A Dialectical Perspective. In K. Dindia & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Communication and personal relationships (pp. 147-162). Chichester: Wiley; Banks, S. P., Louie, E., & Einerson, M. (2000). Constructing personal identities in holiday letters. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 299-328{See ICON for Week 4]}. Petronio, S., Sargent, J. D., Andea, L., Reganis, P., & Cichocki, D. (2004). Family and friends as health-care advocates: dilemmas of confidentiality and privacy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(1), 33-52. Petronio, S., & Durham, W. T. (2008). Communication Privacy Management Theory: Significance for Interpersonal Communication. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication (pp. 000-000). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Come to class with: Things to disclose about your reactions to the reading.
The last class looked at how people talk to one another in special circumstances. What about the fact that relationship partners might talk about the relationship itself? Relationship Awareness or the ways in which partners think about interaction patterns, comparison and contrasts with one another, leads to, or is a part of, the talking about relationships that people carry out. Does this mean that outsiders can tell the nature of a relationship from the terms and concepts assumed within the discourse?
Reading: Acitelli, L. K. (1988). When spouses talk to each other about their relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 185-199. Planalp, S., & Garvin-Doxas, K. (1994). Using mutual knowledge in conversation: Friends as experts in each other. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Dynamics of relationships [Understanding relationship processes 4] (pp. 1-26). Newbury Park: SAGE. Harper, M. S. & Welsh, D. P. (2007) Keeping quiet: Self-silencing and its association with relational and individual functioning among adolescent romantic couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 99-116. Secklin, P. L. (1997). "Lucy's Dividing Family: My Discovery of the Person in the Subject." Journal of Personal & Interpersonal Loss 2: 267-275.
Come to class with: some thoughts on how to develop this line of research. Let's consider a fairly basic question and then put some more meat on it. Can an audience distinguish the conversations of friends from those of strangers? If so how do they do it? If they can, then what does that tell us about the nature of conversation in friendships and about the nature of relationships in general?
Work on your bibliographies due on Tuesday
Bibliography Assignments are due at the start of class Tues.
These days a lot of (well-off, well-educated) people have access to email and the information superhighway. A phenomenal growth has since occurred in relationships over email where people correspond in intimate ways yet may not meet very often, if ever at all. Such relationships challenge the theorist to explain how such interactions constitute "relationships", especially for those theorists who see “interaction” as the basis of relationships. How are such long-distance relationships encompassed by theories based on face to face interaction and exchanges?
Reading: Sahlstein, E. M. (2004). Relating at a distance: Negotiating being together and being apart in long-distance relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(5), 689-710. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte: Relationships conducted over electronic systems. In J. T. Wood & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track [Understanding relationship processes: Vol. 6]. . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. J. (2007). Idealizations, reunions, and stability in long distance relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 37-54.
Come to class with: thoughts on the nature of relationships as well as some indications of the merits and disadvantages of email relationships. How are they different from pen-pal relationships or long distance relationships conducted over the telephone?
Researchers tend to think of relationship development and decline as good examples of what occurs in relationships and places where we need to attend particularly to changes in communication patterns and style. Recently it has been suggested that maintenance or management of relationships requires work by partners also and that this work is probably done through communicative means. There have recently been considerable discussion and controversy about the nature of maintenance of relationships, the extent to which it is a conscious activity and the extent to which it is routine.
Reading: Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 143-158; Alberts, J. K., Yoshimura, C. G., Rabby, M., & Loschiavo, R. (2005). Mapping the topography of couples' daily conversation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 299-322. Dainton, M. (2000) Maintenance behaviors, expectations for maintenance, and satisfaction: Linking comparison levels to relational maintenance strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 827-842. Dindia, K., Timmerman, L., Langan, E., Sahlstein, E. M., & Quandt, J. (2004). The function of holiday greetings in maintaining relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(5), 577-593.
Come to class with: some ideas about the nature of maintenance and the role of communication in it. This is a hot topic and one in which interest is growing. How could we make a useful contribution to its development?
We have covered a lot of sickly sweet stuff about how wonderful relationships are, but they also have another side to them. They are sources of some of the greatest pain and suffering, can be abusive, demeaning, threatening, disappointing, and stressful. Not only that but there is a subtler set of points about them: they are forged in some ways from a managed balance of negative and positive elements. All relationships have hassles to them and we normally tolerate them in order to get the good stuff, but all the same we do have to manage the bad things too. In addition, the skillful conduct of relationships is sometimes carried out through doing things that are "bad". For example, deception is generally bad but can also be tactful or a way of delightfully surprising someone; sometimes it is tactful to forget or polite to ignore something. So competent relating involves "incompetence" sometimes.
Reading: Cupach, W. R., Spitzberg, B. H., & Carson, C. L. (2001). Toward a theory of obsessive relational intrusion and stalking. In K. Dindia & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Communication and Personal Relationships (pp. 131-146). Chichester: Wiley; Spitzberg, B. H. (1993). The dialectics of (in)competence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 137-158.; Duck, S. W. (1994). Stratagems, spoils and a serpent's tooth: On the delights and dilemmas of personal relationships. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 3-24). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. Wiseman, J. P., & Duck, S. W. (1995). Having and managing enemies: A very challenging relationship. In S. W. Duck & J. T. Wood (Eds.), Confronting Relationship Challenges [Understanding Relationship Processes 5], (pp. 43-72.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Boon, S. D., Deveau, V. L., & Alibhai (not her real name), A. M. (2009 Payback: The parameters of revenge in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26 (6-7), 747-768. [ICON] Yoshimura, S. (2007) Goals and emotional outcomes of revenge activities in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 87-98. [ICON]
Come to class with a balanced approach to life.
We cannot really end without some discussion of endings. Also, give some thought to what happens after the ending.
Reading: Schneider, C. S., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). Cross-sex friends who were once romantic partners: are they platonic friends now? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(3), 451-466. Rollie, S. S., & Duck, S. W. (2006). Stage theories of marital breakdown. In J. H. Harvey & M. A. Fine (Eds.), Handbook of Divorce and Dissolution of Romantic Relationships (pp. 176-193). Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
We have now completed a review of major parts of the literature and will now go back and start again from a completely different perspective. Start off losing the idea that emotions and similarity are involved and shift to performance and selfhood.
Reading: Duck Rethinking Relationships (in press) Chapters 1,2,3 [ICON]
Duck Rethinking Relationships (in press) Chapters 4, 5, 6 [ICON]
Reading: Duck Rethinking Relationships (in press) Chapters 7,8 [ICON]
Duck, S. W., Rutt, D. J., Hurst, M., & Strejc, H. (1991). Some evident truths about conversations
in everyday relationships: All communication is not created equal. Human Communication Research, 18, 228-267; Duck, S. W. (1990). Relationships as unfinished business: Out of the frying pan and into the 1990s. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 5-29. Duck, S. W. (2002). Hypertext in the key of G: Three types of "history" as influences on conversational structure and flow. Communication Theory, (12, 1), 41-62.
Tuesday November 9th: Wrap up class and discussion
Thursday November 11th Presentations
Tuesday November 16th: NCA No class
Thursday November 11th Presentations
Tuesday November 30th Presentations
Tuesday 7th Dember, the day that will live in infamy
Presentations
Thursday 9th December
Presentations
For these classes, each of you will present your review of your chosen area. Instead of general class discussion on the topics that you have all read and written notes about, one person will come to the class prepared to lead the discussion by presenting a brief survey of a topic and an evaluation of the literature. The rest of you will be expected to have read the lead article and to come with the usual one or two pages of notes about it, but you are not required to have read as much on the topic as usual .... partly because you will undoubtedly be working on your own detailed presentation to the class. The schedule for doing this will be worked out in an early class and you are responsible for doing the work and being prepared to present it at the due time as well as doing it early enough to get the necessary report to other classmates one week ahead of the presentation.
The leader's assignment here is to write a review of the chosen topic and the annotated bibliography that you have already prepared on it in October. Give a short (2-page) positional review of the literature before 2007 and then find all of the articles covering this topic from 2007 to the present and do a full review piece on them ("all" can mean "no more than 15" if you hit a big topic]. Organize the report into a coherent pattern, reviewing what has happened in this area in the past three years. End with a critique of the area and ideas for future research. Include a reference section so that we can all benefit from your review. Be prepared to lead a discussion of the reviewed area and ensure that we all receive your written report the week before we all are due to discuss it.
The final report, due electronically on December 10th, need not be the same as the report presented in class, because you may want to include suggestions made after the presentation in class. You should not have to tear the whole thing up after the presentation but you might want to do some final polishing before submission. You do not have to wait until December 10th to deliver the final report after you have presented it in class.
The final assignment (brief research proposal, based on but different from your topic review as presented in class) is due in by 5.00 on December 10th and should be submitted electronically. It may be submitted early.
[This list is not exhaustive and you are free to choose something that is not on here, if you prefer]
You may also choose to elaborate on any of the topics that are already on the course schedule list, of course.
Acitelli, L. K., & Badr, H. (2005). My illness or our illness? Attending to the relationship when one partner is ill. In T. A. Revenson, K. Kayser & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on couples' coping with stress. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Acitelli, L. K., Douvan, E., & Veroff, J. (1993). Perceptions of conflict in the first year of marriage: How important are similarity and understanding? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 5-19.
Allan, G. A. (1998). Friendship, sociology and social structure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 685-702.
Barta, W. D., & Kiene, S. M. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: the roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 339-360.
Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 12, 469-493.
Baxter, L. A., Dun, T. D., & Sahlstein, E. M. (2001). Rules for relating communicated among social network members. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 173-200.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogs and dialectics. New York: Guilford Press.
Baxter, L. A., & Widenmann, S. (1993). Revealing and not revealing the status of romantic relationships to social networks. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 321-338.
Bergmann, J. R. (1993). Discreet indiscretions: The social organization of gossip. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Bickmore, T. W., & Picard, R. W. (2005). Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Transaction on Computer Human Interaction, 12(2), 293-327.
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and Thinking: A rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bochner, A. P., et al. (2000). Relationships as stories: Accounts, storied lives, evocative narratives. Communication and personal relationships. K. Dindia and S. W. Duck. Chichester, Wiley: 13-30.
Bradshaw, S. (2006). Shyness and difficult relationships: formation is just the beginning. In C. D. Kirkpatrick, S. W. Duck & M. K. Foley (Eds.), Relating difficulty: The processes of constructing and managing difficult interaction (pp. 15-41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Burleson, B. R., Holmstrom, A. J., & Gilstrap, C. M. (2005). "Guys Can't Say That to Guys": Four Experiments Assessing the Normative Motivation Account for Deficiencies in the Emotional Support Provided by Men. Communication Monographs, 72(4), 468-501.
Bylund, C. L., Gueguen, J. A., Sabee, C. M., Imes, R. S., Li, Y., & Sanford, A. A. (2007). Provider-patient dialogue about internet health information: An exploration of strategies to improve the provider-patient relationship. Patient Educ Couns. , 66(3), 346-352.
Byrne, D. (1997). An Overview (And Underview) Of Research And Theory Within The Attraction Paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 417-431.
Canary, D. J. and T. Emmers-Sommer (1997). Sex and gender differences in personal relationships. New York, Guilford.
Caughlin, J. P., Afifi, W. A., Carpenter-Theune, K. E., & Miller, L. E. (2005). Reasons for, and consequences of, revealing personal secrets in close relationships: a longitudinal study. Personal Relationships, 12(1), 43-59.
Contarello, A., & Volpato, C. (1991). Images of friendship: literary depictions through the ages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 49-75.
Dickson, F. C., Hughes, P. C., & Walker, K. L. (2005). An exploratory investigation into dating among later-life women. Western Journal of Communication, 69(1), 67-82.
Dragon, W., & Duck, S. W. (Eds.). (2005). Understanding Research in Personal Relationships: A text with readings. London: SAGE.
Duck, S. W. (1984). “A rose is a rose (is a tadpole is a freeway is a film) is a rose.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 1: 507-510.
Duck, S. W., Foley, M. K., & Kirkpatrick, C. D. (2006). Relating difficulty in a triangular world. In C. D. Kirkpatrick, S. W. Duck & M. K. Foley (Eds.), Relating difficulty: Processes of constructing and managing difficult interaction. (pp. 225-232). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Duran, R., & Prusank, D. T. (1997). Relational themes in men’s and women’s popular non-fiction magazine articles. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 165-189.
Feeney, J. A. (2005). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: exploring the role of attachment and perceptions of personal injury. Personal Relationships, 12(2), 253-271.
Flora, J. and C. Segrin (1998). “Joint leisure time in friend and romantic relationships: The role of activity type, social skills and positivity.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 15: 711-718.
Foster, C. A., & Campbell, W. K. (2005). The adversity of secret relationships. Personal Relationships, 12(1), 125-143.
Gaines, S. O. and W. Ickes (2000). Perspectives on inter-racial relationships. The social psychology of personal relationships. W. Ickes and S. W. Duck. Chichester, Wiley: 55-78.
Gore, J. S., Cross, S. E., & Morris, M. L. (2006). Let's be friends: Relational self-construal and the development of intimacy. Personal Relationships, 13(1), 83-102.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2006). Measuring respect in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(6), 881-899.
Hughes, P. C., & Dickson, F. C. (2005). Communication, marital satisfaction, and religious orientation in interfaith marriages. Journal of Family Communication, 5(1), 25-41.
Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K.-J. K. (2005). What's love got to do with it? Exploring the impact of maintenance rules, the attitudes, and network support on friends-with-benefits relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 69(1), 49-66.
Ickes, W. (2000) Methods of studying close relationships. In W. Ickes & S. W. Duck (Eds.) Social Psychology and Personal Relationships. (pp. 157-180). Wiley: Chichester, UK.
Klein, R. C. A. (2004). Sickening relationships: gender-based violence, women's health, and the role of informal third parties. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(1), 149-165.
Klein, R. C. A., & Johnson, M. P. (2000). Strategies of couple conflict. In R. Milardo & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Families as relationships (pp. 79-98). Chichester: Wiley.
Klein, R. C. A., & Milardo, R. (1993). Third-party influences on the development and maintenance of personal relationships. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Social contexts of relationships [Understanding relationship processes: Vol. 3:] (pp. 55-77). Newbury Park , CA: Sage Publications.
Koenig Kellas, J. (2005). Family Ties: Communicating Identity Through Jointly Told Family Stories. Communication Monographs, 72(4), 365-389.
Lannutti, P. J. (2005). For better or worse: exploring the meanings of same-sex marriage within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered community. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(1), 5-18.
Lyons, R. F., Langille, L., & Duck , S. W. (2006). Difficult relationships and relationship difficulties: Relationship adaptation and chronic health problems. In C. D. Kirkpatrick, S. W. Duck & M. K. Foley (Eds.), Relating difficulty: Processes of constructing and managing difficult interaction. (pp. 203-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Monsour, M. (1994). Similarities and dissimilarities in personal relationships: constructing meaning and building intimacy through communication. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Understanding relationship processes 4: Dynamics of interactions (pp. 112-134). Newbury Park: SAGE.
Paul, E. L. (2006). Beer goggles, catching feelings and the walk of shame: The myths and realities of the hookup experience. In C. D. Kirkpatrick, S. W. Duck & M. K. Foley (Eds.), Relating difficulty: Processes of constructing and managing difficult interaction. (pp. 141-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Prusank, D., Duran, R., & DeLillo, D. A. (1993). Interpersonal relationships in women's magazines: Dating and relating in the 1970s and 1980s. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 307-320.
Qualter, P., & Munn, P. (2005). Friendships and play partners of lonely children. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 379-397.
Repinski, D. J., & Zook, J. M. (2005). Three measures of closeness in adolescents' relationships with parents and friends: variations and developmental significance. Personal Relationships, 12(1), 70-102.
Rollie, S. S. (2006). Nonresidential parent-child relationships: Overcoming the challenges of absence. In C. D. Kirkpatrick, S. W. Duck & M. K. Foley (Eds.), Relating difficulty: Processes of constructing and managing difficult interaction. (pp. 181-202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Sahlstein, E. M. (2006). The trouble with distance. In C. D. Kirkpatrick, S. W. Duck & M. K. Foley (Eds.), Relating difficulty: Processes of constructing and managing difficult interaction. (pp. 119-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Segrin, C., Taylor, M. E., & Altman, J. (2005). Social cognitive mediators and relational outcomes associated with parental divorce. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 361-377.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (Eds.). (1998). The dark side of close relationships. New York: Erlbaum.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2002). Interpersonal skills. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication, third edition (pp. 564-611). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Schmeeckle, M., & Shu, X. (2006). No breakup occurs on an island: Social networks and relationship dissolution. In M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of Divorce and Relationship Dissolution (pp. 457-478). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Sunnafrank, M., & Ramirez, A. (2004). At first sight: persistent relational effects of get-acquainted conversations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(3), 361-379.
Teboul, J. C. B., & Cole, T. (2005). Relationship development and workplace integration: and evolutionary perspective. Communication Theory, 15(4), 389-413.
Van Lear, C. A., Jr., , & Trujillo, N. (1986). On becoming acquainted: A longitudinal study of social judgement processes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 375-392.
Walther, J. B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: trust, liking, and performance in computer mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 828-846.
Werking, K. J. (2000). Cross sex friendships as an ideological practice. In K. Dindia & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Communication and Personal Relationships (pp. 113-130). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Wood, J. T. (1995). “Feminist scholarship and the study of relationships.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 12: 103-120.
Wood, J. T. (2004). Monsters and victims: male felons' accounts of intimate partner violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(5), 555-576.
Berger, H. A., L. S. Shaffer, et al. (1998). “Friends and lovers.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 15(5): 623-636.
Morry, M. M. (2010) The attraction-similarity hypothesis among cross sex friends: Relationship satisfaction, perceived similarities and self-serving perceptions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (24), 117-138.
Parks, M. (2000). Communication networks and relationship lifecycles. In K. Dindia & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Communication and personal relationships (pp. 55-76). Chichester: Wiley.
Allan, G. A. (2008). "Flexibility, friendship and the de-centering of family." Personal Relationships 15(1): 1-16.
Allan, G. A. (1998). "Friendship, sociology and social structure." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 15: 685-702.
Baxter, L. A. and S. Widenmann (1993). "Revealing and not revealing the status of romantic relationships to social networks." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 10: 321-338.
Bergmann, J. (1993), Discreet indiscretions. Aldine de Gruyter.)
Amodio, D. M., & Showers, C. J. (2005). "Similarity breeds liking" revisited: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(6), 817-836.
Boon, S. D., Deveau, V. L., & Alibhai (not her real name), A. M. (2009) Payback: The parameters of revenge in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26 (6-7), 747-768.
Flora, J., & Segrin, C. (1998). Joint leisure time in friend and romantic relationships: The role of activity type, social skills and positivity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 711-718.
Kumashiro, M., Rusbult, C. E., Finkenauer, C., & Stocker, S. L. (2007). To think or to do: The impact of assessment and locomotion orientation on the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(4), 591-612.
Paz Galupo, M. (2007). Friendship patterns of sexual minority individuals in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 139-151.
Sprecher, S., & Duck, S. W. (1993). Sweet talk: The role of communication in consolidating relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (20) 391-400.
Weger, H. & Emmett, M. C. (2009) Romantic intent , relationship uncertainty, and relationship maintenance in young adults’ cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26 (6-7), 964-988.
Yoshimura, S. (2007) Goals and emotional outcomes of revenge activities in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 87-98.