A Review and Technological Consideration of the Bona Fide Group Perspective

Abstract

Although group research has explored a variety of new theories, methodologies, and technologies over the past three decades, the bona fide group perspective is still a meaningful framework for understanding how groups interact with context. In this review essay, the bona fide group perspective is introduced and publications since the perspective’s inception 25 years ago are reviewed. Additionally, future research paths are explored, displaying how this perspective is useful for investigating the influence of technological advances on group member participation, specifically in terms of presence.

Keywords

bona fide group perspective technology presence context

Toward the latter end of the 20th century, group research was at a crossroads. Interest in the study of groups was on the rise, with researchers studying newer, more dynamic types of groups and creating better ways to investigate them. Group research had until that point primarily relied on data and methods derived from a container mentality of groups (Putnam & Stohl, 1996). From this perspective, groups were studied as if existing in a vacuum, without consideration of context or other influential factors. There were many practical reasons for utilizing such an approach, particularly the accessibility of students and laboratory participants as data subjects. Researchers would employ students to conduct different group tasks in controlled labs, manipulating independent variables such as group composition or information distribution to determine the variable’s effect on a host of outcomes, such as group performance and satisfaction. The use of such a data collection approach became so intrinsically linked with group research that various theoretical perspectives became deeply entrenched with zero-history, artificial groups (e.g., hidden profile paradigm; Stasser & Titus, 1985, 1987).

Besides ease in data collection, another reason for relying on university student groups was that they provided a convenient, generic version of a research participant. Of course this is not true, as students are in a very unique stage of learning and development. Perhaps because they are still in an early learning stage or due to assumptions that individuals with more experience are subject to more bias, research studies often generalized from student samples in a way to suggest that they are in fact representative of the general population (see Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010, for a discussion of Western undergraduate samples in general). In line with the classic experimental approach, researchers often would create a sufficiently large student sample from which to create groups (i.e., psychology participant pool), and as a result believe they had minimized sampling differences across groups, allowing for greater focus on the specific variable of interest. By conducting research in this manner, results were assumed to be generalizable to other populations, one of the ultimate goals of the post-positivist scholarly tradition.

Ironically, relying on such participants and groups involved making assumptions that in some ways undermined the exact purposes they were designed to remedy. For example, creating container groups often meant oversimplifying them in such a way that they were not generalizable to any other group, and perhaps ceased to be a group at all (Putnam & Stohl, 1996). Such oversimplification is problematic because groups are very much influenced by and are a part of their surrounding environment and context (Putnam & Stohl, 1990; see also Glynn, Kazanjian, & Drazin, 2010; Mathieu, Maynard, Taylor, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2007). Thus, excluding these contextual factors prevented group researchers from extending their claims meaningfully to natural groups, which of course is the eventual hope of research. Relying on student or laboratory participants also limited the type of task designs that could be employed during research, meaning that tasks were largely unrealistic or inconsequential (see Gouran, 1990; Seibold & Meyers, 2007). Of course, this is not to say research involving lab groups has no place in group research; however, solely relying upon such research greatly reduces the practical implications of group studies.

Desiring to conduct more applied group research, researchers across varying disciplines (e.g., Glynn et al., 2010; Marks, DeChurch, Mathieu, Panzer, & Alonso, 2005; Mathieu et al., 2007; McGrath, Arrow, & Berdahl, 2000; Wageman, Gardner, & Mortensen, 2012) have argued for a move outside of the laboratory and toward intact, natural groups. Several different avenues have been considered to study groups in context. Field investigations, descriptive-exploratory studies, full-fledged/intact groups, and naturally emergent groups were all attempts at accessing naturally occurring groups (Putnam & Stohl, 1990). Such studies considered various types of task groups, including self-help groups, health care/health provider teams, and organizational teams. The foci of such investigations were primarily interested in internal communications while loosely assuming that external contextual influence existed as well. Simply extending group studies into the field however did not guarantee that the dynamic interplay groups have with their context and environment was considered (Putnam & Stohl, 1990).

Given the importance of the bona fide group perspective in pushing researchers to consider dynamic groups, and given the significant shift in social scientific endeavors toward examining the interplay groups have with their environment, an assessment of the perspective is in order. The purpose of our article is threefold. First, given the interdisciplinary audience of Small Group Research and the exclusive focus the perspective has had by communication scholars, we will introduce the bona fide group perspective and its initial groundwork. The perspective is clearly of value across disciplines and such a reintroduction may invite scholars to consider the perspective in their research on groups and teams. Second, a review of past research on the perspective will provide a state of the field. Third, we point toward three considerations of the perspective for future research, specifically considering the role of technology on group member presence.

Bona Fide Group Perspective

Putnam and Stohl’s (1990) bona fide group perspective was an argument toward investigating and including the natural complexity inherent in and around groups in research studies. Initially, the main contribution of this perspective was the authors’ encouragement to study bona fide groups. Bona fide groups were those that retained meaningful connections to the contextual environment, specifically in terms of stable yet permeable boundaries and interdependence with context (Putnam & Stohl, 1990).

Stable Yet Permeable Boundaries

The notion of stable yet permeable boundaries plays on the tension that groups are both flexible and rigid in terms of group identity and composition. Scholars investigate stable yet permeable boundaries by exploring how members socially negotiate group boundaries as a result of membership in multiple groups, variation in memberships, and the formation of group identity (Putnam, 1994). Group members often have a host of group memberships, creating psychological overlap across identities. The ability to associate and participate in multiple groups draws upon resources and information that may improve group functioning. However, such divided loyalties may influence levels of commitment (Putnam & Stohl, 1990), as members may need to choose between goals across groups.

Of course, membership and group borders are shifting, whether for shortterm (e.g., illness) or long-term (e.g., turnover) reasons. New members must be socialized to adapt to the group or team culture, and the culture will likewise need to adapt to the new members. Changes in group boundaries must be renegotiated through group interaction during fluctuating membership (Putnam & Stohl, 1990). This is not to say that groups must restart from the beginning upon group compositional change; previous member and group experiences can influence future iterations of the group (Radzevick, 2016). However, the reification of past group structure is also informed by present interaction, which reflects individual and organizational influences. In other words, groups are always reproducing their properties through interaction patterns (Poole, Seibold, & McPhee, 1985).

An underlying factor of stable yet permeable boundaries is that future interactions are likely and worthwhile. The assumption of future interactions imbues group communication with added meaning, especially in terms of resources, hierarchy, roles, and power. Group members must navigate a multiplicity of goals, whether personal, group, or organizational, both internal and external to the group. Aspects of this complex context will be reflected in how group members strategically adapt their messages (Kellermann, 1992). The changing yet constant nature of group boundaries influences how group members create their messages to address these resource, goal, and identity concerns. These boundaries also directly impact how external context influences the group.

Interdependence With Context

The bona fide group perspective is also founded upon the notion of interdependence with context, which focuses on the interplay of the group with the surrounding context. This dynamic has been shown in past research to greatly influence groups (e.g., Thornton, 1978). Interdependence specifically refers to the coinciding causes and effects within a group where members construct “interlocked behaviors, interpretive frames, and negotiated identities” (Stohl & Putnam, 1994, p. 287). Past research has addressed multiple levels and types of interdependence (Wageman, 1999), such as how task interdependence influences task performance (Aubé & Rousseau, 2005; Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2006). Interdependence in a group setting specifically targets the mutual influence between group and context; one is always influencing and being influenced by the other.

Importantly, the notion of interdependence in the bona fide group perspective is a bit different from variables used in past research studies. As Putnam and Stohl (1990) stated in their original article, “Context, then, is not simply a set of variables that impinges on the groups; rather it is embedded in the interactions of members since each message references and negotiates the degree of interdependence among internal and external groups” (p. 259). Thus, context becomes a foundation and background for group interaction, while also becoming an output of said behavior.

Groups are interdependent with context because they are regularly importing and exporting information, resources, and communication from that context. Some of this interdependence is quite explicit to members, as the group might be dependent upon another group for financing or marketing. However, contextual influence may be less direct as well. Knowledge of other groups’ past endeavors or organizational history may likewise influence how group members behave. Such behavior will not only determine future group outcomes, but it will also influence the context as well.

Establishment of the Bona Fide Group Perspective

Stemming from Putnam and Stohl’s (1990) work, a few noted publications were essential to establishing the bona fide group perspective as a legitimate platform for group research. One of the most important publications was Frey’s (1994a) initial volume on group communication in context. Frey’s volume contained book chapters and case studies investigating the creation and sustaining of group identity, communication and group development, destructive communication patterns in groups, and group interaction during decision making. His volume concluded with a chapter by Stohl and Putnam (1994), which emphasized how the bona fide group perspective illuminated the complexity of group identity and provided a lens for recognizing group experience throughout the volume. Specifically, studying bona fide groups helps scholars to understand the influence of external, historical, and temporal constraints on (a) phase development, (b) decision making, (c) norm formation, (d) argumentation, (e) social influence, and (f) communicative episodes (Stohl & Putnam, 1994).

The publication of the volume accomplished two important purposes. First, it established the bona fide group perspective as more than a methodological exercise into applied research and instead as a legitimate framework for the analysis of groups. Second, it portrayed scholars’ attempts at utilizing the framework in a meaningful way, with varying levels of success. The chapters provided examples of how researchers tried to operationalize the assumptions of the bona fide group perspective. Frey (2003), in his edited collection, more directly showcased how research studies could consider bona fide groups across a variety of contexts, responding to his earlier call (Frey, 1994b) to examine neglected group types (e.g., families, support groups, church groups, deviant groups). Additionally, scholars have also explored various types of task teams as well (e.g., Stohl & Walker, 2002).

State of Bona Fide Group Research

As a result of Putnam and Stohl’s challenge and along with the early work of Frey and other group scholars, numerous research studies investigating bona fide groups were published in a variety of outlets. To conduct a review of bona fide group literature, a thorough publication search was designed. To maintain consistency, researchers completed a search for books, book chapters, and peer-reviewed journal articles using Academic Search Premier, Business Source Premier, Communication and Mass Media Complete, PsychArticles, PsychInfo, JSTOR, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts databases. The following key terms were used in the search process: bona fide, bona fide groups, bona fide group perspective, Putnam, and Stohl. Additionally, authors consulted one of the creators of the perspective resulting in an additional four pieces. The additional pieces were book chapters and journal articles that did not surface in database searches because they had not been indexed. Importantly, there are many studies that have examined natural groups that do not fall within the parameters of a bona fide group approach, and it was not our purpose to review all studies on natural groups. Conducting a search using the described parameters resulted in 48 articles and book chapters.

This review directly considers how authors used the bona fide group perspective in their efforts. Some researchers have used bona fide group perspective as a methodological justification for studying alternative types of groups (e.g., Galanes, 2003; George, Marett, & Giordano, 2008; Golden & Pineo, 2007; Kramer, 2002; Silva & Sias, 2010; Wittenberg-Lyles, Gee, Oliver, & Demiris, 2009) where the phrase “bona fide group” had less to do with the complexities associated with a group and its context and more to do with building credibility for the group sample under consideration. Other researchers have used the bona fide group perspective with other frameworks and theories (e.g., Cragan & Shields, 1999; Frey & Sunwolf, 2005; Golden & Pineo, 2007; Stohl & Holmes, 1993) to explain how groups form and relate to their context.

This project focuses on studies that considered the central tenants of the bona fide group perspective. The following review highlights how research has refined the ideas of stable yet permeable boundaries and interdependence with context, along with the critical role of communication from the perspective. Insights and themes for each category based on the reviewed studies are addressed below (see entries marked with * in references).

Refining the Bona Fide Group Perspective

The bona fide group perspective provides a lens for exploring how groups are situated within a specific time and place by focusing on how groups create and negotiate stable yet permeable boundaries, and are interdependent with their context (Putnam & Stohl, 1990). In further working with the perspective, other researchers built upon and clarified these two characteristics, and questioned how best to utilize the bona fide group perspective in group research. Lammers and Krikorian (1997) first expanded the bona fide group perspective by operationalizing many of the concepts related to boundaries (stability, permeability, connectivity, overlapping membership, relations among members in other contexts, and fluctuations in membership) and context (multiple levels of operation, tight or loose coupling, task jurisdiction, temporal control, resource dependency, competing internal and external authority system, and border ambiguity and negotiation). Through this work, and others, the original claims of stable yet permeable boundaries and interdependence with context have been refined and expanded upon. These advances and changes are highlighted below.

Refining stable yet permeable boundaries

Stable yet permeable boundaries provide group members with a way to define who is in and who is out, while allowing groups to morph and adapt as needed with context and membership changes. Group boundaries provide a framework to guide internal and external communication, and can be created/recreated through communication or through elements of the context such as physical location and organizational structures (Oetzel & Robbins, 2003). Permeable boundaries can be useful for groups by allowing members to draw on what membership is salient at a certain time (Petronio, Ellemers, Giles, & Gallois, 1998), by helping members cope with fluctuations in membership and external relationship changes (Frey, 1994b), or by creating opportunities for group members to connect with relevant external groups (Stohl & Putnam, 2003).

Though boundaries are helpful for groups, other studies point to challenges presented by permeability of boundaries, such as boundary clarity. For many groups, boundaries may become so permeable that it becomes challenging to determine who is in the group and who is not. For example, in a study of two neighborhoods, Buchalter (2003) found members struggled with boundaries when everyday interaction and behaviors minimized the significance of the boundaries. As members of the two neighborhoods experienced multiple unplanned interactions in everyday situations, the boundaries became more permeable, leading to issues later as the two neighborhoods attempted to deal with crime. Other work found that unclear boundaries between groups may lead to misplaced blame for errors or mistakes (Hirsch, 2008), or difficulties when members of the group have different expectations and definitions for personal versus group boundaries (Petronio, Jones, & Morr, 2003). In families for example, though group boundaries may be clear, the creation of subgroups through information sharing may require new sets of boundaries to be negotiated.

As boundaries become more permeable, group members have contact with more individuals who may or may not be members. Some parties may need to cross or communicate outside the boundary, such as administrators or executives (Baker, 2010; Tracy & Standerfer, 2003), which may make it difficult to manage group coordination (Berteotti & Seibold, 1994). Other contexts, such as online groups, present challenges as permeable boundaries allow for lurking, spamming, and advertisers taking up group time and space (Alexander, Wille, & Hollingshead, 2003; Krikorian & Kiyomiya, 2003). The increased permeability can also create struggles for members, as they cope with unexpected or unplanned membership changes. For example, in a study of parents with special needs children, Mills and Walker (2009) found parents were constantly seeking supporters and outsiders who recognized and supported the family boundary created. As more people came into the home as therapists, the home context (often defined in terms of the biological family only) became blurred with the external context.

Another challenge is how membership is defined in temporary and volunteer groups. Temporary groups are situations where members are working together for a short time, often without a long-term commitment to each other (Kramer, 2005). In contrast to other group situations, temporary groups lack a strong hierarchy or structure since the groups are volatile and shift membership, responsibility, or focus over their short time span (Walker & Stohl, 2012). Similarity, volunteer groups struggle to define boundaries and identify members as a result of high member fluctuation and ambiguity about what constitutes membership (Kramer, 2011).

Groups also deal with shifting boundaries within their group. As group members communicate they are simultaneously deconstructing and recreating their boundaries for the group (Buchalter, 2003). Depending on contextual factors, groups must be ready to shift boundaries as needed to progress. For example, a crisis situation during a Mt. Everest climb forced climbers to abandon their original expedition group boundaries to merge into one large group focused on survival (Houston, 2003). In other situations, boundaries may have to shift as tasks or assignments change (Hirsch, 2008), or when information is unintentionally shared with the group or other outside members (Petronio et al., 2003). Additionally, boundaries are continually shifting as membership changes. For families, as children age and interact with more outside groups and influences, the family’s boundaries become more permeable (Mills & Walker, 2009).

Finally, research has also explored how groups manage and cope with intersecting boundaries. All groups must cope with individuals’ multiple memberships. Recent research has expanded on the idea of stable yet permeable boundaries by exploring how multiple boundaries interact within groups. As boundaries become more permeable, members are likely to have more external memberships and identities to balance (Hirsch, 2008; Mills & Walker, 2009). In an example of a family funeral home, Hirsch (2008) notes group members dealt with intersecting identities between home and the company, other company funeral homes, other family members, and employees who all attended the same church. These multiple levels of boundaries become more complex the more permeable the group boundary is to the outside context. Furthermore, group members must manage boundaries as they interact with multiple groups. For some members who may be in several groups with the same people, members may experience a dialectical tension between different committee boundaries (Zhang, 2007), or between different information holding subgroups within families (Petronio et al., 2003). These intersecting levels of boundaries provide groups the opportunity to bring in more outside people with expertise or experience, while also staying focused on the specific goal for the central group (Howell, Brock, & Hauser, 2003; Lai, 2014).

In review, scholars have investigated group boundaries in a variety of ways. As Putnam and Stohl (1990) noted, boundaries are constantly being redrawn and renegotiated as a part of group interaction. In our review, research studies have focused on a number of issues including boundary clarity, boundary crossing, non-members within boundaries, shifting boundaries, temporary group boundaries, and multiple levels of boundaries. From these articles, it is clear that boundaries can be a double-edged sword for groups, as they develop membership boundaries while also needing to maintain connections with their external environment and resources. The permeable nature of boundaries allows groups to flex during interaction and during critical turning points, but also can challenge group members’ definitions of membership and identity.

Refining interdependence with context

Along with boundaries, researchers have continued to explore the influence of context on group behavior. Whereas boundaries provide a way for groups to define who they are and who they are not, there is no question that the specific contextual elements and features play a role in group behavior. As noted by Yep, Reece, and Negrón (2003), no group exists in isolation; all groups are interdependent with their context. This may be through the suprasystems the group is embedded in, other supersystems that influence the group (Frey & Sunwolf, 2005), the organizational location, or the various backgrounds of group members (Keyton & Stallworth, 2003). Though these physical features of context influence group process, it also includes temporal elements, developmental phases, and control dimensions (Sinclair-James & Stohl, 1997). For each group considered, the contextual influences are different. Some groups may be influenced more by political demands or history (Barge & Keyton, 1994), whereas others are influenced by the larger structure the group members represent (Tracy & Standerfer, 2003). By adopting a bona fide group perspective, researchers have been able to learn more about how different contextual elements influence group behavior.

Central to Putnam and Stohl’s (1990) conceptualization of interdependence with context was that context drives and influences group behavior. For many group researchers, the focus has been on the organizational context as a driving factor for group behavior. Organizational work teams are often structured and motivated by the organizational mission statement (Oetzel & Robbins, 2003). For many groups, the organization largely influences what groups focus on during their work. For example, Baker (2010) noted workplace diversity groups embraced inclusivity as a value because it would increase support from the organization. However, for many of these groups, discussions shifted from diversity issues to what the organization considered inclusive. Additionally, the organizational pressure on these diversity groups led groups to become more alike as funding and success hinged on being like other successful diversity groups.

Though close proximity to the organization can blur lines between organizational groups, group member distance from the organization may also negatively influence the group. Groups distant from the organization are more isolated and struggle to continue work. Groups could become isolated from the organizational context if they are not able to get information about broader expectations for their group (Parrish-Sprowl, 2006), or if the group is required to interact with a number of parties outside of the organization. In a study of a hospice team, Berteotti and Seibold (1994) found the more group members that are outside of the organization, the harder it was to coordinate group member actions. Volunteers in the hospice example were separated from the hospital policy and culture, and were not actively involved in discussions about hospice functions. Additionally, the need to link with an independent home health group, coupled with value differences between volunteers and hospital employees, all complicated how effectively the group was able to work.

Along with the organizational constraints, other contextual factors play a role in group behavior. Political, economic, technological, and infrastructure concerns all play a role in how groups behave and work (Sherblom, 2003). Many groups adapt and change how they operate to serve their context. This may include tailoring messages and advertising to specific groups within a community, or creating groups that reflect the population they are called upon to serve (Hirsch, 2008). These contextual factors also play a role in explaining how group members interact with each other. In Barge and Keyton’s (1994) analysis of a city council meeting, information about the campaign from nine months earlier provided important background details to explain why the meeting was heated between members. Using the contextual information provides insight into how groups behave, structure themselves, and function.

As part of the context, group members must also figure out how to cope with cultural differences among group members (Yep et al., 2003). As group members come together, the cultural norms that are shared among members become part of the group fabric and influence how members interact with each other and how the group functions. Many members cling to the cultural norms with which they are familiar. For example, in a study of groups in post-Cold War Poland, groups had the opportunity to advance and radically change how they approached governance, but instead stuck to the familiar norms and cultural values of communism (Parrish-Sprowl, 2003). Although cultural norms or expectations can be important in helping groups become effective, other cultural norms may prevent groups from adopting effective facilitation techniques (Cragan & Shields, 1999).

Context also plays an influential role over boundary permeability. Boundaries are simultaneously permeable and impermeable depending on contextual factors (Buchalter, 2003). The contextual factors for each group determine how permeable boundaries are, what directions are permeable, and what people are allowed to cross the boundaries. These contextual factors can shift quickly depending on what events occur. Some crisis situations may quickly increase permeability as groups may bond to survive and move forward (Houston, 2003; Parrish-Sprowl, 2003), while other times of stress may decrease permeability if groups are attempting to keep specific individuals out (Buchalter, 2003). Groups need permeability to succeed (Hirsch, 2008), but that permeability must be monitored and adjusted based on contextual changes.

For families, many contextual factors drive how permeable boundaries are to outside members. Families need some stability in boundaries to protect themselves and create a family identity (Mills & Walker, 2009); however, these boundaries can quickly shift when the context changes, such as when children need additional care or when private information is shared (Petronio et al., 2003). For childhood groups, boundaries experience a lot of change based on the developmental process of children. However, these boundaries do not become clear to members until an unwanted person attempts to enter the group (Sunwolf & Leets, 2004). For children, their dislike of ambiguity and exclusion play a huge role in how boundaries are set and negotiated.

Finally, the advance of technology has created a number of contextual challenges for virtual groups as they attempt to set boundaries. Defining boundaries for online groups can be difficult as the context is loosely structured (Lai, 2014), and other factors play a role such as time, geography, cultural differences (Zhang, 2007), and combined face-to-face and online meetings (Lai, 2014). Boundaries for online groups can be considerably more permeable than many face-to-face groups based on the possibility for anonymity, lurking, and enacting false roles (Alexander et al., 2003). Though technology allows for increased membership and connection, it is also a challenge for groups as they struggle to work when some members lack the information or skills needed for the situation. For most group situations, considering boundaries also requires considering the many other contextual factors that influence how groups are able to function.

Overall, research on interdependence with context has highlighted several contextual characteristics that influence group process. These articles considered organizational and societal influences, cultural differences, and the changing technological environment. Additionally, scholars have considered contextual influence on boundary permeability. Putnam and Stohl (1990) note the importance of considering the close relationship between permeable boundaries and interdependence with context, especially when attempting to understand group behavior. Context influences the boundaries groups negotiate, and as the context changes, so must the boundaries. All of this occurs through communication between group members. Through the analysis of the articles, it was evident that communication played a central role in explaining how groups navigate their context and create permeable boundaries.

Communication as central

Both stable yet permeable boundaries and interdependence with context play a significant role in the ability for groups to function. However, as Putnam and Stohl (1990) point out, communication is central to understanding how these stable yet permeable boundaries are formed, and how the group interacts with their context. Boundaries are constructed and deconstructed through group communication as group members shift and adapt to various internal and external contextual features. Although communication is certainly central to all group functions, the enactment of these group activities also creates and maintains the group (Tracy & Standerfer, 2003). Communication drives the ability for groups to change, helps groups to adapt to their external environment, and maintains the groups’ connection to the external environment (Kramer, 2005; Parrish-Sprowl, 2006). Furthermore, the focus on communication highlights how internal communication and the external environment are interrelated (Frey & Sunwolf, 2005).

Communication plays a huge role in emphasizing and reminding group members of boundaries. As members interact both internally and externally, they are creating and reaffirming group boundaries with internal members and external parties (Stohl & Putnam, 2003). This communication becomes vital for groups where members have multiple memberships to enact and draw from. It is through communication about boundaries, shared values, and beliefs that allow group members to build and maintain their identity (Lange, 2003; Zhang, 2007). Communication also gives the group opportunities to renegotiate who they are, what they stand for, and how they are viewing the world. However, communication can also create boundaries for the group as groups choose certain communication tools and methods for interacting with internal and external members (Kramer, 2005).

Researchers have linked the bona fide group perspective with identity as a way to highlight the role of communication. Many groups use boundaries to establish their identity by stating who is in and who is out and by using terminology such as “we” and “them” (Mills & Walker, 2009; Oetzel & Robbins, 2003). Communication is central to the formation of group identity. It is through interaction, both internally and externally, that groups are able to develop and sustain a group identity. Interaction with outside groups may even provide a clarification and strengthening of the current group identity (Oetzel & Robbins, 2003; Zhang, 2007), allowing groups to create a sense of groupness through rituals and tasks that distinguish them from the outside environment (Hirsch, 2008), and help group members select new members that fit with the current group identity (Sunwolf & Leets, 2003). Groups may also use web pages or group histories to reaffirm and clarify the group identity for new members and during times of change (Zhang, 2007). Social interaction with group members can also help construct group identity (Oetzel & Robbins, 2003), and through this interaction members can reshape and adjust their identity to match changes in demands and expectations (Zhang, 2007). Communication also allows group members to shift between identities in order to focus on the most salient identity for that time (Oetzel & Robbins, 2003), or help group members maintain their original identity when placed in collaborative situations with other groups (Kramer, 2011).

There are also situations where group identity is difficult to form or cannot be formed because of the strong influence of the context. Many times, external interaction can overpower a group’s internal functioning, leading to a group being unable to create a group identity (Baker, 2010). Groups who are required to collaborate with other groups on a regular basis (Baker, 2010) or have overlapping identities with other groups (Keyton & Stallworth, 2003) are not able to create a defined group identity to guide members. Groups may also struggle to develop a group identity when the group lacks a mission statement (Zhang, 2007) or if members do not view membership as beneficial to them (Kramer, 2005). However, strong group identities may also prevent groups from succeeding. A strong group identity can create autonomous groups who are not as able to communicate with outside groups because the group focuses solely on internal work and issues (Oetzel & Robbins, 2003).

Lastly, Putnam and Stohl (1990) note that research cannot focus solely on internal communication or external communication. Rather, both types of interaction are vital for understanding bona fide groups. In studying bona fide group decision-making processes, Putnam and Stohl (1996) note both internal and external communication provide key information about the task as boundaries between the two are in continual flux (Putnam & Stohl, 1996). Decision making in bona fide groups relies on contextual information and may be constrained by decisions made by other external groups (Stohl & Walker, 2002) or by radical shifts in the external environment (Putnam & Stohl, 1996).

Communication, or the use of symbols to create messages and subsequent meanings, is central to the bona fide group perspective, both in its creation of boundaries and context, and also in terms of identity creation. During any interaction, group members enact their salient identity for the moment; however, this may mean putting on other external identities that are also relevant to the group process (Putnam & Stohl, 1990). For example, external connections and other group memberships may be brought up during discussion in ways to help the group process. Therefore, communication in conjunction with the external environment interdependently influence group processes.

Theoretical Dilemmas for the Future of Bona Fide Groups

Clearly the past quarter century has seen progress in our understanding of how boundaries and context influence and are influenced by groups. In fact, given the new collaborative opportunities and complexities created by technological advances over the past 20 years, one of the remarkable accomplishments of the bona fide group perspective is its resilience as a research perspective. The organizational world has dramatically changed since 1990, but the bona fide group perspective is still an enlightening framework through which to investigate groups.

One major organizational change since 1990 is the increase in technology use in organizational groups and teams. Of course, many studies have already investigated how modern technology has greatly influenced group processes (see Wageman et al., 2012). Organizations have incorporated more communication technologies to help members stay connected and sustain organizational processes (Rice & Leonardi, 2014). Building on the increased use of technology in organizations, we propose future bona fide group studies investigate how technology has influenced modern day group member participation and involvement, and subsequently influenced previous notions of stable yet permeable boundaries and interdependence with context. Specifically, we target a concept central to not only bona fide group research, but all group scholarship. The notion of presence, or an individual’s active participation in a group, is a fruitful avenue for research since determining whether a group member is present is less straightforward when social technologies are used as a primary or secondary means of group interaction.

The remainder of this article focuses on three ways that technology has complicated the central tenants of the bona fide group perspective in regards to presence. Of course, social media technology is omnipresent in all social interaction, and in this article we do not wish to review the plethora of media available to group interaction (e.g., group decision support systems). However, theoretically and philosophically, these technologies have fundamentally changed the nature of group participation, and the bona fide group perspective is an effective way through which to consider important research questions. The three areas are (a) visual presence in a group, (b) absence from a group, and (c) presence in multiple groups. At the conclusion of each section, several potential future research questions are posed.

Virtual Presence in a Group

In traditional face-to-face groups, determining whether someone is actively engaged in a group is relatively simple. Group boundaries are visible and represented by physical presence and participation. Although there are varying levels of engagement and social loafing in face-to-to face groups, members still have a basic idea of who is and is not in the group at any one time.

The presence of members in groups that involve virtual technology is a bit more difficult to determine. An example of this complexity is within online support groups (Alexander et al., 2003). Research has shown that social support can be conveyed both through face-to-face support groups as well as via online support groups (Wright, 2009). Many online support groups (e.g., www.dailystrength.org) require registration before posting comments to an online forum. The registration process requires the creation of a username, password, and visual identifier (Alexander et al., 2003). During the course of online support group discussion, registered individuals can respond to others’ initial posts and responses, and this can take place in asynchronous or synchronous fashion. These comments are the foundation for the generation of social support and other types of support for registered members.

However, online support groups are often designed to allow anyone access to discussion board comments, whether a registered participant or not. Registered participants are aware that their comments may be read by anyone with Internet access; in fact, non-registered individuals may frequent the web pages more than posting members. As noted by Alexander et al. (2003), three of the four studied online support groups had a significant portion of undiagnosed individuals in the group. Thus the question: Are these non-registered individuals, who regularly read member messages and receive member benefits, present members of the group?

Some of the characteristics commonly considered essential for groups (e.g., identity and structure; Keyton & Beck, 2008) become more difficult to decipher when it is not clear if a person is present within group boundaries. In the online support group example, lurkers hide the amount of active participation in the group. Lurking is when an individual views information or communication without having to request it or be a part of it (Finfgeld, 2000; Winzelberg, 1997). It is suspected that only around 9% of online community members actively share messages on discussion boards, which means around 90% are noncontributing lurkers (Carroll & Rosson, 1996; Nielsen, 2006). Interestingly, lurkers and posters join online communities for similar reasons (Nonnecke, Preece, & Andrews, 2004), and lurkers receive similar rewards as those who are active participants (e.g., feelings of empowerment; van Uden-Kraan, Drossaert, Taal, Seydel, & van de Laar, 2008). Although lurkers can gain much through reading discussion boards, posters still hold more stake in online groups because their online presence is a result of their desire for two-way interaction (Nonnecke et al., 2004). A lack of active participation may be why lurkers consider themselves to be less a part of the group (Nonnecke et al., 2004).

Of course one could make the point that, similar to lurkers, individuals in face-to-face support groups may not speak but still gain benefits from group discussion. Many 12-step addiction groups encourage members to speak, but never pressure them to do so (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous). Group members in face-to-face groups who do not want to speak simply observe and receive the rewards of hearing others’ comments. However, these individuals are still present in the group, in that they are physically another body in a seat. Being physically present in a face-to-face support group at a minimum shows strength in numbers, a benefit of presence. It also increases the opportunity for sharing multiple types of nonverbal communication, which can be especially important in a support group. Even though online contributors know others may read their posts, lurkers do not have the same presence as face-to-face participants. Thus, lurking is something that cannot happen in face-to-face environments.

The level of virtual presence may also vary depending on the type of software in use. Although video conferencing is not a new innovation, the universal presence of virtual software has changed the dynamics of distributed groups. In other words, virtual video communication is now a constant opportunity rather than a periodic meeting activity. This complicates permeable boundaries on multiple levels. For example, the ability to have live, instant connection with members outside of the group, and the availability to access these individuals often, may blur group boundary distinctions. These points raise the following questions: At what point does constant contact with outside members equate with group membership? To prevent group membership, how are roles and contracts negotiated and formalized?

Absence From a Group

In face-to-face groups, it is relatively easy to determine if someone has left the group, whether temporarily or permanently. Of course, the ability to contact group members who are absent or departed from the group has always been possible, but the omnipresence of communication technology has made it constant. In fact, it can make it difficult for an individual to be absent from the group. Although research investigations often focus on whether or not someone belongs to a group, it is also important to investigate whether group members can leave a group, even temporarily. Whereas early computer-mediated communication was in large part asynchronous, groups may now hold different expectations for communication frequency and access to its members.

In fact, organizations may provide social media technologies to employees for the purpose of making them more available for work needs. These technologies create a sort of virtual office (Hill, Miller, Weiner, & Colihan, 2006) that allows constant access. Virtual offices blur the lines between work and home, and although overworked individuals often use online technologies as a way of balancing such demands (Bond, Thompson, Galinsky, & Prottas, 2002), they can also create problems by eliminating the ability to leave the group. As a result, group members may view technology as a type of constant surveillance by group leaders. Permeable boundaries allow for the entrance and exit of group members; however, social media technologies may prevent individuals from the latter.

In situations where group members exit the group on poor terms, technology may provide members an outlet to continually influence the inner workings of groups even while remaining outside group boundaries. Gossett and Kilker’s (2006) work on counter-institutional websites may be a helpful organizational example. This study indicated that organizational members, especially those who exited the organization, were able to communicate on websites to the detriment of the organization. Gossett and Kilker also showed how current organizational members accessed these sites, allowing organizational members and members who had exited the organization to continue to interact. In this example, the organization went to great lengths to prevent such discussion, although the organization found it difficult to prevent internal organizational members from accessing it. One reason why such communication from exited members is so critical is the accessibility and permanence of mediated messages. This allows new members of a group to access organizational history and opinions from members no longer within group boundaries. It also demonstrates the clear interdependent nature of a group to an accessible and permanent context.

As has been shown, technology has made it more difficult for members to leave a group, or for groups to exclude members. In this way, group boundaries may be permeable in only one direction. Although there has been research exploring how certain groups or organizations make it very difficult for organizational exit (e.g., gangs, Decker, Pyrooz, & Moule, 2014), exploring how virtual technologies complicate exit has not been rigorously explored. Therefore, researchers should consider the following: How do groups create one-way permeability via social technologies, preventing group exit? And how can group members overcome technological connection to exit a group?

Presence in Multiple Groups

Technology has also increased our ability to participate in multiple groups. Multiple group membership is an interesting intersection between interdependence with context and stable yet permeable boundaries since the context influencing a group may be another group with which you are a member. Of course the ability to be part of multiple groups is not novel, but the ability to simultaneously be active in several groups via social media technology is still relatively new.

Technological innovations allow communication to permeate group boundaries in real time. This creates an interesting paradox for groups. On one hand, a group may add an individual for his or her membership in or connection to another group, hoping that such a relationship will increase resources or information. In fact, group composition may be structured to maximize interdependence with individuals outside of the group. However, there may be concern that members will be engaged in hidden communication or coalition formation as well. The sharing of loyalties may be both beneficial and a hindrance for the group.

Identity and membership management may be tricky when group members have multiple group loyalties. Group members may need to alternate between group identities depending on the nature of the task. For example, let us say that Julie is part of a disciplinary committee charged with determining whether Cathy, as lower level employee, should be fired. However, Julie is also part of a steering committee for the same organization attempting to improve gender diversity (specifically too few female hires) within the organization. When interacting with her disciplinary committee about Cathy’s case, Julie may find her multiple group identities (i.e., disciplinary committee member, steering committee member) conflicting with one another. But what about Julie’s ability to actively participate with group members from each group during the process? She may not only have to manage expectations, but she can actively connect with group members if need be. The ability to access information and opinions in real time is an additional influence on group processing.

Of course, this may be problematic in terms of commitment and energy allotted to each team as well. Technology has proven to be distracting in a number of settings (Carrier, Cheever, Rosena, Beniteza, & Changa, 2009; Rosen, Carrier, & Cheever, 2013). Trying to participate in more than one group may be distracting. Additionally, group members may have varying tolerances for technological distraction. Our ability to simultaneously communicate across boundaries with external groups may decrease effectiveness, raising the question: When does technology become a benefit or a hindrance when participating in multiple groups?

Future of the Bona Fide Group Perspective

The bona fide group perspective has been remarkably effective over the years. As groups change in a multitude of ways, with technology being only one of many considerations, the perspective continues to pose questions about the dynamic and meaningful influence of boundaries and context on group processes. Future research would do well to heed the perspective in two important ways.

First, researchers may directly target one of the two tenants of the perspective when generating research questions, or even more ambitiously investigate both tenants together. The last part of this manuscript has discussed several research paths that may be promising for such endeavors. Whether it involves investigating external member presence, one-way permeability, or simultaneous multitasking in several groups, such investigations move our understanding of meaningful group action in natural contexts forward. As the bona fide group perspective targets the tension between group and context, it will always be helpful in understanding evolutionary changes in groups. For example, Mills and Walker (2009) and Hirsch (2008) used both tenets of the bona fide group perspective to explain group dynamics. Both studies used key pieces of the context to explain how groups defined and redefined boundaries based on situational changes. Many of the boundary negotiations that occur in groups are dependent on understanding the contextual situation for the group. Accounting for these two dimensions of bona fide group studies can help expand upon the unique relationship between context and group.

Second, researchers should remember bona fide group assumptions when investigating other phenomena of interest. In fact, this is probably where the bona fide group perspective can be of greatest importance. For example, multiteam systems (MTS) research has considered how two or more interdependent groups work together when accomplishing tasks with shared goals (Marks et al., 2005). Of course, the ability of groups to work together is dependent upon contextual and external factors related to group functioning. Studies involving MTSs within the organization (i.e., internal MTS studies) are often investigated with laboratory groups (Shuffler, Jimenez-Rodriguez, & Kramer, 2015), which prevents direct consideration of contextual influence. Using the bona fide group perspective, researchers can more directly investigate how context influences the micro processes of MTS teams. Importantly, by focusing on boundaries and contextual interdependence, researchers are better able to consider how communication is constitutive of both teams and context.

This article aims to inform the field of where the bona fide group perspective currently stands, and how scholars can move forward in all group research, not just those studies targeting the bona fide group perspective. The perspective has proven to be impressively resilient, as the dynamics introduced as vital to group research in 1990 are still very much in question today. Our review highlights areas for future research, and reemphasizes the necessity of considering groups in their true complex, messy state when conducting analysis. To do so, the creation of new methodological approaches, in particularly qualitative endeavors, is needed to account for the complex dynamics associated with interdependent contexts and stable, yet permeable boundaries.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Stephenson John Beck (PhD, University of Kansas) is an associate professor of communication and director of graduate studies at North Dakota State University, USA. His research interests focus on conflict management, decision making, meeting facilitation, and social support.

Renee Bourdeaux (PhD, North Dakota State University) is an assistant professor of communication at Northwest University, USA. Her research interests focus on positivity and resilience in interpersonal communication.

Nancy DiTunnariello (PhD, North Dakota State University) is an assistant professor at St. John’s University–Staten Island Campus, USA. Her research interests focus on interpersonal communication and relationship satisfaction, specifically within the realm of family relationships and romantic relationships.

Emily A. Paskewitz (PhD, North Dakota State University) is an assistant professor in the School of Communication Studies at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA. Her research focuses on conflict and communication in relational groups.

References

*Alexander

S. C.

Wille

J. L.

Hollingshead

A. B.

(2003). Help at your keyboard: Support groups on the internet. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed., pp. 309-334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Aubé

Rousseau

(2005). Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: The role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 189-204. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.9.3.189

*Baker

(2010, June 22). Diversity management through intergroup concertive control: A bona fide group study of employee network groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Suntec Singapore International Convention & Exhibition Centre, Suntec City, Singapore.

*Barge

J. K.

Keyton

(1994). Contextualizing power and social influence in groups. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups (pp. 85-106). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

*Berteotti

C. R.

Seibold

D. R.

(1994). Coordination and role-definition problems in health-care teams: A hospice case study. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups (pp. 107-132). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bond

J. T.

Thompson

Galinsky

Prottas

(2002). Highlights of the national study of changing workforce. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute.

*Buchalter

(2003). Negotiating (im)permeable neighborhood borders. In Frey

(Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed., pp. 57-84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carrier

L. M.

Cheever

N. A.

Rosena

L. D.

Beniteza

Changa

(2009). Multitasking across generations: Multitasking choices and difficulty ratings in three generations of Americans. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 483-489. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.012

Carroll

J. M.

Rosson

M. B.

(1996). Developing the Blacksburg electronic village. Communications of the ACM, 39, 69-74. doi:10.1145/240483.240498

10.

*Cragan

J. F.

Shields

D. C.

(1999). Translating scholarship into practice: Communication studies reflecting the value of theory-based research to everyday life. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 92-106. doi:10.1080/00909889909365528

11.

Decker

S. H.

Pyrooz

D. C.

Moule

R. K.

(2014). Disengagement from gangs as role transitions. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24, 268-283. doi:10.1111/jora.12074

12.

Finfgeld

D. L.

(2000). Therapeutic groups online: The good, the bad, and the unknown. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 21, 241-255. doi:10.1080/016128400248068

13.

Frey

L. R.

(Ed.). (1994a). Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

14.

*Frey

L. R.

(1994b). The naturalistic paradigm studying small groups in the postmodern era. Small Group Research, 25, 551-577. doi:10.1177/1046496494254008

15.

Frey

L. R.

(Ed.). (2003). Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16.

*Frey

L. R.

(Ed.). (2006). Facilitating group communication in context: Innovations and applications with natural groups: Vol. 2. Facilitating group task and team communication. Mahwah, NJ: Hampton Press.

17.

*Frey

L. R.

Sunwolf . (2005). The symbolic-interpretive perspective of group life. In Poole

M. S.

Hollingshead

A. B.

(Eds.), Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 185-239). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

*Galanes

G. J.

(2003). In their own words an exploratory study of bona fide group leaders. Small Group Research, 34, 741-770. doi:10.1177/1046496403257649

19.

*George

J. F.

Marett

Giordano

(2008). Deception: Toward an individualistic view of group support systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9, 653-676.

20.

Glynn

M. A.

Kazanjian

Drazin

(2010). Fostering innovation in complex product development settings: The role of team member identity and interteam interdependence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 1082-1095. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00772.x

21.

*Golden

K. M.

Pineo

P. P.

(2007). Decision-making in organizations: Approaches to more effective analysis. Retrieved from http://lams.epfl.ch/conference/bpmds05/program/Golden_9.pdf

22.

Gossett

L. M.

Kilker

(2006). My job sucks: Examining counterinstitutional web sites as locations for organizational member voice, dissent, and resistance. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 63-90. doi:10.1177/0893318906291729

23.

Gouran

D. S.

(1990). Exploiting the predictive potential of structuration theory. In Anderson

J. A.

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 13 (pp. 313-322). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

24.

*Gouran

D. S.

(1999). Communication in groups: The emergence and evolution of a field of study. In Frey (Ed.)

L. R.

Gouran

D. S.

Poole

M. S.

(Assoc. Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory & research (pp. 3-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

Henrich

Heine

S. J.

Norenzayan

(2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61-83. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

26.

Hill

J. E.

Miller

B. C.

Weiner

S. P.

Colihan

(2006). Influences of the virtual office on aspects of work and work/life balance. Personnel Psychology, 51, 667-683. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00256.x

27.

*Hirsch

(2008, November 20). Death in a small town: Exploring a funeral home as a bona fide group. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCA 94th Annual Convention, TBA, San Diego, CA.

28.

*Houston

(2003). In the mask of thin air: Intragroup and intergroup communication during the Mt. Everest disaster. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed., pp. 399-414). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

29.

*Howell

Brock

Hauser

(2003). A multicultural, intergenerational youth program: Creating and sustaining a youth community group. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed., pp. 85-108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

30.

Kellermann

(1992). Communication: Inherently strategic and primarily automatic. Communication Monographs, 59, 288-300. doi:10.1080/03637759209376270

31.

Keyton

Beck

S. J.

(2008). Team components, processes, and values: A pedagogical matrix. Business Communication Quarterly, 71, 488-504. doi:10.1177/1080569908325863

32.

*Keyton

Stallworth

(2003). On the verge of collaboration: Interaction processes versus group outcomes. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed., pp. 235-260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

33.

*Kramer

M. W.

(2002). Communication in a community theater group: Managing multiple group roles. Communication Studies, 53, 151-170. doi:10.1080/10510970209388582

34.

*Kramer

M. W.

(2005). Communication in a fund-raising marathon group. Journal of Communication, 55, 257-276. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02671.x

35.

*Kramer

M. W.

(2011). Toward a communication model for the socialization of voluntary members. Communication Monographs, 78, 233-255. doi:10.1080/03637751.2011.564640

36.

*Krikorian

Kiyomiya

(2003). Bona fide groups as self-organizing systems: Applications to electronic newsgroups. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed., pp. 335-365). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

37.

*Lai

C. H.

(2014). Understanding the evolution of bona fide mixed-mode groups: An example of meetup groups. First Monday, 19. doi:10.5210/fm.v19i1.4681

38.

*Lammers

Krikorian

(1997). Theoretical extension and operationalization of the bona fide group construct with an application to surgical teams. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25, 17-38. doi:10.1080/00909889709365463

39.

*Lange

J. I.

(2003). Environmental collaborations and constituency communication. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed., pp. 209-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

40.

Liden

R. C.

Erdogan

Wayne

S. J.

Sparrowe

R. T.

(2006). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 723-746. doi:10.1002/job.409

41.

Marks

M. A.

DeChurch

L. A.

Mathieu

J. E.

Panzer

F. J.

Alonso

(2005). Teamwork in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 964-971. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.964

42.

Mathieu

J. E.

Maynard

M. T.

Taylor

S. R.

Gilson

L. L.

Ruddy

T. M.

(2007). An examination of the effects of organizational district and team contexts on team processes and performance: A meso-mediational model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 891-910. doi:10.1002/job.480

43.

McGrath

J. E.

Arrow

Berdahl

J. L.

(2000). The study of groups: Past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 95-105. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_8

44.

*Meier

(2003). Doing “groupness” in a spatially distributed work group: The case of videoconferences at technics. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed., pp. 367-397). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

45.

*Mills

Walker

(2009). Early intervention or early imposition: A bona fide group perspective analysis of the parent-child early intervention relationship. In Socha

Stamp

(Eds.), Parents and children communicating with society (pp. 154-170). New York, NY: Routledge.

46.

Nielsen

(2006). Participation inequality: Encouraging more users to contribute. Retrieved from http://www.nngroup.com/articles/participation-inequality/

47.

Nonnecke

Preece

Andrews

(2004, January 5-8). What lurkers and posters think of each other. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265462

48.

*Oetzel

J. G.

Robbins

(2003). Multiple identities in teams in a cooperative supermarket. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed., pp. 183-208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

49.

*Parrish-Sprowl

(2003). On the verge of collaboration: Interaction processes versus group outcomes. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed., pp. 291-305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

50.

*Parrish-Sprowl

(2006). Team facilitation of organizational change: A case study from a bona fide group perspective. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Facilitating group communication in context: Innovations and applications with natural groups: Vol. 2. Facilitating group task and team communication (pp. 203-224). Mahwah, NJ: Hampton Press.

51.

*Petronio

Ellemers

Giles

Gallois

(1998). (Mis) communicating across boundaries interpersonal and intergroup considerations. Communication Research, 25, 571-595. doi:10.1177/009365098025006001

52.

*Petronio

Jones

Morr

M. C.

(2003). Family privacy dilemmas: Managing communication boundaries within family groups. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed., pp. 23-55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

53.

Poole

M. S.

Seibold

D. R.

McPhee

R. D.

(1985). Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74-102. doi:10.1080/00335638509383719

54.

*Putnam

L. L.

(1994). Revitalizing small group communication: Lessons learned from a bona fide group perspective. Communication Studies, 45, 97-102. doi:10.1080/10510979409368413

55.

*Putnam

L. L.

Stohl

(1990). Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of groups in context. Communication Studies, 41, 248-265. doi:10.1080/10510979009368307

56.

*Putnam

L. L.

Stohl

(1996). Bona fide groups: An alternative perspective for communication and small group decision making. In Hirokawa

R. Y.

Poole

M. S.

(Eds.), Communication and group decision making (pp. 147-178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

57.

Radzevick

J. R.

(2016). Does transition experience improve newcomer performance? Evidence from the National Basketball Association. Small Group Research, 47, 207-235. doi:10.1177/1046496416636199

58.

Rice

R. E.

Leonardi

P. M.

(2014). Information and communication technologies in organizations. In Putnam

L. L.

Mumby

D. K.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (3rd ed., pp. 425-448). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

59.

Rosen

L. D.

Carrier

L. M.

Cheever

N. A.

(2013). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 948-958. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001

60.

Seibold

D. R.

Meyers

R. A.

(2007). Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Research, 38, 312-336. doi:10.1177/1046496407301966

61.

*Sherblom

J. C.

(2003). Influences on the recommendations of international business consulting teams. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed., pp. 263-290). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

62.

Shuffler

M. L.

Jimenez-Rodriguez

Kramer

W. S.

(2015). The science of mutiteam systems: A review and future research agenda. Small Group Research, 46, 659-699. doi:10.1177/1046496415603455

63.

*Silva

Sias

P. M.

(2010). Connection, restructuring, and buffering: How groups link individuals and organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 145-166. doi:10.1080/00909881003639510

64.

*Sinclair-James

Stohl

(1997). Group endings and new beginnings. In Frey

L. R.

Barge

(Eds.), Managing group life: Communicating in decision-making groups (pp. 308-334). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

65.

Stasser

Titus

(1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.48.6.1467

66.

Stasser

Titus

(1987). Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 81-92. doi:10.1037//0022-514.53.1.81

67.

*Stohl

Holmes

M. E.

(1993). A functional perspective for bona fide groups. In Deetz

S. A.

(Ed.), Communication yearbook (pp. 601-614). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

68.

*Stohl

Putnam

L. L.

(1994). Group communication in context: Implications for the study of bona fide groups. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Communication in context: Studies in naturalistic groups (pp. 285-292). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

69.

*Stohl

Putnam

L. L.

(2003). Communication in bona fide groups: A retrospective and prospective account. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed., pp. 399-414). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

70.

*Stohl

Walker

(2002). A bona fide perspective for the future of groups: Understanding collaborating groups. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), New directions for group communication (pp. 237-252). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

71.

*Sunwolf Leets

. (2003). Communication paralysis during peer-group exclusion: Social dynamics that prevent children and adolescents from expressing disagreement. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 1-30. doi:10.1177/0261927X03258085

72.

*Sunwolf Leets

. (2004). Being left out: Rejecting outsiders and communicating group boundaries in childhood and adolescent peer groups. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 195-223. doi:10.1080/0090988042000240149

73.

Thornton

B. C.

(1978). Health care teams and multimethodological research. In Ruben

B. D.

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 2 (pp. 539-553). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

74.

*Tracy

Standerfer

(2003). Selecting a school superintendent: Sensitivities in group deliberation. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed., pp. 109-136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

75.

van Uden-Kraan

C. F.

Drossaert

C. H. C.

Taal

Seydel

E. R.

van de Laar

M. A. F. J

. (2008). Self-reported differences in empowerment between lurkers and posters in online patient support groups. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 10. Retrieved from http://www.jmir.org/2008/2/e18/

76.

Wageman

(1999). Task design, outcome interdependence, and individual differences: Their joint effects on effort in task-performing teams (Commentary on Huguet et al., 1999). Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 132-137. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.3.2.132

77.

Wageman

Gardner

Mortensen

(2012). The changing ecology of teams: New directions for teams research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 301-315. doi:10.1002/job.1775

78.

*Waldeck

J. H.

Shepard

C. A.

Teitelbaum

Farrar

W. J.

Seibold

D. R.

(2002). New directions for functional, symbolic convergence, structuration, and bona fide group perspectives of group communication. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), New directions in group communication (pp. 3-24). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

79.

*Walker

K. L.

Stohl

(2012). Communicating in a collaborating group: A longitudinal network analysis. Communication Monographs, 79, 448-474. doi:10.1080/03637751.2012.723810

80.

Winzelberg

(1997). The analysis of an electron support group for individuals with eating disorders. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 393-407. doi:10.1016/S07475632(97)00016-2

81.

*Wittenberg-Lyles

E. M.

Gee

G. C.

Oliver

D. P.

Demiris

(2009). What patients and families don’t hear: Backstage communication in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 23, 92-105. doi:10.1080/02763890802665007

82.

Wright

K. B.

(2009). Increasing computer-mediated social support. In Parker

J. C.

Thorson

(Eds.), Health communication in the new media landscape (pp. 243-266). New York, NY: Springer.

83.

*Yep

G. A.

Reece

S. T.

Negrón

E. L.

(2003). Culture and stigma in a bona fide group: Boundaries and context in a “closed” support group for “Asian Americans” living with HIV infection. In Frey

L. R.

(Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed., pp. 157-180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

84.

*Zhang

(2007). A case study of boundary and identity management in a virtual team. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.