MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Conversation Analysis in Cross-Culture Team Communication

2011· article· en· W2104746560 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huili Wang, Hu Yi, Cao Shuo

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationPsychologyMulticulturalismComposition (language)AccommodationGlobalizationTeam compositionCommunication in small groupsConversation analysisSocial psychologyPedagogyLinguisticsPolitical scienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the development and intensification of globalization, people who are studying or working in a multicultural background become popular. Studies have demonstrated that team composition may influence the team to obtain success, and prevent them from reaching its potential performance. In other words, team composition has a direct effect on team’s performance. The paper studies the team composed of Chinese undergraduate students and Belarusians graduate students who are studying at Dalian University of Technology. We adopt discourse analysis method in the research. We let the participants attend meetings which are designed to reveal their communication patterns, and then we recorded the meetings, transcribed and coded. And the communication patterns of each group and how the patterns changed when participants changed from being a majority to a minority in a group were studied. At last, the study provides some guidance and application for those who are involved in relative fields. Our study shows that generally speaking, Belarusians participants contributed and participated more than Chinese participants did. Moreover, there are differences between our Chinese and Belarusian participants in communication styles when they work in mixed groups. Chinese students tend to diverge in their conversational patterns when they changed from being a majority to a minority in a group. However, Belarusian participants incline to converge in their conversational patterns when they changed from being a majority to a minority in a group. Key words: Discourse analysis; Intercultural communication; Group communication; Group decision meeting; Communication accommodation theory Resume Avec le developpement et l'intensification de la mondialisation, les gens qui etudient ou travaillent dans un contexte multiculturel sont devenu populaire. Des etudes ont demontre que la composition des equipes peut influencer l'equipe pour obtenir le succes, et les empecher d'atteindre son potentiel de performance. En d'autres termes, la composition des equipes a un effet direct sur la performance de l'equipe. Le document etudie l'equipe composee de Chinois etudiants de premier cycle et les Bielorusses etudiants qui etudient a l'Universite de Technologie de Dalian. Nous adoptons la methode d'analyse du discours dans la recherche. Nous avons laisse les participants assistent a des reunions qui sont concus pour reveler leurs modes de communication, puis nous avons enregistre les reunions, transcrites et codees. Et les modeles de communication de chaque groupe et la facon dont les schemas a change lorsque les participants d'etre change une majorite a une minorite dans un groupe ont ete etudies. Enfin, l'etude fournit des indications et d'application pour ceux qui sont impliques dans des domaines relatifs. Notre etude montre que de facon generale, les participants ont contribue et participe Bielorusses plus de participants chinois ont fait. Par ailleurs, il existe des differences entre nos participants chinois et bielorusses dans les styles de communication quand ils travaillent dans des groupes mixtes. Les etudiants chinois ont tendance a diverger dans leurs habitudes de conversation quand ils ont change d'etre une majorite a une minorite dans un groupe. Toutefois, les participants bielorusses incline a converger dans leurs habitudes de conversation quand ils ont change d'etre une majorite a une minorite dans un groupe. Mots-cles: Analyse du discours; La communication interculturelle; La communication de groupe; Reunion de decision en groupe; La theorie de la communication d'hebergement

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207