(^) Alternate Claim in 122. These two episodes could be combined into one “meta-episode”
since the second episode (17) continues the thought in the prior episode (16).
- JH Well, wait. TDialoghe m^ ug doesn't matter, Coding^ Comments^
becausomething inse that's where ou equation 3] r origin is. [erases C Claim119. that answers the challenge in^ - L122. KP NJ No it [orio, it's [origin] ain't. gin] at the angle []. AC Ch Challenges 120. Alternate Claim to 120.
OK... 123. JH Where do we put our origin? Oh, RQCl RQCl = Request for Clarification
123B. L124. KJ YP Iteah [?. ] would be times one. Sp Cl Cryptic Sp = Support - JH126. KJ Y Sure neah ow? Ck Sp Ck = Consensus Checking.
Table 4-7. Group 4B, Episode 17, lines 120-126.
At first, I thought Group 4A, operated with the concurrence-seeking model.
Member MK, who was the recorder and undeclared group leader, typically summarized
or checked for consensus (i.e., “concurrence”) at each major step. She does have high
certainty about her position as she states her claims, as is seen in this example (Table 4-8,
p. 150). However, in the Johnson model, Resource Interdependence is not a
characteristic element of the Concurrence-Seeking model. While it is not totally clear
from Episode 7, Group 4A did indeed share ideas, experiences, and opinions. Actually,
RM, the quiet member of the group, frequently added important ideas. His participation
is better seen in the episode in Table 4-9 (p. 150). While RM does not present any
additional ideas, he does support MK’s claim, an equally important contribution. An
overall reading of Group 4A does suggest they are resource interdependent. Moreover,
the fact this group uses numerous Warrants suggests there is a moderate amount of
epistemic curiosity (i.e., curiosity about the meaning of the information and how it relates
to other ideas). They also exhibit high productivity and high positive cathexis (the