This study aimed to clarify characteristics of cooperative discussion conducted in situations that a small-scale group has to deal with business together. In respect that discussion is cooperation for drawing conclusion, discussion is opposed to debat ...
This study aimed to clarify characteristics of cooperative discussion conducted in situations that a small-scale group has to deal with business together. In respect that discussion is cooperation for drawing conclusion, discussion is opposed to debate. This study also intended to examine what interaction between participants controlled these characteristics. Focusing on cases that participants come to the final mutual consent in discussion, the courses were examined. This study paid attention to the fact that there were many cases that a chairperson did not exist separately in general discussion. To clarify characteristics of cooperative discussion without a chairperson, it was compared with discussion with a chairperson. By doing so, characteristics of methods to interact cooperatively without dependence on a chairperson were found out in detail.
In Chapter Ⅱ, the form and characteristics of group discussion were studied. Discussion aims to confer matters with several persons together in order to draw better decisions, but each other's views or understanding are not uniform. So the existence of unseen competition is unavoidable and it is important to recognize the fact and try to solve this problem actively. This study focused on that original characteristic of discussion was problem-solving interaction.
In Chapter Ⅲ, with development of cooperative discussion as the main discussion, courses which were passed through in order to form united opinions were considered. First, it was identified that views and arguing points had to be shared, participants' opinions had to be known and participants tried to share implied meanings of concepts they pointed out. Second, in respect of accepting cooperative opinions, meanings of criticism and characteristics of criticism in a process of forming united opinions were studied. In addition, discussion was made about aspects of linguistic interaction with a close form which was not seen in competitive conversations easily and main characteristics of expression respecting the united subject. Third, as regards cooperative exchange of speech turn, it was general that participants controlled the amount of utterance and informed the previous teller of the intention that they would begin utterance before they did. In addition, participants recognized the statement of the previous teller and frequently used conversation signs revealing the intention to convert.
In Chapter Ⅳ, focusing on cooperative consent, considered was the course where different opinions were arranged into a direction and arrived at the consent. First, in respect of managing global topic, not only did each teller's utterance only exist as independent opinions or claims from the beginning to the end but it was also attached to meaningful unification which contributed to forming the united opinions of the whole participants. Efforts to perform this function were observed in discussion conducted by the main teller or discussion by participants together. Second, it was observed that discussion did not end with participants focusing on their own position to reach agreement and interest was changed into the motive of conversations that participants shared. Sharing aims can be divided into two types ; one is sharing activity, the aim to make conversation as situations or events which were the reason of conversation, and the other is sharing aims of discussion as activity of conversation. Along with this, it was identified that selection was made together on important items in arranging contents of conversation. Lastly, examination was made on utterance such as concession of a voting right, recognition of pointed out problems, and agreement on decisions in the process of arranging participants' opinions into a direction.