Effective Communication and Interpersonal Interaction in Health and Social Care
Effective Communication and Interpersonal Interaction in Health and Social Care
Of the two theories I considered, the one of greatest relevance to practice was Argyle’s Theory. This theory was most relatable to experience and the logic of it made it understandable in terms of how it was applied in practice. There was nothing irrational about the way this theory worked, it was straightforward and accessible to a reader who wished to take a particular circumstance into consideration and apply the theory to it. In comparison, Tuckman’s theory was relatively vague and did not consider anything to do with how interaction took place outside of a group setting. The Communication Cycle of Argyle’s also made each stage of the process easier to consider and I could also think about how dependent each stage was on the latter or next, in terms of its potential outcome.
One thing I did consider a disadvantage of Argyle’s Theory, was the fact that Argyle did not consider the actual context of where the communication took place. For example the way that furniture was arranged in relation to where people communicated with one another. It was quite mechanistic and structured whereas human communication often is not. Argyle has expressed that eye contact is vital and facial expressions are the key to communication, however he makes little mention of how this can be achieved in relation to the cycle and how environment and context influence the way in which people are able to communicate.
If people are unable to define facial expressions because of shadows and lighting in a room then what they are trying to express is lost. If there is a need to be able to make eye contact and define facial features then the need should be there to be in the right setting in order to be able to distinguish between the non-verbal communication they are making and the potential for misinterpretation in what they are conveying needs to be acknowledged.
One example of how Argyle’s Theory is
Of the two theories I considered, the one of greatest relevance to practice was Argyle’s Theory. This theory was most relatable to experience and the logic of it made it understandable in terms of how it was applied in practice. There was nothing irrational about the way this theory worked, it was straightforward and accessible to a reader who wished to take a particular circumstance into consideration and apply the theory to it. In comparison, Tuckman’s theory was relatively vague and did not consider anything to do with how interaction took place outside of a group setting. The Communication Cycle of Argyle’s also made each stage of the process easier to consider and I could also think about how dependent each stage was on the latter or next, in terms of its potential outcome.
One thing I did consider a disadvantage of Argyle’s Theory, was the fact that Argyle did not consider the actual context of where the communication took place. For example the way that furniture was arranged in relation to where people communicated with one another. It was quite mechanistic and structured whereas human communication often is not. Argyle has expressed that eye contact is vital and facial expressions are the key to communication, however he makes little mention of how this can be achieved in relation to the cycle and how environment and context influence the way in which people are able to communicate.
If people are unable to define facial expressions because of shadows and lighting in a room then what they are trying to express is lost. If there is a need to be able to make eye contact and define facial features then the need should be there to be in the right setting in order to be able to distinguish between the non-verbal communication they are making and the potential for misinterpretation in what they are conveying needs to be acknowledged.
One example of how Argyle’s Theory is
References: Cassidy, K. 2007. Tuckman revisited: Proposing a new model of group development for practitioners. Journal of Experiential Education 29, no. 3: 413–7. Tubbs, S. 1998. A Systems Approach to Small Group Interaction. 6th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Forsyth, D. R. (1990, 1998) Group Dynamics, Pacific Grove CA.: Brooks/Cole Publishing.