Talk:Group cohesiveness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposed Merge with 'Social cohesion'[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this "discussion" was to merge Andrew (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. I wanted to propose a merge with the Social cohesion page. It seems that there are two pages that cover what is essentially the same topic. More specifically, it seems that the social cohesion page only covers one specific subtopic (I.e. with regard to Policy making), and that this content may be included straight forwardly in this page. Anyway, what do others think? Cheers Andrew (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Planned changes for course Wikipedia editing[edit]

1) Definition of group

1.1 Definition of cohesion (edit existing introduction)

2) Group development: link to actual page

2.1 General summary of group development stages/theory
Stages, factors, group movement into development?
(from Gilley, Morris, Waite, Coates and Veliquette, Forysth, Bennis and Shepard, Busche and Coetzer)
2.2 Segway into group cohesion

3) Definitions of cohesion and performance

3.1 Beal et al. (2003)
3.2 Carron et al. (2000) (GI and ATG)
more generalizable to more groups

4) Group cohesion-performance relationship (under “consequences” section)

4.1 Positive relationship
Beal et al. (2003)
4.2 Moderators/factors that affect this relationship

Workflow (Beal et al., 2003)

Other moderators
4.3 Group cohesion may also be moderator (Shin and Park, though results may not be generalizable)
(Dyaram and Kamalanabhan)

(5) When is it advantageous to have cohesive group? (Beal et al., 2003)

Other Suggestions: move “operationalization of group cohesiveness” to before “different approaches to understand group cohesion”

-change titles (like “operationalization” to “definition”) (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC) (with lgcheng)

Hi I had a couple of thoughts in relation to your suggestions for improvement. I hope you might find these helpful.
  • I suspect that you might find the definitions issue tricky. Both in defining a social group and defining social cohesion. With regard to the former, this is already tackled (adequately I guess) over at the Social groups article, so there is an opportunity to avoid that controversy by simply linking to that article. With regard to the latter, good luck. You may need to provide a couple of definitions reflecting differing perspectives (e.g. group cohesiveness is described by some researchers as an antecedent to group behavior while other researchers describe it as an outcome).
  • I am not clear on the rationale surrounding the introduction of “group development theory” here. It seems like that would be content more suited to the social groups article. Indeed, there is similar content there already. To add it here seems to court redundancy and potentially distract from a general encyclopedic account of cohesion.
  • It sounds like you are mainly thinking of social cohesion from a corporate perspective. This is of course fine, but this is only one area in which social cohesion is relevant. The article should reflect this. I would therefore anticipate a section dedicated to the cooperate perspective rather than have the corporate perspective be dominant through the entire article. Of course, this quite possibly is already your intention. If so, cool.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing the outcome of your edits and let me know if you have any thoughts or questions. Cheers Andrew (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrew,

  • We considered your suggestions and in regards to your first suggestion, we probably are going to link to the social groups article, but still have a concise definition of it in this article. We were able to find definitions based upon a couple of meta-analyses (Burke, Mclendon, Beal, & Cohen, 2003; Carron & Brawley, 2000). The definitions that we had were agreed on by many researchers so that's what we decided to include.
  • After talking to our professor about group development theory, we also decided to not include it here since it is not that relevant to the article.
  • When you say "corporate perspective," did you think of this when you saw that we were going to include a cohesion-group performance section?
  • We updated our plans for this article after meeting with our professor and we're going to add a section on "causes of cohesion" and another on "consequences of cohesion". We don't know what we're going to specifically add in each section yet but will update you once we organize our research on this topic.
  • We're going to gradually make changes to the article with the changes we have so far so that we don't add an overwhelming amount of information all at once. So far, we have a definitions section and some parts of the causes section. We're going to make the changes soon.

Lgcheng (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC) (partnering with

Hi all. I was concerned about the potential dominance of a corporate perspective because ‘performance’ and ‘Beal et al. (2003)’ seemed to permeate three out of the five sections you proposed. This seemed like potential overkill for a general encyclopaedic account of group cohesion. Anyway, it sounds like you are keeping this in mind and it will be interesting to see your alterations (I wonder which approach you will take to ‘causes of cohesion’).
I wonder if there is merit in merging the social cohesion article with this article before you begin making significant changes. I feel like this merge is inevitable and engaging with that content early might help preserve your edits. What do you guys think about the merge proposal? Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not to merge. Haruth (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggest that the Community cohesion article should be incorporated here during the copyedit process. --Haruth (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Hi Haruth. Thanks for the proposal. Having looked again through both articles, I don't think a merge is the way to go. Both articles are already quite justifiably wrong, and there appears to be a logical delineation of topics available. I would see merit in the 'Group cohesiveness' article focusing on the broader theories and understanding of, well, group cohesiveness, while the 'community cohesion' article can focus in the application of that understanding to particular regions (dealing with all the additional concerns that go along with that. E.g. common schisms, public responses, politicization). Does this resonate with you? Cheers Andrew (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Andrew, makes sense. Was just a thought when the Community cohesion article popped up on a random article trawl. Do you feel the two are related at all? Seems to the layman's eye that community would be a subset of group, or vice-versa. Would be good to see both articles develop into useful, well bounded pieces. :) --Haruth (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Haruth. The two certainly are related. We can think of community cohesion as a public policy instantiation of issues of group cohesiveness. Indeed, this relationship isn't that far away from each article's respective emphasis as it stands. With a little luck, and maybe with some periodic guidance, I think we can be optimistic that the articles will continue to develop in that direction. Cheers Andrew (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Andrew, sounds good. Do you want to close the merge proposal, or wait a few days to see if any stragglers come along? --Haruth (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Haruth. That's up to you. I certainly couldn't rule out that someone else will come along and make a compelling case for the merge. Cheers Andrew (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Haha... OK, I'll leave it a few days, then will close off. Best wishes. --Haruth (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.