Supercomplexity in Interaction by Victoria Orange

Author:Victoria Orange
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9783030280185
Publisher: Springer International Publishing

As Ghanbarpour points out (2016), WTC is not static. It can be seen as a dynamic system changing from moment to moment. In accordance with the WTC model proposed by MacIntyre (1994), people with the least WTC are apprehensive (about communication) individuals who perceive themselves to be incompetent as communicators.

Work by Tomoko Yashima et al. (2016) used complex systems theory as an ‘additional lens’ for exploring Willingness To Communicate in the classroom context. They highlighted the fact that From a Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST) perspective, WTC is a phenomenon that can be conceptualized on different timescales, and in this sense trait WTC should be regarded as more enduring on ‘the ontogenetic timescale’, while situated WTC should be seen as on ‘the microgenetic timescale’. They used these terms for types of timescales taken from work by Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008), although the latter researchers did not apply them to WTC. Yashima, MacIntyre and Ikeda used them in relation to making the difference between state WTC, linked to the situation, and trait WTC, linked to the interactant. Their intention being to focus on the context of WTC, or more precisely state WTC as they call it.

There are other disciplines where context has been found to be a factor in determining what happens in interaction. In the medical world, interaction with context has been seen to have an influence on ‘the manner in which personality characteristics are expressed’ (Hummelen and Rokx 2007). Context-aware interaction recognition has been studied in the inanimate realm of computer science (Zhuang et al . 2019) and interaction design ‘creating the means by which users communicate with different forms of computing technology’ is a field of study in computer technology (OpenLearn 2019) this time bringing the animate and inanimate together, that is to say users and technology. While in social psychology, research on how context influences interaction has been carried out, for example Don Zimmerman looked at how ‘The linking of proximate (the turn-by-turn orientation to developing sequences of action at the interactional level) and distal (the oriented-to “extra-situational” agendas and concerns accomplished through such endogenously developing sequences of interaction) contexts of action through the alignment of discourse and situated identities is a fundamental interactional issue’ (Zimmerman 2008). He studied this by researching the discourse used in calls placed to emergency numbers.

Finally, as we have seen, one of the features of complex systems is that they exist within a broader environment and have some kind of boundaries, so how does the interaction supercomplex adaptive system fit into its broader environment? The simplest way to reflect on this question is perhaps to imagine Context as being related to an individual, a place or an episode, which all together navigate in a broader environment. However, as our reflection develops we come to understand that it is not a simple notion to grasp as the social, economic and political factors of the broader environment must also influence interaction to some extent. This is when we need to remember that the boundaries of complex adaptive systems are dynamic and permeable as described in Chapter 2.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.