@article{bonito_keyton_2021, title={A valence-based account of group interaction and decision making}, volume={11}, ISSN={["1479-5787"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2021.1998565}, DOI={10.1080/03637751.2021.1998565}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT Group participants often develop a range of problem solutions before discussion. We addressed whether, and at what level of analysis, initial opinions influence discussion and perceptions of decision outcomes. The Group Valence Model (GVM) presents a dual-process approach to interaction and decision making as a function of the distribution of supportive and oppositional comments. GVM predicts that discussion reflects individual-level opinions until a group solution emerges, whereupon discussion is influenced by group-level factors. Data from four previous studies were machine-coded for supportive and oppositional statements. Results indicated that the model holds in some degree at the group level but not at the individual level. Discussion focuses on mechanisms that drive interaction prior to the emergence of a group-level solution.}, journal={COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bonito, Joseph A. and Keyton, Joann}, year={2021}, month={Nov} }
 @article{mcleod_cunningham_diazgranados_dodoiu_kaplan_keyton_larson_lenoble_marsch_thomas a. o'neill_et al._2021, title={Hacking teamwork in health care: Addressing adverse effects of ad hoc team composition in critical care medicine}, volume={46}, ISSN={["1550-5030"]}, DOI={10.1097/HMR.0000000000000265}, abstractNote={Background The continued need for improved teamwork in all areas of health care is widely recognized. The present article reports on the application of a hackathon to the teamwork problems specifically associated with ad hoc team formation in rapid response teams. Purposes Hackathons—problem-solving events pioneered in computer science—are on the rise in health care management. The focus of these events tends to be on medical technologies, however, with calls for improvements in management practices as general recommendations. The hackathon reported here contributes to health care management practice by addressing improvements in teamwork as the focal problem. Methodology The hackathon event took place over 2.5 days in conjunction with an academic conference focused on group research. Three teams comprised of practicing healthcare professionals, academic researchers and students developed solutions to problems of ad hoc team formation in rapid response teams. Findings The event fulfilled several goals. The teams produced three distinct, yet complementary solutions that were backed by both field-based experience and solid research evidence. The event provided the opportunity for two-way translation of research and practice through direct collaboration among key stakeholders. The hackathon produced long term effects through establishing or strengthening collaborations, dissemination of the ideas through presentations, workshops, and publications, and changes in participantsâ work practices. Practice Implication The event demonstrated that hackathons, classically focused on technology, can also offer a spur to innovation around organizational processes. The article provides advice for organizing other hackathons focused on similar topics. The solutions offered by the participants in the event yields the clear insight that multipronged solutions for emergency-oriented teamwork are needed. The hackathon highlighted the scaled of collaboration and effort needed to tackle the many complexities in health care that impact outcomes for providers, patients, and health organizations.}, number={4}, journal={HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT REVIEW}, author={McLeod, Poppy L. and Cunningham, Quinn W. and DiazGranados, Deborah and Dodoiu, Gabi and Kaplan, Seth and Keyton, Joann and Larson, Nicole and LeNoble, Chelsea and Marsch, Stephan U. and Thomas A. O'Neill and et al.}, year={2021}, pages={341–348} }
 @article{bonito_keyton_2019, title={Multilevel Measurement Models for Group Collective Constructs}, volume={23}, ISSN={["1930-7802"]}, DOI={10.1037/gdn0000096}, number={1}, journal={GROUP DYNAMICS-THEORY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE}, author={Bonito, Joseph A. and Keyton, Joann}, year={2019}, month={Mar}, pages={1–21} }
 @article{keyton_clair_compton_dougherty_berthoud_manning_scarduzio_2018, title={Addressing sexual harassment in a sexually charged national culture: a Journal of Applied Communication Research forum}, volume={46}, ISSN={["1479-5752"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2018.1546472}, DOI={10.1080/00909882.2018.1546472}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT Sexual harassment remains a persistent workplace problem. The 2017 #Metoo movement and what-have-come-to-be routine news stories about sexual hostility, sexual assault, and sexual harassment in American organizations have opened wounds and reinvigorated public commentary. Although the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sets forth guidelines for organizations to follow, questions remain about what counts as sexual harassment, and what is an organization’s responsibility in maintaining a harassment-free workplace for its employees. At the invitation of the editor, seven organizational communication scholars responded to a series of questions addressing seven issues related to sexual harassment. These are: sexual harassment policy and training; the responsibilities of bystanders of sexual harassment; organizational culture that provides more support to the harasser than the harassed; the intersection of race with sexual harassment; same-sex harassment and female-to-male harassment; and what can be learned from public movements (e.g. #Metoo). The co-authors’ responses describe sexually harassing situation with which they are familiar.}, number={6}, journal={JOURNAL OF APPLIED COMMUNICATION RESEARCH}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Keyton, Joann and Clair, Robin and Compton, Cristin A. and Dougherty, Debbie S. and Berthoud, Diane Forbes and Manning, Jimmie and Scarduzio, Jennifer A.}, year={2018}, month={Nov}, pages={665–683} }
 @article{murray_hung_keyton_lai_lehmann-willenbrock_oertel_2018, title={Group Interaction Frontiers in Technology}, DOI={10.1145/3242969.3272960}, abstractNote={Analysis of group interaction and team dynamics is an important topic in a wide variety of fields, owing to the amount of time that individuals typically spend in small groups for both professional and personal purposes, and given how crucial group cohesion and productivity are to the success of businesses and other organizations. This fact is attested by the rapid growth of fields such as People Analytics and Human Resource Analytics, which in turn have grown out of many decades of research in social psychology, organizational behaviour, computing, and network science, amongst other fields. The goal of this workshop is to bring together researchers from diverse fields related to group interaction, team dynamics, people analytics, multi-modal speech and language processing, social psychology, and organizational behaviour.}, journal={ICMI'18: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 20TH ACM INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION}, author={Murray, Gabriel and Hung, Hayley and Keyton, Joann and Lai, Catherine and Lehmann-Willenbrock, Nale and Oertel, Catharine}, year={2018}, pages={660–662} }
 @article{keyton_2017, title={Communication in Organizations}, volume={4}, ISSN={["2327-0608"]}, DOI={10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113341}, abstractNote={This article focuses on the study of organizational communication, which is a dominant subarea of communication scholarship as recognized by the National Communication Association (NCA) and the International Communication Association (ICA). Because communication, and organizational communication as a subarea, is multiperspectival, this article first defines communication and then organizational communication. Next, the article describes the philosophical perspectives of organizational communication. The next section points to specific areas of individual-, dyadic-, group-, and organizational-level communication research in which communication and organizational psychology and organizational behavior (OPOB) share similar interests. The article concludes by describing practical implications of this area of scholarship (i.e., what can organizations and individuals do with the findings of organizational communication scholarship) and by identifying promising areas of organizational communication study.}, journal={ANNUAL REVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, VOL 4}, author={Keyton, Joann}, year={2017}, pages={501–526} }
 @article{ervin_bonito_keyton_2017, title={Convergence of intrapersonal and interpersonal processes across group meetings}, volume={84}, ISSN={["1479-5787"]}, DOI={10.1080/03637751.2016.1185136}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT Recent research has addressed the extent to which group communication exhibits intrapersonal and interpersonal characteristics. The most defensible and reasonable view appears to be that group interaction exhibits characteristics that fall somewhere in between, with group interaction revealing evidence of both individual- and group-level processes. Latent group and multilevel approaches were utilized to examine the use of functional communication in product design teams, across a series of tasks. The findings provided additional evidence for this middle road, or convergence approach, in that group members’ roles, as well as the function of discussion contributions, significantly varied across time, and at both levels of analysis.}, number={2}, journal={COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS}, author={Ervin, Jennifer N. and Bonito, Joseph A. and Keyton, Joann}, year={2017}, pages={200–220} }
 @article{lehmann-willenbrock_hung_keyton_2017, title={New Frontiers in Analyzing Dynamic Group Interactions: Bridging Social and Computer Science}, volume={48}, ISSN={["1552-8278"]}, DOI={10.1177/1046496417718941}, abstractNote={This special issue on advancing interdisciplinary collaboration between computer scientists and social scientists documents the joint results of the international Lorentz workshop, “Interdisciplinary Insights into Group and Team Dynamics,” which took place in Leiden, The Netherlands, July 2016. An equal number of scholars from social and computer science participated in the workshop and contributed to the papers included in this special issue. In this introduction, we first identify interaction dynamics as the core of group and team models and review how scholars in social and computer science have typically approached behavioral interactions in groups and teams. Next, we identify key challenges for interdisciplinary collaboration between social and computer scientists, and we provide an overview of the different articles in this special issue aimed at addressing these challenges.}, number={5}, journal={SMALL GROUP RESEARCH}, author={Lehmann-Willenbrock, Nale and Hung, Hayley and Keyton, Joann}, year={2017}, month={Oct}, pages={519–531} }
 @article{keyton_heylen_2017, title={Pushing interdisciplinary in the study of groups and teams}, volume={48}, DOI={10.1177/1046496417732528}, abstractNote={As the concluding article of the special issue from the Lorentz, Netherlands workshop, “New Frontiers in Analyzing Dynamic Group Interactions: Bridging Social and Computer Science,” the authors describe ways in which computer scientists and social scientists can integrate their work to pursue interdisciplinary that can satisfy the research agendas of both sets of scholars.}, number={5}, journal={Small Group Research}, author={Keyton, Joann and Heylen, D. K. J.}, year={2017}, pages={621–630} }
 @article{bonito_keyton_ervin_2017, title={Role-Related Participation in Product Design Teams: Individual- and Group-Level Trends}, volume={44}, ISSN={["1552-3810"]}, DOI={10.1177/0093650215618759}, abstractNote={ Organizations often delegate decision-making tasks to groups and teams. At issue is the extent to which participation during discussion reflects both individual-level characteristics and emergent (i.e., group-level) processes. Drawing upon Hewes’s socio-egocentric model and team meeting literature, we used a multilevel approach to examine participation in product-design teams across a series of tasks. Findings indicate that participation consists of both intra- and group-level processes. Team members who were talkative initially continued to participate frequently during the later tasks, and, as predicted, project managers also spoke more often than team members in any other role. In addition, group-level trends became stronger over time, as evidenced by behavioral convergence. Discussion addresses implications for a “middle ground” approach to modeling communicative behavior in groups. }, number={2}, journal={COMMUNICATION RESEARCH}, author={Bonito, Joseph A. and Keyton, Joann and Ervin, Jennifer N.}, year={2017}, month={Mar}, pages={263–286} }
 @article{jones_medd_ramakrishnan_shah_keyton_samatova_2017, title={Towards Automatic Linkage of Knowledge Worker's Claims with Associated Evidence from Screenshots}, DOI={10.1109/bigdataservice.2017.21}, abstractNote={Knowledge workers are frequently subject to information overload. As a result, when looking to make analytic judgements, they may only have time to search for evidence that already matches their existing viewpoint, leading to confirmation bias. New computer systems are needed that can help users overcome this and other cognitive biases. As an enabling step towards such systems, the research community has developed instrumentation software that captures data to help better understand sensemaking processes and workflows. However, existing instrumentation approaches are limited by the need to write operating system-specific (and often application-specific) code to 'see' what the user is doing inside different applications on their computer. This source code quickly becomes complex and brittle. Furthermore, this approach does not provide a holistic view of how the user is gleaning information from multiple applications at once. We propose an alternative approach to instrumentation based on automated analysis of desktop screenshots, and demonstrate this in the context of extraction of 'claims' from reports that users are writing, and association of these claims with 'evidence' obtained from web browsing. We evaluate our approach on a corpus of 121,000 screenshots obtained from a study of 150 participants carrying out a controlled analysis task. The topic of the task was previously unfamiliar to them (hence the need to search for evidence on the web). We report results from several variants of our approach using a human evaluation of extracted claim/evidence pairs, and find that a simple word matching metric (based on Jaccard similarity) can outperform more complex sentence similarity metrics. We also describe many of the difficulties inherent to screenshot analysis and our approaches to overcome them.}, journal={2017 THIRD IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BIG DATA COMPUTING SERVICE AND APPLICATIONS (IEEE BIGDATASERVICE 2017)}, author={Jones, Paul and Medd, Dakota and Ramakrishnan, Sreekanth and Shah, Rajat and Keyton, Joann and Samatova, Nagiza}, year={2017}, pages={17–22} }
 @article{meliopoulos_marvin_freiden_moser_nighot_ali_blikslager_reddivari_heath_koci_et al._2016, title={Oral Administration of Astrovirus Capsid Protein Is Sufficient To Induce Acute Diarrhea
                    In Vivo}, volume={7}, ISSN={2150-7511}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01494-16}, DOI={10.1128/mbio.01494-16}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT}, number={6}, journal={mBio}, publisher={American Society for Microbiology}, author={Meliopoulos, Victoria A. and Marvin, Shauna A. and Freiden, Pamela and Moser, Lindsey A. and Nighot, Prashant and Ali, Rizwana and Blikslager, Anthony and Reddivari, Muralidhar and Heath, Richard J. and Koci, Matthew D. and et al.}, year={2016}, month={Nov} }
 @book{keyton_2014, title={Communication research: Asking questions, finding answers}, publisher={New York: McGraw-Hill Education}, author={Keyton, J.}, year={2014} }
 @article{beck_keyton_2014, title={Facilitating Social Support Member-Leader Communication in a Breast Cancer Support Group}, volume={37}, ISSN={["1538-9804"]}, DOI={10.1097/ncc.0b013e3182813829}, abstractNote={Background: Early detection and treatment have resulted in more women surviving breast cancer; increased survivorship has also increased the need for breast cancer support groups (BCSG). The ostensible goal of such groups is to provide support for the physical and emotional stressors that cancer survivors face, as well as provide information on coping and treatment options. Objective: Although scholars have examined the effects of support groups on their group members, the examination of group facilitator messages has been largely neglected. The goal of this study was to extend theory on group leader behavior, specifically investigating how member-leader messages create social support in support groups. Methods: The transcribed conversations of weekly meetings of a BCSG were examined using Interaction Process Analysis to discover how the member-leader facilitated the group’s enactment and management of social support. Results: Across the meetings, task talk dominated (primarily statements of orientation or information). Furthermore, analysis of interaction sequences between the support group facilitator and other members revealed 2 broad categories of task-oriented facilitation techniques (changing the focus, clarification) and 1 category of socioemotional facilitation techniques (showing support). Conclusions: Support group facilitators need the ability to facilitate both task and relational aspects of social support. Implications for Practice: Facilitator behaviors were highlighted as being instrumental to the creation of social support. The results from this study indicate that the ability to change the focus of interaction, to provide and require clarification on complex issues, and to show support through relational messages is needed in facilitator training.}, number={1}, journal={CANCER NURSING}, author={Beck, Stephenson J. and Keyton, Joann}, year={2014}, pages={E36–E43} }
 @article{keyton_2013, title={Accepting Rotation in the Method Prism}, volume={44}, ISSN={["1552-8278"]}, DOI={10.1177/1046496412471734}, abstractNote={ Methodological differences among group and team scholars are heightened when scholars submit manuscripts to interdisciplinary conferences and publications. Although multiple philosophical and theoretical frames for the study of group phenomena are often accepted, it seems that scholars are less accepting of methodological differences. This is problematic in that the study of groups and teams is prismatic—wonderfully rich and complex. This article describes some of these types of problems and describes how scholars can bridge methodological differences. }, number={2}, journal={SMALL GROUP RESEARCH}, author={Keyton, Joann}, year={2013}, month={Apr}, pages={212–216} }
 @article{keyton_2012, title={Commentary: How Can Technology Help Us Understand the Communication Process?}, volume={54}, ISSN={["0018-7208"]}, DOI={10.1177/0018720812448099}, abstractNote={ In this commentary, the author reflects on the articles chosen for the special section on communications analysis. These articles problematize communication and raise an interesting set of questions for both human factors and communication scholars to ponder. In the end, both sets of scholars seek the same goal: How do we better examine communication to improve it? Problematizing communication requires scholars to challenge their fundamental assumptions about the phenomenon as well as to tease out the distinctions of methodological approaches typically used by both human factors and communication scholars. Human factors scholars tend to favor forms of communication in which technology or task roles control who can communicate and how. Communication scholars tend to favor contexts in which information flows more freely with fewer explicit restrictions. Creating opportunities to collaborate in research on the communication process may create the best understanding of technology that can better serve our understanding of communication. }, number={4}, journal={HUMAN FACTORS}, author={Keyton, Joann}, year={2012}, month={Aug}, pages={572–576} }
 @article{cooke_duchon_gorman_keyton_miller_2012, title={Preface to the Special Section on Methods for the Analysis of Communication}, volume={54}, ISSN={["1547-8181"]}, DOI={10.1177/0018720812448673}, abstractNote={Communication is a ubiquitous behavior of dyads, groups, teams, and organizations. It is one of the primary vehicles for group interaction, and thus, communication data provide a rich record of interaction processes. When the group or team is engaged in a cognitive task (versus a physical one), its communication reveals cognitive processing at the group or team level (Cooke, Gorman, & Rowe, 2009; Cooke, Gorman, & Winner, 2007). In fact, communication can be likened to a group-level think-aloud. However, in this case, the verbal protocol does not have to be elicited; it occurs naturally, “in the wild.” In this special section of Human Factors, the term communication analysis is used broadly to include a number of specific types of analyses that are based on different characteristics of communication (e.g., some are analyses of words; some of voice; and some are analyses of interactions among people). Broadly defined, communication analysis enables us to study cognitive processes that operate at the system level, including sociotechnical systems (e.g., Cooke, Gorman, & Kiekel, 2008). Whereas discrete laboratory trials (e.g., stimulus-process-response methods) may be appropriate for understanding isolated cognitive phenomena, cognitive processes that depend on more complex and distributed human– human, human–machine, and temporal relations (e.g., teams and other divided labor systems) are not directly observable with traditional laboratory measures, such as error rate and response time. Communication analysis fills this gap by allowing us to directly observe cognition as the human–human and human–machine interactions unfold temporally. Data derived from communication studies provide an excellent resource for understanding the propagation of peoples’ reasoning and decision making in complex task environments. Communication analysis, for example, can help uncover “resident pathogens” (Reason, 1990) that may lead to human error in complex environments. Accordingly, communication analysis can produce results that have implications for assessment, training, and the design of complex sociotechnical systems. Although there are social and ethical concerns that need to be addressed in using such analyses in the workplace (McCormack, Duchon, Geyer, & Orvis, 2009), the potential to improve team and organizational performance through the use of such analyses is great. However, to understand how to improve performance, we must first understand what aspects of performance are captured by communication data.}, number={4}, journal={HUMAN FACTORS}, author={Cooke, Nancy J. and Duchon, Andrew and Gorman, Jamie C. and Keyton, Joann and Miller, Anne}, year={2012}, month={Aug}, pages={485–488} }
 @article{bonito_ruppel_keyton_2012, title={Reliability Estimates for Multilevel Designs in Group Research}, volume={43}, ISSN={["1552-8278"]}, DOI={10.1177/1046496412437614}, abstractNote={ Items that capture group members’ outcomes from small group processes (e.g., satisfaction, cohesion) are often nonindependent. A primary assumption of most measurement models is that the data are independent; applying such models to group-outcome data measured at the individual level of analysis is thus likely to produce inaccurate estimates. A solution to the measurement of nonindependent data involves the use of multilevel modeling to estimate variances at item, individual, and group levels of analysis. Examples from several different statistics programs are provided, and Monte Carlo simulations are used to evaluate the effects of group size and number of items on reliability estimates. }, number={4}, journal={SMALL GROUP RESEARCH}, author={Bonito, Joseph A. and Ruppel, Erin K. and Keyton, Joann}, year={2012}, month={Aug}, pages={443–467} }
 @article{keyton_2012, title={Talking Heads: The Neuroscience of Language}, volume={31}, ISSN={["0261-927X"]}, DOI={10.1177/0261927x12446604}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY}, author={Keyton, Joann}, year={2012}, month={Sep}, pages={350–351} }
 @misc{wagner_roessner_bobb_klein_boyack_keyton_rafols_boerner_2011, title={Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature}, volume={5}, ISSN={["1875-5879"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004}, abstractNote={Interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR) extends and challenges the study of science on a number of fronts, including creating output science and engineering (S&E) indicators. This literature review began with a narrow search for quantitative measures of the output of IDR that could contribute to indicators, but the authors expanded the scope of the review as it became clear that differing definitions, assessment tools, evaluation processes, and measures all shed light on different aspects of IDR. Key among these broader aspects is (a) the importance of incorporating the concept of knowledge integration, and (b) recognizing that integration can occur within a single mind as well as among a team. Existing output measures alone cannot adequately capture this process. Among the quantitative measures considered, bibliometrics (co-authorships, co-inventors, collaborations, references, citations and co-citations) are the most developed, but leave considerable gaps in understanding of the social dynamics that lead to knowledge integration. Emerging measures in network dynamics (particularly betweenness centrality and diversity), and entropy are promising as indicators, but their use requires sophisticated interpretations. Combinations of quantitative measures and qualitative assessments being applied within evaluation studies appear to reveal IDR processes but carry burdens of expense, intrusion, and lack of reproducibility year-upon-year. This review is a first step toward providing a more holistic view of measuring IDR, although research and development is needed before metrics can adequately reflect the actual phenomenon of IDR.}, number={1}, journal={JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS}, author={Wagner, Caroline S. and Roessner, J. David and Bobb, Kamau and Klein, Julie Thompson and Boyack, Kevin W. and Keyton, Joann and Rafols, Ismael and Boerner, Katy}, year={2011}, month={Jan}, pages={14–26} }
 @book{keyton_2011, title={Communication & organizational culture a key to understanding work experiences}, publisher={Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE}, author={Keyton, Joann}, year={2011} }
 @book{keyton_2011, title={Communication research asking questions, finding answers}, publisher={New York: McGraw-Hill}, author={Keyton, Joann}, year={2011} }
 @article{falk-krzesinski_contractor_fiore_hall_kane_keyton_klein_spring_stokols_trochim_2011, title={Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science}, volume={20}, ISSN={["1471-5449"]}, DOI={10.3152/095820211x12941371876580}, abstractNote={An increase in cross-disciplinary, collaborative team science initiatives over the last few decades has spurred interest by multiple stakeholder groups in empirical research on scientific teams, giving rise to an emergent field referred to as the science of team science (SciTS). This study employed a collaborative team science concept-mapping evaluation methodology to develop a comprehensive research agenda for the SciTS field. Its integrative mixed-methods approach combined group process with statistical analysis to derive a conceptual framework that identifies research areas of team science and their relative importance to the emerging SciTS field. The findings from this concept-mapping project constitute a lever for moving SciTS forward at theoretical, empirical, and translational levels.}, number={2}, journal={RESEARCH EVALUATION}, author={Falk-Krzesinski, Holly J. and Contractor, Noshir and Fiore, Stephen M. and Hall, Kara L. and Kane, Cathleen and Keyton, Joann and Klein, Julie Thompson and Spring, Bonnie and Stokols, Daniel and Trochim, William}, year={2011}, month={Jun}, pages={145–158} }
 @article{boerner_contractor_falk-krzesinski_fiore_hall_keyton_spring_stokols_trochim_uzzi_2010, title={A Multi-Level Systems Perspective for the Science of Team Science}, volume={2}, ISSN={["1946-6242"]}, DOI={10.1126/scitranslmed.3001399}, abstractNote={Understanding how teams function is vital because they are increasingly dominating the production of high-impact science.}, number={49}, journal={SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE}, author={Boerner, Katy and Contractor, Noshir and Falk-Krzesinski, Holly J. and Fiore, Stephen M. and Hall, Kara L. and Keyton, Joann and Spring, Bonnie and Stokols, Daniel and Trochim, William and Uzzi, Brian}, year={2010}, month={Sep} }
 @article{falk-krzesinski_boerner_contractor_fiore_hall_keyton_spring_stokols_trochim_uzzi_2010, title={Advancing the Science of Team Science}, volume={3}, ISSN={["1752-8062"]}, DOI={10.1111/j.1752-8062.2010.00223.x}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={5}, journal={CTS-CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE}, author={Falk-Krzesinski, Holly J. and Boerner, Katy and Contractor, Noshir and Fiore, Stephen M. and Hall, Kara L. and Keyton, Joann and Spring, Bonnie and Stokols, Daniel and Trochim, William and Uzzi, Brian}, year={2010}, month={Oct}, pages={263–266} }
 @book{keyton_shockley-zalabak_2010, title={Case studies for organizational communication : understanding human processes (3rd. Ed.)}, ISBN={9780195386721}, publisher={New York: Oxford University Press}, author={Keyton, J. and Shockley-Zalabak, P.}, editor={Keyton, J. and Shockley-Zalabak, P.Editors}, year={2010} }
 @article{keyton_beck_messersmith_bisel_2010, title={Ensuring Communication Research Makes a Difference}, volume={38}, ISSN={["0090-9882"]}, DOI={10.1080/00909882.2010.490844}, abstractNote={Rephrasing the forum question to “How can we ensure communication research has a positive effect on communication practice?” focuses on the present, points to a specific purpose for communication research, emphasizes the scope and type of difference to be made, and places accountability and responsibility on researchers. In general, the public has not found the expertise of communication scholars. The essay addresses ways to overcome this research to practice dilemma: establishing a common framework, complementing the top-down research approach with a practice-driven, bottom-up approach, and adjusting research and practice assumptions.}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF APPLIED COMMUNICATION RESEARCH}, author={Keyton, Joann and Beck, Stephenson J. and Messersmith, Amber S. and Bisel, Ryan S.}, year={2010}, pages={306–309} }
 @article{keyton_beck_2010, title={Examining Laughter Functionality in Jury Deliberations}, volume={41}, ISSN={["1552-8278"]}, DOI={10.1177/1046496410366311}, abstractNote={Despite a presumption that laughter and a death penalty decision seem incompatible, transcript data of jury deliberations from both the guilt-or-innocence and penalty phases of the State of Ohio v. Mark Ducic trial demonstrate that jurors do laugh. Working from the disparate literature on laughter, we problematized laughter from a group communication perspective and analyzed its functionality in jury interaction. The authors identified and analyzed 51 laughter sequences across 414 transcript pages. Three categories of laughter functions (i.e., relational, processual, and informational) were identified; these categories were further detailed by 6, 10, and 10 subfunctions, respectively. Based on these findings, the authors revised their definition of laughter to incorporate its multifunctionality as vocalic and public emotional displays that (a) can be read as positive, negative, or ambiguous and (b) question, control, and regulate relationships, procedures, and information in the group. That laughter can be read in so many ways suggests that one role of laughter may be to create ambiguity to allow the group a chance to figure out what to do next.}, number={4}, journal={SMALL GROUP RESEARCH}, author={Keyton, Joann and Beck, Stephenson J.}, year={2010}, month={Aug}, pages={386–407} }
 @article{keyton_beck_asbury_2010, title={Macrocognition: a communication perspective}, volume={11}, ISSN={1463-922X 1464-536X}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14639221003729136}, DOI={10.1080/14639221003729136}, abstractNote={Although many disciplines have investigated the relatively new concept of macrocognition, the benefits of a communication perspective have yet to be explored. Oftentimes, in social psychological or organisational studies, communication is oversimplified and treated statically or mechanistically, and often represented by a simple sender → receiver or information sharing model. From a communication perspective, interaction is problematised and shared meaning is complicated, as represented by a sender ↔ receiver model in which individuals fulfil both roles simultaneously and meaning is developed in the interaction. Thus, a communication model necessitates a different way of understanding macrocognition, in addition to a different way of methodologically capturing it. Analysis from a communication perspective places the creation and existence of macrocognition in process, a view of macrocognition that is needed when conducting interdisciplinary research.}, number={4}, journal={Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Keyton, Joann and Beck, Stephenson J. and Asbury, Mary Beth}, year={2010}, month={Jul}, pages={272–286} }
 @article{keyton_beck_2010, title={Perspective: Examining Communication as Macrocognition in STS}, volume={52}, ISSN={["0018-7208"]}, DOI={10.1177/0018720810371338}, abstractNote={ Objective: There are significant points of alignment between a macrocognitive frame of teamwork and a communication perspective. This commentary explores these touch points in regard to use of teams in sociotechnical systems (STS). Background: The macrocognitive framework emphasizes a team’s shared mental models whereas a communication frame emphasizes that shared meaning among team members is more frequently implicitly than explicitly recorded in their messages. Both acknowledge that communication (in macrocognition) or messages (in communication) serve as an index of team members’ goal-directed behavior. The two approaches differ in the role of communication: as information exchange in macrocognition as compared with verbal and nonverbal symbols composing messages for which senders and receivers co-construct meaning. Method: This commentary uses relevant literature to explicate the communication position. Results: From a communication perspective, individuals are simultaneously sending and receiving messages, communication is continual and processual, and meaning construction is dependent on relationship awareness and development among communication partners as well as the context. Conclusion: The authors posit that meaning cannot be constructed solely from messages, nor can meaning be constructed by one person. Furthermore, sharing information is not the same as communicating. Application: Architects and users of STS should be interested in designing systems that improve team communication—a goal that is interdependent with understanding how communication fails in the use of such systems. Drilling down to the fundamental properties of communication is essential to understanding how and why meaning is created among team members (and subsequent action). }, number={2}, journal={HUMAN FACTORS}, author={Keyton, Joann and Beck, Stephenson J.}, year={2010}, month={Apr}, pages={335–339} }
 @article{kunkel_dennis_keyton_2010, title={Pink Ribbons, Blue Moons, and Silver Linings: Communicating, Coping, and Caring}, volume={25}, ISSN={["1041-0236"]}, DOI={10.1080/10410236.2010.496825}, abstractNote={Dennis, Kunkel, and Keyton (2008a, 2008b) determined what within the interaction of Bosom Buddies, a women’s breast cancer support group (BCSG), could be considered most supportive and helpful to its members. Interviews with some of the Buddies provided only articulations of support as “always being there” for one another. Like most of the academic literature that speaks to the efficacy of cancer support groups, these incredible women were not recognizing the role, variety, or impact of actual communication in their meetings and in the caring and concern they so effectively conveyed. Our application of problematic integration theory (e.g., Babrow, 1992), appraisal theory (e.g., Lazarus, 1991), and group interaction process analysis (Bales, 1950) to the 256 pages of transcribed dialogue from eight Bosom Buddies meetings revealed that advice, positive perspectives, sense making, emotional expression, and references to the value and likelihood of events were constructs that appeared frequently, and to great benefit, in those meetings. Our research team has presented our findings at a special meeting of Bosom Buddies and as workshops for}, number={6-7}, journal={HEALTH COMMUNICATION}, author={Kunkel, Adrianne and Dennis, Michael Robert and Keyton, Joann}, year={2010}, pages={583–584} }
 @article{keyton_2010, title={Research confidential: Solutions to problems most social scientists pretend they never have}, volume={60}, ISSN={["0021-9916"]}, DOI={10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01515.x}, abstractNote={Journal Article Book Reviews Get access Research confidential: Solutions to problems most social scientists pretend they never have Eszter Hargittai (Ed.) University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2009$27.95 (soft), pp. 300 Joann Keyton Joann Keyton 1North Carolina State University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of Communication, Volume 60, Issue 4, December 2010, Pages E8–E12, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01515.x Published: 04 November 2010}, number={4}, journal={JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION}, author={Keyton, Joann}, year={2010}, month={Dec}, pages={E8–E12} }
 @article{keyton_2010, title={Routledge handbook of applied communication research}, volume={38}, ISSN={["0090-9882"]}, DOI={10.1080/00909882.2010.490850}, abstractNote={Given the funding resources, and journal and association resources devoted to applied communication research, it seems reasonable and timely that a handbook would be published to join those handbooks that stand as depositories and representations of communication genres (e.g., persuasion) and contexts (e.g., organizational). The difference is, of course, that applied communication research is not so restricted. Without such clear boundaries, a different type of handbook results. Editors Larry Frey and Ken Cissna, both who are well-identified with applied communication research, have created a handbook that covers the foundations, methods of, issues in, and contexts of applied communication research in addition to chapters devoted to exemplary programs of applied communication research. The editors describe the goals of the handbook as to conceptualize and delineate what is applied communication research, demonstrate the breadth and depth of applied communication research, synthesize the literature, and set agendas for future research (see p. xxxvi). The editors’ introduction and the first three chapters (Section I; Cissna, Eadie, & Hickson; Frey & SunWolf; Barge & Craig) are the best and most informative chapters in the handbook. They provide an excellent view of applied communication research*both in its historical and current form. The introduction and these chapters should be required reading in applied communication graduate seminars and could be used as a foundation for lectures on what is applied communication research and its importance. The reference lists for these elements are in themselves a valuable asset. The methods chapters in Section II have more moderate value. Query and colleagues (Chapter 4) attempt to create a coherent order out of the variety of methods used in applied communication research. Interestingly, these authors limit their content analysis of quantitative research methods used in applied communication research to five journals, and without explicating how they identified what counted as applied communication research. As a result, the findings are not insightful. Their descriptions of and conclusions about sampling procedures, reliability and validity issues, and effect sizes are ill defined, resulting in a somewhat questionable contribution. The authors of this chapter do not illuminate why certain methods are more prevalent or appropriate for applied communication research, which would have been an interesting insight. Condit and Bates’ chapter (5) on rhetorical methods for applied communication research was an interesting choice.}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF APPLIED COMMUNICATION RESEARCH}, author={Keyton, Joann}, year={2010}, pages={316–321} }
 @article{keyton_2010, title={Special Issue: Research Presented at the 2009 Conference of the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research}, volume={41}, ISSN={["1046-4964"]}, DOI={10.1177/1046496410365143}, abstractNote={The articles presented in this special issue are representative of the variety of types of research and the variety of disciplines contributing to group research presented at the 2009 Conference of the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research—or INGRoup (www.ingroup.info). The conference was held in Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA, July 2009. Since the beginning of INGRoup in 2006, Small Group Research (SGR) has partnered with INGRoup to provide journal space for manuscripts that were presented at the INGRoup conferences. Thus, this is the fourth year this special issue has appeared (Issue 3 for each of the following years: 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010). The editors and editorial board members of SGR who attended the INGRoup conference identified an initial list of conference presentations they believed would reflect the diversity of research at the conference. Those authors were invited to be part of this special issue. Essays were reviewed by the SGR editorial team, and authors revised their essays based on their feedback. Our goal was to reflect the different disciplinary traditions brought to the study of group research; represent scholarship with interesting theoretical,}, number={3}, journal={SMALL GROUP RESEARCH}, author={Keyton, Joann}, year={2010}, month={Jun}, pages={279–280} }
 @article{brower_keyton_moreland_2010, title={The Way We Were}, volume={41}, ISSN={["1552-8278"]}, DOI={10.1177/1046496409352290}, abstractNote={The editors of SGR—Dick Moreland, Vanessa Druskat, Joann Keyton, and I—were e-mailing recently about some of our favorite small group articles, and it got us thinking about reprinting a few classics from the early days of this journal, before Small Group Behavior and the International Journal of Small Group Research merged. After much discussion, we picked two review articles from Small Group Behavior that we are reprinting in this issue: Paul Hare’s 1973 “Theories of Group Development and Categories for Interactional Analysis” and Ralph Warhman’s 1972 “Status, Deviance, and Sanctions: A Critical Review.” This essay will provide a bit more description of these articles, but suffice it to say that each provided a needed springboard for future research into small group behaviors.}, number={1}, journal={SMALL GROUP RESEARCH}, author={Brower, Aaron M. and Keyton, Joann and Moreland, Richard L.}, year={2010}, month={Feb}, pages={85–90} }
 @article{beck_keyton_2009, title={Perceiving Strategic Meeting Interaction}, volume={40}, ISSN={["1552-8278"]}, DOI={10.1177/1046496408330084}, abstractNote={ This study investigates how individuals perceive the message strategies of other team members and then explores how these perceptions are influenced by message function. Using a mixed-methods data collection, team interaction was coded using Bales's Interaction Process Analysis (IPA). Following the meetings, retrospective interviews were conducted to capture perceptions of team member contributions to weekly team meetings. To assess perceptual similarities and differences, team member perceptions were then compared to the IPA codes of meeting interactions. Findings advance knowledge of communication in team meetings, specifically, how and why team members interpret the same interaction in different ways. Study results have implications for improving member communication in task-focused team meetings. }, number={2}, journal={SMALL GROUP RESEARCH}, author={Beck, Stephenson J. and Keyton, Joann}, year={2009}, month={Apr}, pages={223–246} }
 @article{keyton_bisel_ozley_2009, title={Recasting the Link Between Applied and Theory Research: Using Applied Findings to Advance Communication Theory Development}, volume={19}, ISSN={["1468-2885"]}, DOI={10.1111/j.1468-2885.2009.01339.x}, abstractNote={Applied research, especially in the communication discipline, has been met with resistance and criticism by some who advocate adherence to theoretically-based research. This dilemma is exacerbated by ongoing debates among applied scholars about how to define applied research and how to conceptualize its relationship to theory development. Definitions emerging from these discussions yield two explanations-dialectical tension and interdependent-for how applied and theory research are connected. We join the conversation by proposing an integral perspective whereby applied scholarship can become more clearly situated and helpful to the creation, extension, and challenge of theoretical explanations for communication.}, number={2}, journal={COMMUNICATION THEORY}, author={Keyton, Joann and Bisel, Ryan S. and Ozley, Raymond}, year={2009}, month={May}, pages={146–160} }
 @article{messersmith_keyton_bisel_2009, title={Teaching Organizational Culture}, volume={23}, ISSN={1740-4622 1740-4630}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17404620902779231}, DOI={10.1080/17404620902779231}, abstractNote={Objective: To identify and differentiate among three communication perspectives in organizational culture research Courses: Organizational Communication, Communication in the Workplace, Organizational Culture and Change}, number={2}, journal={Communication Teacher}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Messersmith, Amber S. and Keyton, Joann and Bisel, Ryan S.}, year={2009}, month={Apr}, pages={81–86} }
 @article{keyton_beck_2009, title={The Influential Role of Relational Messages in Group Interaction}, volume={13}, ISSN={["1930-7802"]}, DOI={10.1037/a0013495}, number={1}, journal={GROUP DYNAMICS-THEORY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE}, author={Keyton, Joann and Beck, Stephenson J.}, year={2009}, month={Mar}, pages={14–30} }
 @misc{keyton_2009, title={The cognitive neuroscience of human communication}, volume={28}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Language and Social Psychology}, author={Keyton, J.}, year={2009}, pages={108–110} }
 @article{keyton_ford_smith_2008, title={A mesolevel communicative model of collaboration}, volume={18}, ISSN={["1468-2885"]}, DOI={10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00327.x}, abstractNote={Generally theorized and empirically examined as an organization phenomenon, collaboration may be more productively explored from a mesolevel model that simultaneously addresses group, organizational, and public frames. Examining how individuals communicate in those frames revealed four discursive productions of collaboration, which were previously undertheorized. Thus, we propose a communicative model that details the simultaneously occurring communication at multiple levels that gives rise to the emergence and effectiveness of collaborating talk. In this model, communication is no longer described as one of the component(s) of collaboration; communication is elevated to the essence of collaboration. Working from observations and records of a 9-month interorganizational collaboration, this article develops a mesolevel communicative model of collaboration and demonstrates that the bulk of collaborative communication occurs at the team level—indeed, the level where relationships among individuals and organizations is revealed and acted upon. 
 
Resume 
 
Un modele communicationnel de la collaboration a moyenne echelle 
 
 
 
Bien qu’elle soit generalement theorisee et examinee empiriquement en tant que phenomene organisationnel, la collaboration pourrait etre exploree de facon plus productive a partir d‘un modele a moyenne echelle qui s’interesse simultanement aux cadres de groupe, aux cadres organisationnels ainsi qu‘aux cadres publics. Un examen de la facon dont les individus communiquent dans ces cadres a revele quatre productions discursives de collaboration dont la theorisation etait jusqu’a aujourd‘hui tres faible. Ainsi, nous proposons un modele communicationnel exposant en detail la communication a plusieurs niveaux qui se produit simultanement et qui met en evidence l’emergence et l‘efficacite des discussions de collaboration. Dans ce modele, la communication n’est plus decrite comme l‘une des composantes de la collaboration : elle est elevee au statut d’essence de la collaboration. A partir d‘observations et d’enregistrements d‘une collaboration interorganisationnelle de neuf mois, cet article developpe un modele communicationnel de la collaboration a moyenne echelle et demontre que la majeure partie de la communication de collaboration se produit a l’echelle du groupe, niveau ou les relations entre les individus et les organisations se revelent et sont mises a execution. 
 
Abstract 
 
Ein Meso-Ebenen-Kommunikationsmodell der Zusammenarbeit 
 
 
 
Theoretisch und empirisch im Allgemeinen als ein Organisationsphanomen betrachtet, kann Zusammenarbeit auch ertragbringend von einer Meso-Ebene untersucht werden, die gleichzeitig Gruppen, Organisation und offentliche Rahmen anspricht. Die Untersuchung, wie Personen in diesen Rahmen kommunizieren zeigte 4 diskursive Entstehungsarten von Zusammenarbeit, welche vorher nicht ausreichend theoretisch betrachtet wurden. Daher schlagen wir ein Kommunikationsmodell vor, welches die gleichzeitig auftretende Kommunikation auf verschiedenen Ebenen als Ursache fur das Vorkommen und die Effektivitat von gemeinschaftlicher Unterhaltung genau beschreibt. In diesem Modell wird Kommunikation gerade nicht als eine Komponente von Zusammenarbeit betrachtet; vielmehr wird Kommunikation zur Essenz von Zusammenarbeit erhoben. Auf Basis von Beobachtungen und Protokollen einer 9-Monate dauernden Zusammenarbeit erarbeitet dieser Artikel ein Meso-Ebenen-Kommunikationsmodell der Zusammenarbeit und zeigt, dass sich der Hauptteil kollaborativer Kommunikation auf der Team-Ebene ereignet – und damit auf der Ebene, wo sich Beziehungen zwischen Individuen und Organisationen zeigen und handlungsleitend sind. 
 
Resumen 
 
Un Modelo de Colaboracion Comunicativa de Nivel Intermedio 
 
 
 
Generalmente teorizada y empiricamente examinada como un fenomeno organizacional, la colaboracion puede ser explorada mas productivamente desde un modelo de nivel intermedio que trate simultaneamente los marcos grupales, organizacionales y publicos. Examinando como los individuos comunican estos marcos revelo 4 producciones de discurso de colaboracion, que no fueron previamente teorizados. Asi, proponemos un modelo comunicativo que detalla la comunicacion simultanea en multiples niveles que da surgimiento y efectividad a la conversacion colaboradora. En este modelo la comunicacion ya no es descripta como uno de los componente(s) de la colaboracion; la comunicacion es elevada a la esencia de la colaboracion. Trabajando con 9 meses de observaciones y registros de una colaboracion inter-organizacional, este ensayo desarrolla un modelo comunicativo de la colaboracion de nivel intermedio y demuestra que el volumen de la comunicacion colaborativa ocurre a nivel grupal—efectivamente, el nivel donde las relaciones entre los individuos y las organizaciones son reveladas y puestas en efecto. 
 
ZhaiYao 
 
 
 
Yo yak}, number={3}, journal={COMMUNICATION THEORY}, author={Keyton, Joann and Ford, Debra J. and Smith, Faye I.}, year={2008}, month={Aug}, pages={376–406} }
 @article{dennis_kunkel_keyton_2008, title={Problematic integration theory, appraisal theory, and the Bosom Buddies breast cancer support group}, volume={36}, ISSN={["1479-5752"]}, DOI={10.1080/00909880802094315}, abstractNote={Problematic integration (Babrow, 1992) and appraisal (Lazarus, 1991) theories are utilized to analyze the beneficial coping and social support produced within the discourse of Bosom Buddies, a breast cancer support group. Transcripts of eight weekly group meetings were coded for assessments of the probabilities and evaluations of outcomes, information seeking, and information avoidance, as well as for positive reappraisal, problem-focused coping, sense making (Harber & Pennebaker, 1992), and emotional disclosure (Pennebaker, 1997). Results indicated that all constructs other than information avoidance, especially those drawn from problematic integration theory, were employed regularly. Most constructs were prevalent in these real-time interactive conversations. Practical applications of the constructs are recommended for breast cancer support group members and facilitators.}, number={4}, journal={JOURNAL OF APPLIED COMMUNICATION RESEARCH}, author={Dennis, Michael Robert and Kunkel, Adrianne and Keyton, Joann}, year={2008}, pages={415–436} }
 @article{keyton_warren_alexander_behrend_2007, title={GROUP BEHAVIOR IN TELEVISION SITCOMS}, volume={1}, ISSN={1748-2798 1748-2801}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17482790701531995}, DOI={10.1080/17482790701531995}, abstractNote={Children’s abilities to work cooperatively in groups are an important but overlooked area of communication research despite evidence that individuals are expected to work cooperatively with others as children, and later as adults. For example, cooperative learning as a pedagogical strategy has received increasing emphasis in recent years requiring that children should be able to communicate and work together in educational settings. Second, a productive society depends on the ability to work with and through groups. But there is evidence that we are failing to provide a safe social network in which children can learn cooperative behaviors (Goleman, 1995). Third, US employers consistently report valuing employees who can work well in groups (National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2003). Without mastering these skills, adolescents are more likely to be disconnected from their social networks, have more difficulty in school, and find the transition to adulthood responsibilities more difficult (Parker, Rubin, Price, & DeRosier, 1995). Social cooperation skills (face-to-face reciprocal interaction resulting in positive outcomes for a group) are more often informally modeled rather than formally taught. A common assumption is that children learn cooperative skills at school, yet these skills are rarely emphasized in standard educational curricula, and teachers often report problems implementing cooperative learning techniques (Terwel, Gillies, van den Eeden, & Hoek, 2001). Extracurricular activities are also a potential source of cooperative models. However, these groups are often adult-led, with the adult leader making decisions for the group and resolving conflict among group members. Families are another source of cooperative models, but families are also adult-led, limiting children’s experience in initiating cooperative behavior to reach family goals. Children’s use of television also serves as a source of informal modeling for social cooperation skills. Because the medium is primarily a source of entertainment, children are not likely to realize that they are learning from its programs, too. Nearly all types of television programming revolve around a group of characters displaying and interacting in relationships to accomplish some type of goal or support the tasks of one character (e.g. Charlie and Alan of Two and a Half Men work toward the goal of creating a family unit for Jake). Thus, television programming dramatizes both relational and task talk in groups. This study examines media depictions of social cooperation, a set of skills that has received heightened attention as both a means of formal learning (called ‘‘cooperative learning;’’ see Slavin, 1996) and a set of skills important to children’s ability to establish healthy peer relationships (see Parker et al., 1995; Parker & Seal, 1996). Using social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2002) as the foundation, an analysis of situation comedy characters is conducted to explore one potential model of cooperative behavior.}, number={3}, journal={Journal of Children and Media}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Keyton, Joann and Warren, Ron and Alexander, Alison and Behrend, Douglas A.}, year={2007}, month={Oct}, pages={259–276} }
 @article{keyton_menzie_2007, title={Sexually Harassing Messages: Decoding Workplace Conversation}, volume={58}, ISSN={1051-0974 1745-1035}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510970601168756}, DOI={10.1080/10510970601168756}, abstractNote={Research has documented the occurrence and impact of sexual harassment in organizations. Yet, scholars have not considered the way in which the language features of conversation contribute to the construction of verbal sexual harassment. Indirect language features were compiled through an analysis of transcripts from video, audio, and written stimuli used in sexual harassment research and transcripts of sexual harassment training videos. These interactions were analyzed for six language features: (a) relationship attempts, (b) contextually grounded opportunity for (c) multiple meanings including (d) sexual references, and (e) presence of real or presumed power relative to the (f) receiver's indications that the overtures were unwanted. Analyses result in theorem to more clearly specify the manner in which sexual harassment emerges from conversation, a process naturally embedded in the practice of work.}, number={1}, journal={Communication Studies}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Keyton, Joann and Menzie, Kathy}, year={2007}, month={Feb}, pages={87–103} }
 @article{bisel_ford_keyton_2007, title={Unobtrusive Control in a Leadership Organization: Integrating Control and Resistance}, volume={71}, ISSN={1057-0314 1745-1027}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570310701368039}, DOI={10.1080/10570310701368039}, abstractNote={This study examined decision making by members of a volunteer organization as a duality of unobtrusive control and resistance. A central premise of the organization—the need for aggressive economic development—was isolated from field observations of the organization's meetings. Grounded theory analysis of interviews with organizational alumni revealed that both the control and resistance features of the identification construct help to describe how they enacted or resisted the organization's premise in their political orientation. Findings revealed that the gap that occurs between individuals' understanding of the organization's premise and individuals' decisions based upon that premise is an opening in which other identifications may influence them. These influences result in decisions that may or may not be in the best interest of the organization.}, number={2}, journal={Western Journal of Communication}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bisel, Ryan S. and Ford, Debra J. and Keyton, Joann}, year={2007}, month={Jun}, pages={136–158} }