View the step-by-step solution to:

Chapter thirteen of Egolf and Chester's book (2013), the authors, discusses many techniques of idea generation such as fantasy chaining,...

Proofreading & Final Editing.

Hi,

Would you please look at my paper and check the grammar mistakes, development of ideas, clarity, focus and organization. 

Chapter thirteen of Egolf and Chester’s book (2013), the authors, discusses many techniques of idea generation such as fantasy chaining, brainstorming, the nominal group technique, chat rooms, and social networks. Also, they provide some rules for brainstorming created by Osborne. Similarly, in the article, “Generating Ideas About the Uses of Brainstorming: Reconsidering the Losses and Gains of Brainstorming Groups Relative to Nominal Groups”, written by Henningsen, D. and Henningsen, M. (2013), the authors discuss, “when we use the term brainstorming group, we refer to groups that follow Osborn’s (1953) rules for idea generation and that work interactively,” (p.43). Osborn establishes basic rules for group brainstorming, and he believes that brainstorming groups can think and produce better ideas than people who work alone. People who are working alone known as a nominal group, while, in the brainstorming group, people are working together. Egolf and Chester (2013) discuss the nominal group technique, and according to them, the nominal group members often work alone with their computers because they are geographically separated, or there is a disruptive member in a group. They submit their ideas through discussion boards or email. Therefore, as stated by Henningsen, D. and Henningsen, M. (2013),“groups whose members generated ideas in isolation did not select better alternatives than groups that brainstormed,”(p.43). They believe that brainstorming group build a sense of belonging among team members, and as a result, team members will generate more ideas. Egolf and Chester (2013) discuss the idea of fantasy chaining technique. Fantasy chaining occurs when group members take a fantasy trip and makes other members attracted to them to join in (p. 201). According to Henningsen, D. and Henningsen, M. (2013), “fantasy chaining in groups is often a precursor to the development of group cohesiveness,” (p.44). This suggests group cohesiveness is important in every group because group members can share any ideas that could be unrealistic, and how other group members join in to build on those ideas. Although brainstorming groups might be slower and take more time than nominal groups, members in “brainstorming groups can perform better than nominal groups in idea generation by displaying greater persistence at the task.” (Henningsen, D. & Henningsen, M. 2013, p.45) In nominal groups, no one has to wait to provide ideas, while members of brainstorming groups have to take turns to offer and discuss their thoughts. Therefore, Egolf and Chester (2013) in chapter fourteen, discusses different factors that affect problem-solving discussions such as the disruptive members. According to Egolf and Chester (2013), disruptive members have energy that could cause dissatisfaction and discomfort to the group. That energy can be solved by “find a way to direct that energy so that the disruptive member makes constructive contributions to the group,” (p.222). At the same time, Henningsen, D. and Henningsen, M. (2013) argue, “when a group member engages in disruptive communication it can prevent other members from offering additional new ideas,” (p.47). This suggests disruptive members do not allow group members to focus on the task. Also, they believe that nominal groups cannot deal with the disruptive members while brainstorming groups can. Indeed, Henningsen, D. and Henningsen, M. (2013), found that members of
Background image of page 1
“brainstorming groups would be more cohesive than nominal groups following completion of an idea-generation task,” (p.51). This suggests how brainstorming groups are more cohesive because they are working together and they more likely to keep working on an idea-generation task more than the nominal group. References Henningsen, D. D., & Henningsen, M. M. (2013). Generating Ideas About the Uses of Brainstorming: Reconsidering the Losses and Gains of Brainstorming Groups Relative to Nominal Groups. Southern Communication Journal , 78 (1), 42-55. doi:10.1080/1041794X.2012.717684
Background image of page 2

Top Answer

Here is a detailed explanation... View the full answer

Discussion 7 edited.docx

Chapter thirteen of Egolf and Chester’s book (2013), the authors, discussed many
techniques of idea generation, such as fantasy chaining, brainstorming, the nominal group
technique, chat rooms,...

1 comment
  • a changed a few areas in the paper. Since the source is not from 2014 or 2015, it should be in past tense. Adding commas and punctuation where necessary. formatted your reference.
    • PAtutor
    • Nov 14, 2015 at 10:49am

Sign up to view the full answer

Why Join Course Hero?

Course Hero has all the homework and study help you need to succeed! We’ve got course-specific notes, study guides, and practice tests along with expert tutors.

-

Educational Resources
  • -

    Study Documents

    Find the best study resources around, tagged to your specific courses. Share your own to gain free Course Hero access.

    Browse Documents
  • -

    Question & Answers

    Get one-on-one homework help from our expert tutors—available online 24/7. Ask your own questions or browse existing Q&A threads. Satisfaction guaranteed!

    Ask a Question
Ask a homework question - tutors are online