Talk:Relational dialectics/Archive 1

Peer Review from Young
Hey Amanda, I like the changes you have made and the structure you've changed. It already looks better and clearer than it was before. To answer your question: 1. Yes absolutely! Great points! 2. So my answer for question 2 and 3 kinda combines together. Because I think the sections of Core concepts and assumptions, dialectics, dialectics in relationships, and dialogue have overlapping. I wonder if there is another way to organize it such as including some of them into a big section of Definition, where you could also put the elaboration into? And Dialectics in End-of-Life Care could also be a part of the practical application of this theory. It is an interesting case but maybe fits better as an example then as a main section. In all, I like you suggestions and the distinct structure of this page! Hope it helps and good luck! Yy362 (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review from Wanyu
Great job Amanda! I like how you design your new section and seems you're going to create some exciting new content into your wikipage. Back to your question, I have some thoughts love to share with you. Yes! I really like the new section you made and I do think is very meaningful with RDT. Especially after I learn this from my friend passed away, the most important part at the last stop of his life which is hospice, all his family and friends around him to accomplish with him spend the last but precious time. I think for the end of life circle need a little bit more communication tensions description, the tensions which you already listed are great. I don't think you have to explain all of them but you can pick one of the tension based on your research you found more space to elaborate will be good enough. I'm more interesting about communication tensions existed between caregivers (family and friends) and patients, since this is very common way to conduct the end of life cycle, however I think they have some certain interpreation between that. Even most of time patients do no have ability to take any more but they can listen, feeling the touch and that all make them feel better and forgot the painful. I agree with current version, that's exactly follow the flow and not necessary to reformat again. Thanks for your wonderful question and good luck !--Yeahunicorn (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
I think this page is clear and easily readable. I think the new 'dialectics in heath-care section' is interesting but agree with other comments in that I am not sure it warrants its own section. I think that by taking the 'dialectics in relationships' and the new section under a section call 'Theory applications' might fit better as they are examples of how the theory can be applied and looked at in every day interactions. Putting the organization of these aspects aside, I think the section you added is easy to read and the points are clear. I also think you could add a section a critique section. There is not information on the page that addresses any setbacks or critiques the theory has faced. Other than that, I think it's a well organized and easy to follow page.

Ajt70 (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review from Noura
Amanda,

I liked your page so much, it is well organized, and overall, it explains the theory clearly. There are a lot of sections that nicely explain core concepts; however; you want to make sure that different sections does not repeat similar information. People usually use wikipedia because it summaries theories, events, and concept, so they are not expecting long readings, especially not unnecessary ones. I would only make sure to keep important information and avoid repetition on my page. I found the 'Grief' section very interesting, I wanted to read more about it and how it is related to the theory before having the example of death. This is a good space to elaborate, especially that you already found sources about this section of the theory. I think you placed the new section in a good place, better than having it under another section. In general, your page is easy to read and understand, and it is one of the most organized pages from all the ones that I looked at so far.

--Nha33 (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review from YinYing
Hey Amanda! Reading this page is a pleasant experience to me. It is well structured. It is written in the style that enables readers to understand the key ideas easily, and it is with abundant evidences to supports the contents. Regarding to your questions, I think it is a fantastic idea to include the "Relational Dialectics in End-of-Life Care" topic in the page, since it is topic every of us will probably experience someday. I think the points are clearly made in this section. I've never thought about how to explain the experience through the lens of Relational Dialects, and the contents in this section illustrates well how to apply the theory to real life experiences, in the language that is easy to understand.

After reading it, instead of getting bored, I desire to read more about it. Therefore, I think it will be great to elaborate more on this topic, which is relatable to every individual. Particularly, I am interested to learn more about how the tension is managed by individuals and the communication tensions between caregivers and patients. In addition, although it is interesting to learn to Maori culture example, I find it is unclear as to what the four communication tensions listed mean in this context. Maybe it will be nice to elaborate more on this part.

In my opinion, this section is more like applications of the theory, and thus my suggestion is creating a whole new section titled with something like Application, and integrate this part as well as the Dialectics in Relationships part into the Application section. I learn a lot from the new section you created. It is truly a nice idea to include the topic. Great job! I am looking forward to coming back later and read more about it. Yc609 (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review from Dina Saharty
This page is extremely well organized and thorough in terms of understanding the theory. However, I'm overwhelmed by how much text there is and know that when I will be reading a Wikipedia page, I will look for short summaries or overviews. I think the best way to do this in a page where it's extremely organized would be to include visuals that summarize or help support the already existing sections. There are a lot of opportunities for the following sections: Approaches to Relational Dialectics, Core concepts and assumptions, Dialectics, and Dialectics in relationships.

I think the Approaches to Dialectics section is short so maybe building on that would make the page look more complete. The following source should prove to be helpful. Additionally, the briefness of the Critiques section presents another opportunity to expand it. The following source should also prove helpful. While it is a dissertation, it includes a lot of references to Critiques of Relational Dialectics.

Most of the page flows great, but I'm not sure how the "Ethics" section fits in with the page. Perhaps, either merging it with one of the other sections or clearly explaining the transition may be useful. Badgaldidi (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

CCTP Anna Yu review and comments on the page
I think this page is well organized, but sure there are too many big blocked, overwhelming text in the page which can be hard to read. I think it would be better, again, to break down the text and also add on visuals or examples for better explaining if possible.

An useful example would be a clip from The Incredible, maybe the script can be used. https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=B5hRW1eDmgc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annnnayu (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review: Relational Dialects (CCT 2018-AV)
1.	Using Relational Dialectics to Address Differences in Community-Campus Partnerships http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/article/download/793/559 2.	A Tale of Two Voices: Relational Dialectics Theory. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15267431.2004.9670130

I think both of these resources could give you more insight into the different views of Relational Dialects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corve1994 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review from t2pitchy a Communications Theory Student at CCT
Here are two sources of helpful references with reasons why I believe they will be a great addition to the content of this theory.

Norwood, K. (2013). Grieving Gender: Trans-identities, Transition, and Ambiguous Loss. Communication Monographs, 80(1), 24–45. https://doi-org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/10.1080/03637751.2012.739705

I found this reference useful because recently, more families encounter conflict, behavioural changes based on sexual orientation or change of sexuality by another family member creating the conflict of how to deal with the transition. Using Relational Dialectics theory families can use privacy development management as suggested by the above work to help navigate their relationship with a family member going through gender transition.

Norwood, K. M., & Baxter, L. A. (2011). "Dear birth mother": Addressivity and meaning-making in online adoption-seeking letters. Journal of Family Communication, 11(3), 198-217. Retrieved from http://proxy.library.georgetown.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1283739774?accountid=11091

I believe this would be helpful, in framing other thoughts as Norwood in a discourse analysis, used qualitative methods to measure and make meaning to the behavioural reaction of people adopted using Relational Dialectics theory; providing a glimpse of how different individuals, responded to their adoption, as gain or as a loss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T2pitchy (talk • contribs) 04:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review from Kevin
Relational dialectics should be in title-case: Relational Dialectics. Mikhail Bakhtin's page does not mention Eastern influences. His development of Relational Dialectics does appear to be consistent with yin & yang, but the History section states " It is rooted in the dynamism of the yin and yang. Like the classic yin and yang,..." I would recommend combining the two sentences to form: 'It is rooted in the same dialectic dynamism of the classic yin and yang of Eastern philosophy,...' Philos-o-Shark (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Review from Stephanie
I think it would be really helpful to add some information on relational dialectics and social media. This article has some really useful information. Baxter, L. A., & Widenmann, S. (1993). Revealing and Not Revealing the Status of Romantic Relationships to Social Networks. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(3), 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407593103002 SHRansom (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggested Addition to Bibliography
I think input from the following book would be helpful to this article:

Thanks, Tequila Tgsmith1908 (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Reference #3 appears to be inaccurate
I am editing a related article and was looking for relevant references. I'm confused by the fact that the article cited as ref #3 appears to have been written by William K. Rawlins, not Barbara Montgomery. See. Can anyone help clear this up? Thanks. Logophile59 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are their any new articles (since 2017) that relate to this subject?Jstnbxtr (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

CCT Peer Edit 2019
This article provides a number of helpful and detailed examples that can be quite valuable in understanding Relational Dialectics Theory (RDT). I will note, however, that there are examples in the article that are not cited, causing me to believe that they were the individual author’s own personal examples. There were also examples that came with a source, in that the author’s name and year of publication were written in parentheses, but lacked a formal citation. I think it would be beneficial to replace examples that lack a formal citation with examples from the sources you have found. There are also parts of the article, such as the paragraph in the concepts section explaining praxis, that do not have any examples. Though this paragraph is well written and fairly easy to understand, I feel that having examples is always helpful in having a full understanding of a concept. I would also suggest moving around different subsections. The workplace, sibling relationships, and stepchild-stepparent relationship subsections are currently in the concepts section, but I feel that it would make more sense to place them in the theory applications section. Also, in regard to the theory application section, the first subsection currently lacks a title. I would suggest titling it something along the lines of, “Communication About the Death of a Family Member.” Something you might also want to consider doing is referring to the theory by its acronym after it is first written. Two articles that I would suggest reviewing are Ngai & Singh (2015) and Sahlstein Parcell & Baker (2018). Ngai & Singh examines RDT between Chinese corporate leaders and stakeholders using bilingual web-based messaging. Sahlstein Parcell & Baker studies RDT between family members in military/veteran families.

References

Ngai, Cindy Sing-Bik; Singh, Rita Gill. (2015) “Using Dialectics to Build Leader-Stakeholder Relationships: An Exploratory Study on Relational Dialectics in Chinese Corporate Leaders’ Web-Based Messages.” International Journal of Business Communication. 55. 3-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415581151.

Sahlstein Parcell, Erin; Baker, Benjamin M. A. (2018). “Relational Dialectics Theory: A New Approach for Military and Veteran-Connected Family Research.” Journal of Family Theory & Review. 10. 672-685. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12279. MichaelNW (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

CCT Peer Review 2019
Hi, I'm a graduate student from the CCT program at Georgetown University. Here are my comments on the page.

1. Theorists’ names are not unified. “Leslie Baxter” appears first, but then it showed with middle name in the second paragraph. “Barbara Montgomery” has the same problem.

2. The opening part looks a bit long. The examples of common proverbs in the second paragraph can be moved to the “concepts” part. With the development of the theory, the third paragraph can also move to the “history” section.

3. In the history section, I doubt about the role of “yin and yang” towards this theory – is it really rooted in yin and yang? After reading the original book, I can see that the authors wrote about “yin and yang” to illustrate the relationship between the two sides of one issue. However, they also mentioned the Greek philosopher’s idea. For me, the Chinese philosophy and the Greek philosophy share similar importance to the formation of the theory. I’m concerned about this “root” expression because a lot of student work about the relational dialectics theory on the internet seems to use this Wiki page as a reference. However, academic articles don’t take “yin and yang” as the starting point of the theory.

4. The concept section can have more divisions. The current one is too huge. I feel it lacks some references, which makes me doubt whether the sentence is from a credible source or just the writer’s personal understanding. Also, some examples can be put into the application section.

5. Why did the writer independently list the Autistic Communication in the application section? Can we add more applications to the online relationship?

6. The critiques part has only views from the theorists themselves. I expect to read more discussion about the theory from other scholars’ research.

Extra references:

Robert L. Duran, Lynne Kelly & Teodora Rotaru (2011) Mobile Phones in Romantic Relationships and the Dialectic of Autonomy Versus Connection, Communication Quarterly, 59:1, 19-36, DOI: 10.1080/01463373.2011.541336

Lowery‐Hart, R. and Pacheco, G. (2011), Understanding the first‐generation student experience in higher education through a relational dialectic perspective. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011: 55-68. DOI:10.1002/tl.457 Fanwang0912 (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amm564.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Destiel552. Peer reviewers: Helenamcharles.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tgsmith1908. Peer reviewers: Davis Manning.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relational Dialectics Edition
Relational dialectics theory, as you mentioned, focuses on the inherent tensions and contradictions within interpersonal relationships. These tensions can be categorized into areas such as integration-separation, stability-change, and expression-Non expression, among others. It serves as a valuable framework for understanding that relationships are not straightforward but involve an ongoing negotiation of opposing needs and desires.

One intriguing aspect of this theory lies in its adaptability to various contexts, including romantic relationships, family dynamics, workplace interactions, and even healthcare decision-making. For instance, in healthcare, it helps shed light on the dilemmas that arise between autonomy and connection when making end-of-life choices. Similarly, within family communication, it provides insights into how families navigate the intricate terrain of grief and loss.

Nonetheless, the theory also has its limitations, as pointed out by L Leslie Baxter. These include the need for a more robust empirical foundation, the consideration of multiple perspectives within relationships, and the exploration of discourse across extended periods. These critiques imply that while relational dialectics theory offers valuable insights, there is room for further refinement and expansion in its application.

In brief, relational dialectics theory furnishes a valuable framework for comprehending the intricacies of human relationships and communication. It encourages us to acknowledge that tensions and contradictions are inherent in relationships and offers insights into how individuals manage these challenges in diverse situations. However, ongoing research and clarification are essential to fully grasp the subtleties of relational dialectics. Sxp135 (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Communication Theory
— Assignment last updated by Kwv2014 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)